QUEENSLAND is about to feel the effects of what has been a slow decline to night-life in Sydney.
As much as I loathe the cowards who think it's acceptable to drink heavily and take lives into their own hands with the strike of a fist, I don't necessarily think these harsh laws around licensed venues are the solution.
I have been both a party-goer and a police officer in Sydney, so I have seen both sides of the vibrant night life that Sydney once had - and with many of the major venues now closed, it's very much a past tense.
I was part of Operation Simmer, and regularly patrolled the CBD and Kings Cross.
A strong police presence and a zero-tolerance attitude towards those who appeared heavily intoxicated went a long way for violence.
Also as a cop, I had the opportunity to work at large-scale events such as sporting matches, concerts or festivals. The cost of police presence was at the organiser's expense - this could perhaps be an alternative to the total destruction of our major city's night life.
The Bureau of Crime Statistics report that has been delivered, in the wake of the harsh laws, and shows that there is a steady decline in non-domestic related assaults, but when you measure it up against the closure of major entertainment venues in the same area, the statistics show a similar result. At this point there is a 41% decrease in non-domestic assaults, and the closure of major venues in the same precinct is now down by 52%.
Surely the closure of these venues could be avoided if they took on the cost of having a larger police presence within the main areas that the violence is occurring?
The other issue I have with the laws, is that it still doesn't stop the behaviour of the people on the street once the venues have closed for the night.
I don't think Queenslanders will be as affected as Sydney by these laws, but surely the Palaszczuk government can see the results and perhaps rethink becoming another nanny state.
Have your say on the topic and join the conversation below.