Hacker News Reader

Comment by cheerioty | Hacker News Reader

Reads like a joke, but is actually the bloody truth. In the last 6 months, ordering my favourite mix drink resulted in either:

- Getting the drink, but had to drink it at the bar were they could "supervise" me! (no joke!)

- Getting the drink, only when ordered seperately and "promise" to not mix it in the same glass

- Get the first one, second one denied

- Direct rejection, because "too late already/wrong day of the week"

- Direct rejection, because "generally illegal"

When I arrived in 2014, Sydney already suffered from a nightlife scene that was nowhere comparable with the ones in any other country I've visited so far. They at least flew in DJs from all over the world to keep people attracted. Now, "In late 2015, they banned parties on boats with more than one DJ."

I refused (read postponed) an offer to go to California last year. Maybe it's time to reconsider.

View on HN

You could come down to Melbourne, it's got a very healthy nightlife and music scene. It has a little bit of wowserism happening at the moment (no new licenses for bars open past 1am anymore, for example, and some more restrictions on 'music pubs'), but as far as I'm aware, no legislation about timing requirements on mixed drinks (which sounds truly crazy). The main article reads like a horror story for nightlife.

It's a problem in Australian politics in general at the moment - there's a lot of conservative christian politicians in power at the federal level, and at some state levels, and they don't reflect modern australian values. One clear example is around gay marriage, which poll after poll shows the people overwhelmingly want (usually 70-80% support by respondents), but both major parties have too many conservative christians for that argument to fly. Same thing with late-night clubbing, methinks.

Still, it's better than it was 50 years ago when bars had to close at 6pm :)

> ..there's a lot of conservative christian politicians in power at the federal level, and at some state levels, and they don't reflect modern australian values.

How come they don't, if they consistently keep getting elected?

A wild guess: The most influential backers are Christians. They have the money to lend to the party so it can build effective marketing and political campaign to go after the rest of the voters.

Given that the majority of Australians are Christian it would indeed make sense that the most influential backers are Christians too. Probably been like that for a long time?

Still there might be something in their campaigns that resonates with the views of the majority. One wouldn't imagine them consistently winning fair elections in predominantly Hindu or Muslim country, no matter the campaign spending.

The majority of Australians are secular. Take me: I'm from a family that's Church-of-England (C of E). I've been an atheist since at least 10 years old (first strong memory of it), yet the first time I filled out a census form, I ticked C of E because that was my family's religion. These days the religion question on the census form is the only contentious one on it, because of things just like this. Lots of people associate with a given religion but don't really practice it - churches in Australia are fighting falling attendance and graying congregations.

That's very much incorrect. Most Australians are agnostic.

Well according to this: http://www.smh.com.au/national/is-australia-losing-its-relig...

..while non-religious make up a fair portion of Aussies, most still identify as Christians.

If you scroll down a single comment, you'll see one from me pointing out at least one issue with the religion question on the census.

Your own link shows another - the option for 'no religion' has historically been obfuscated or separated. Once upon a time, it didn't even exist. The whole point of your linked article is about how that question can be played with in order to fudge the results.

Money - conservative Christians don't usually cause trouble for corporations.

Age - conservative retirement-age voters are far more likely to vote than the 18-30 demo.

Networking - churches can, and do, bully-pulpit entire parishes.

So policy is far further to the right than the population median.

Voting is compulsory in Australia.

Only if you enrol, which is not compulsory.

Wrong. Enrollment is compulsory.

Is it actively enforced ?

Yup.

Yes, but not particularly harshly. The Electoral Commission's target is 95% of eligible voters enrolled, and it's currently at 93.5%. You are supposed to enrol at some time between your 18th birthday and the next election (which roll around every 3 years or so), so some of that non-enrolled percentage are folks who will do so shortly. A small amount of people are eligible to vote, but not capable, such as people with severe intellectual handicaps. In practice, most folks are enrolled.

The penalty isn't particularly harsh ($20 first time missed a vote, $50 afterwards). I have a 40-year-old friend that's not enrolled, and as far as I'm aware, she has never been fined for it.

Money - conservative Christians don't usually cause trouble for corporations.

That's not been my experience.

Age - conservative retirement-age voters are far more likely to vote than the 18-30 demo.

Australia has mandatory voting. We have something like 98% voter turn out. You don't know what you are talking about.

Networking - churches can, and do, bully-pulpit entire parishes.

Facts not in evidence.

Australian christians don't really advertise the fact. You won't see an Australian politician saying "God Bless 'X'" at the end of a speech (as appears to be the usual case with US politicians) unless they're speaking to an overtly christian audience. It's fine to be christian in Australia, but proselytising is very frowned upon, and christians who often publicly state their faith are generally seen as 'wowsers' (fun-killers).

