TRAVELLER BAN

So, it’s been reported that the Victorian Government are slipping some legislation through parliament to ban the traveller.

For those of you that live under a rock, a ‘traveller’ is the enjoyment of a cold, alcoholic beverage on the way home. 

So, if a tradie knocks off work, after a hard day in the hot sun, and wants to give himself a little treat on the way home, he can forget it.  He can’t call into the bottle-o and grab himself an icy cold frothy (beer) to enjoy as he drives home anymore.

So, if your father/husband/brother/bed warmer is at the footy club after a match; is half way through a frothy with this mates, and looks at his watch and realises he’s going to be late, he can’t take off and finish his beer on the way home any more.  Oh no; that’s bad.

Now, I need you to understand the perspective I’m coming from here.  I’m a non-drinker.  Have been for many, many years.  I can’t stand being around people that are overly intoxicated (makes me incredibly uncomfortable), and I have no patience with people that are over intoxicated.  Nor do I have any sympathy when they’re suffering the next day.

Now, just because I don’t drink, doesn’t mean you can’t.  If you wish to get wasted every weekend, if that’s your idea of a good time; knock yourself out.  Just don’t expect any sympathy from me, and if you consider asking me what the fuck happened whilst you were out of it, expect me to make up the most elaborate stories I can think of, that would make The Hangover look like a fucken tea party.  I will mess with your head so much that you will never drink again.  Trust me on that.

If you wish to enjoy a nice red or white with friends, a few brewski’s at a restaurant, ouzo on the verandah after dinner at night; go for it champ.  Bliss.

Who am I to deny you the right to enjoy yourself in whatever way you see fit?  As long as you’re not breaking any laws or endangering anyone else, what’s the harm?

I was listening to MTR1377 the other day on the way home from work, and Simon O’Donnell was banging on about the traveller being banned, and how much of a ‘nanny’ state Victoria is becoming.  He also said, and I quote: ‘This legislation is catering to the minority, and it’s not fair.’

In this comment, Mr O’Donnell is both right and wrong.  You see, the Government is catering to two minorities.

The first minority, is what I call the ‘idiot minority’.  They are the ones, that after so many years of the Victoria Police, the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) and various other Government bodies pumping into their heads the dangers of drink-driving, still get behind the wheel of a car when they’re inebriated. 

Not only are these idiots a danger to themselves, but to every other innocent motorist out there on the roads.  How many times do we hear stories of people being killed by drunk drivers?  When will these clowns learn? Lord knows you can’t learn anything when you’re dead.

Of course, the ‘idiot minority’ leads to the second minority I mentioned: ‘the nannies’.  These are the people that see this shit happening all the time, and wish to introduce legislation to stop the idiots from killing themselves and other people.  The nannies lobby the Government so laws are introduced to protect the idiots from themselves and others.

The result of this is that the majority of people that do the right thing, are punished.

In fact, you could say that the majority of the laws out there that were are subjected to, are because of the idiot minority.  Thanks a bunch, guys.

However, I think this legislation will miss the mark here.  I understand that it was put before the cabinet last Monday, through the Lower House of Parliament on Tuesday, and was going through the Upper House motions on Thursday.  I could be wrong on that, but that’s what Mr O’Donnell was suggesting.  Apparently, this legislation was out of the blue, and is being rushed through so the Baillieu Government look like their doing something proactive before the Christmas break. 

Yay for politics.

This naturally drew the attention of the opposition, who were not necessarily opposing the legislation, but pointed out one major flaw in its conception.

You see, not only is the traveller to be banned, but if you have an open alcoholic beverage in one hand, a set of car keys in the other, and you’re walking toward your vehicle, you can be fined for it. 

Yes: you read right.

Now, you may be going to the car to have a snooze in the passenger seat; you could be going to the car because you left the meat for the BBQ in the boot; you could be going to the car to get your ipod out so you have some tunes to rock out to whilst enjoying a couple of frothy’s with your mates.  You could be doing something completely innocent, and get fined for it. 

Why, I hear you ask? Well, walking toward your car with an open alcoholic drink and a set of car keys suggests that you are intending to drive, and would be doing so with a traveller, and that would be illegal.

I am not kidding. 

This is the result of legislation being rushed through and not properly thought out.  We pay these clowns hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to get it right, and they fuck up like this.

So the Labor opposition have pointed this out, and apparently there is lobbying going on to amend the legislation before it goes through, because booking someone for walking to their car is friggin’ ridiculous.

The other question I have, is how will banning the traveller make a difference?  Let me give you an example.

A couple of years back, Charlie was coming home from golf one afternoon.  He was stopped at a booze bus for a random breath test, and the police officer asked him if he had had anything to drink that afternoon.  Charlie replied that he had a beer at golf, about half an hour ago, and he had a traveller there with him.  He blew .055. 

So the police told him to pull over, and made him wait in the booze bus for 20 minutes, and tested him again.  .005.  It was clear to the police that not only had Charlie been telling the truth, but he was well under the legal limit.

Sure, his blood alcohol level was originally high, but that was only because he had just had a drink.  This is why the police sit you down for 20 minutes and re-test you.  Of course your reading is going to be high if you have just had a frothy.  If he had drunk copious amounts of alcohol before he left the golf club, it would have been a much different story.

One traveller made no difference to him.

On the flip side, I know of friends that have grabbed a six pack on the way home from work, and within a half hour drive, have slammed them all back.  Now that is dangerous.  That’s where the traveller is a problem.

Yet again, it’s not the traveller that’s the problem, is it?  It’s the person drinking them.

The other issue I have *climbs onto soap box*, is that I feel, as an individual, I have the right to drink whatever the fuck I like in my own car.  If I want a frothy, I should be able to have one.  If I want a Vitamin Water, I should be able to have one.  I think it’s a massive invasion of rights to tell me what I can and cannot drink in my own car.

Next thing you know, we won’t be able to drink out in public at all.  We won’t be able to drink in open air cafes, at the footy, at concerts, at the races, or in our own front/back yards, all for the sake of the minority.

It is tragic that we lose so many lives on the road due to alcohol.  It’s just a waste of lives.  Though, I don’t think banning something like the traveller will stop the problem.

I love Victoria, but I’m tired of all of these ridiculous rules.

Friggin’ nanny state.

Cheers.