Also, MPs are generally voted in by party affiliation, so people vote more for the party rather than the individual person. Anyway, I'm not sure how it's happened, but the power-brokers of both major parties have a greater proportion of staunch christians than the wider population. So, when a party wants to do X or Y, often a bone will need to be tossed to one of these power-brokers to get the numbers.

Highly motivated ethnic or religious people are bloc voters who turn out and can wield a disproportionate influence.

It's not really a Christian thing, it's any bloc. I don't know much about Australian politics, but I can think of several political machines in the past driven by Irish Catholic turnout, and a few current ones driven by ultra-conservative Christian and Jewish groups.

Actually its more people of the far left who are trying to do away with alcohol.

First they went after smoking, with that nonsense about plain packaging. I fail to see that if something is legal, why a company shouldn't have the right to brand and market that product appropriately.

Now they are looking doing away with alcohol. Just you wait. In 10-15 years they will be calling for prohibition due to all the 'damage' caused by alcohol.

After all it was King O'Malley who banned alcohol from Canberra during its construction. He also is why its spelled Labor.

> First they went after smoking, with that nonsense about plain packaging.

Plain packaging is nowhere near the first against smoking; it's more like the start of the end-game for it. The government has been very open about wanting to get rid of smoking altogether, and has been so for decades. I was at high school in the late '80s and remember a bloke from Quit saying that they were funded by cigarette taxes, and his job was to put himself out of a job. Punitive taxes and advertising bans long predate plain packaging, as do bans on smoking in hospitality venues.

Alcohol isn't going to go away any time soon for exactly the same reason negative gearing isn't - too many pollies like it for themselves. Alcohol is also a major industry in Australia, unlike tobacco. Similarly, mainstream Australia identifies strongly with a tipple - for example, we like to boast that one of our PMs held a world record for skulling beer. I've never heard any such patriotic murmurings on the topic of tobacco.

Yes, and that end game has been ratcheting up for 40 years.

At one stage practically everyone smoked. Now, so few smoke.

Its not like they are going to rock up tomorrow and ban alcohol. They are going to do it like boiling a frog. So slowly that it becomes fait accompli.

What is your favorite drink? I live in Sydney too (Bondi), and agree the new rules are ridiculous, but what's this about 'not mix it in the same glass'?

This is nonsense they trialled first in Newcastle. Prohibiting the sale of a double shot of spirits in one glass; eventually forbidding the sale of any neat spirits at all.

Want a nip of expensive scotch? Hope it's still good drowned in soft drink.

In the US, Utah is very similar. Some places will sell you a "sidecar" shot with a mixed drink, but a lot won't. Hard alcohol is measured electronically to ensure it is exactly one ounce.

And to the article authors point, that is because of religious reasons - in this case the Mormons.

Oh God. I travelled to Newcastle to meet friends and went out on the town on a Friday night. My big mistake was waiting until 10:30pm to depart, because nearly everything was closed or getting ready to close at midnight - Newcastle's "favourite cocktail bar" was unable to make any cocktails.

I'm from Christchurch, and we have a better nightlife than Newcastle, and our CBD got smooshed by an earthquake.

Your chances of being assaulted in Newcastle before the lockout laws were very high. I doubt you would be having much fun in the Emergency Department, getting stitched up.

Of course the heavy handedness of the Star Hotel has been long forgotten; now of course they boil the frog slower, so instead of riots we now have malaise and the brain drain.

In the end there will still be loss, but this time it won't be accompanied regeneration. In time Sydney will become a financial / service sector equivalent of Port Kembla unless the ship is turned around.

Other countries, who drink more than us Aussies do and have zero lockout laws don't have the problems we apparently do with violence.

Which countries are you referring to?

I have no info on what effect the licensing changes had, but I can vouch that Newcastle could be genuinely scary on a Saturday night. You haven't lived until you've hidden under a table while pint glass missiles hurtle overhead around a revolving dance floor on a boat on the Tyne.

I think that's the other Newcastle. This one is north of Sydney (I guess they are both north of Sydney, but there's a bit of a hike to the one on the Tyne...)

Hah - right, yes, I'm talking about the one in England, which apparently has quite a bit in common with its antipodean counterpart.

Well... it used to be that way :-)

Haha, Christchurch nightlife. It's so bad that I'm a uni student there and go to town maybe twice a year.

There's about 4 places to go, they're all ages away from each other, and the lines are always really long.

The council is also doing its best to kill the nightlife, strongly preferring craft beer pubs over clubs, and trying to bring in a 1 am one way door, 3 am closing policy.

Apparently the bloke in charge of liquor licences at the council is teetotal too.

Jägermeister+RedBull ... Don't judge me ;)

Maybe the bar staff are just trying to save you from yourself ;)

Redbull and its siblings do contain a lot of caffeine which allows people to get drunker and still be physically active. One of my colleagues was convinced that all the caffeine drunk with alcohol these days is the cause of the rise in drunken violence.

"Jägerbombs"

Have you considered the UK, where on occasions one can easily feel like the only one in the pub not drinking Jägerbombs, and drinking to massive excess generally is a proud national pastime.

Actually, in the UK, it is illegal to serve pre-mixed caffeine and alcohol, but it's rarely enforced. This is why many bars will pour the shot in a highball, and hand you a can of red bull, so what you then do is your responsibility, not theirs.

Are you sure? I can't find anything online that supports that. Many bars serve other drinks (vodka and orange, gin and tonic, etc) unmixed, so you can mix it to taste.

Buckfast is still sold, and that contains caffeine. Kahlúa too.

Ah, think you're right - this might just be Scotland where it's actually the law, but was certainly the common practice when I was working bars up north.

There were discussions here about legislating against alcoholic drinks with caffeine levels above a certain level but I don't think anything actually became law:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10164507

How odd. I've never had the urge to drink Red Bull or Jagermeister, separately or together. But Irish Coffee has been around for ages. The people I would see drinking it always seemed to manage to walk out of the bar under their own power,

I suspect you are right that this is only the law in Scotland. At a fairly respectable bar in Cambridge, I've set up 20-drink long "Jagertrains" [1] with the Bar Manager on more than one occasion, and he never mentioned that it was illegal to do so.

[1] https://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-07-2012/ZdwGP4.gif

If you don't start drinking at 5pm on a Friday, puke up twice, consume your body weight in kebab meat and then go for a greasy fry-up in the morning, you're basically a boring sod.

As a Sydneysider I prefer to write a couple of hundred lines of code and play a couple of hours of Dota 2 with my best mate on a Friday night.

That sounds stupid to be honest. To each his own I guess?

Yes, drinking culture in the UK is stupid and everyone knows it's a problem. The cost to the health service means that it's not really something that should be tolerated in the long term.

See for example: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/10/alcohol...

If a national health service is an excuse to tell people how to live, I've pretty happy Obama fucked it all up here and just institutionalized health insurers.

The people drinking themselves to shit aren't honorably refusing healthcare for their self inflicted injuries

Well, then make them pay for themselves then insead of limiting the range of activities they are allowed to do.

How about the people who engage in that big killer - sedentary lifestyles? If you want to sit in front of a computer all, day, why should everyone else pay for your lifestyle choice? /s

Obama and his advisor Cass Sunstein are ostensibly pursuing "libertarian paternalism", as is Cameron in the UK. I'm guessing you like the sound of "libertarian".

Alcohol consumption is one clear case of people harming themselves. There are a lot of other areas in which the government in fact doesn't know what's best, so I don't think you can generalize about liberties either way.

Seems like you're using libertarian as a marketing buzzword that has no meaning

It's not me, it's Thaler and Sunstein.

I'm left libertarian myself and I'd like to drink less alcohol, personally.

No it's not !!! I don't drink much! Because I don't drink during the week. I start drinking really late on Fridays (about 7pm) and finish early (about 3am), and only repeat that again Saturday nights, so really 5 whole days without alcohol is like really good. Kebab is meat and meat is healthy. Anyway what would we do if not drink?

(Much /s)

For the benefit of foreigners, i will note that this is actually optional for most people. My experience, living in London and working at a few different tech companies, is that you might go out for a "quick beer after work" one to three times a week (and almost never on fridays), stay out for one to three hours (you're rarely still there for closing time), and over the course of the evening, drink two to four pints of pretty nice beer (you can usually find either a craft beer place or a normal pub with a good selection).

You will probably get some food at the pub, maybe only some bowls of chips to share, or maybe something a bit more substantial. If you do make a habit of getting a kebab, you will eventually manage to find the one place in your territory that is actually pretty good (Best Mangal for the Old Street posse, Damascu Bite for the Spitalfields massive, etc).

In my case, i'll also go out for cocktails a couple of times a month, but that's a similar experience - the cocktails i like are so bitter and so expensive that you drink pretty slowly!

> drink two to four pints of pretty nice beer

This is optional too.

Oh dude, I can't believe the forbade Jägerbombs. I thought you were going to say Everclear plus genuine Absynthe...

this sounds like salt lake city

Reply on news.ycombinator.com