Jenny Stewart's article, ''How to tame the demon drink'' (May 12, p11), on the culture of heavy drinking among our youth reminded me of when I went to England in the 1960s and stayed at a YMCA and a university lodge.
I do not recall a single incident in which residents some 300 were admonished for being drunk, or reported by the police for unruly behaviour.
How different from the present day, when towns and cities turn into fortresses every weekend, with a large posse of police deployed around their centre and the adjoining roads to protect passers-by from the drunken youth.
Their mindless behaviour is not confined to the home ground.
Eight years ago, my wife and I witnessed some 20 drunken English youth bring havoc to a French town, where they had arrived to watch their football team. Sadly, British politicians, like their Australian counterparts, are powerless to address this problem.
No amount of draconian measures can quash such unruly behaviour when large elements in society no longer consider good manners, self-respect and responsible behaviour towards others as worthy values.
Sam Nona, Burradoo, NSW
The Federal Government should tighten alcohol advertising rules to protect our youth.
It is disturbing to find from data published by the Children's Television Standards Review that the free-to-air viewing profile of 0-14-year-olds shows a rise from around 200,000 viewers at 6pm to an estimated 530,000 between 7pm and 8pm, falling back to nearly 200,000 at 10pm.
This is too large a base of youngsters to be exposed to alcohol ads, directly or indirectly, especially when major sports are being played.
Tobacco sponsorship of sport was phased out years ago.
While the two legal drugs are not identical in their rates of mortality (or morbidity), tobacco kills 18,000 annually and alcohol 3500.
The difference cannot justify the one to be banned from links to sport, but not the other.
There should be a phasing out over five years of TV advertising of alcohol as such, and that associated with sponsorship of sport.
ACT health data reveals that in the past three years there has been a 560per cent increase in the number of drinkers hospitalised for alcohol toxicity. Nationwide?
Colliss Parrett, Barton
Just free-loading
What a load of twaddle from D. Turbayne (Letters, May 12). If bike riders put their bikes on a bus bike rack it is hardly encouraging more riding of bikes. It is a rack for free loaders and is being abused just for the sake of a free ride. Worst of all, a bike rider using the rack travels for free while a wheelchair user pays how fair is that? The current numbers using the racks will definitely decline when the appropriate fare is payable. Bike riders pay, wheelchair users free sounds OK to me but it will never happen. I shall have no problem taking the appropriate fare from a bike rider when the change takes place but on the other hand will be disappointed that no fee for the bike has been scheduled.
T. Jones, Calwell
Ivan Hoy (Letters, May 14) is mistaken if he thinks that free travel on buses does not induce people to cycle. For some time I have ridden my bike from Waramanga to Woden interchange and then caught the bus to Civic. However, because of the intolerable infrequency of buses with bicycle racks on the only route designated to have them (ACTION has told me they cannot guarantee every bus even on the inter-town route will have racks) I find it unacceptable that I should have to pay when regular users are not confined to this randomly appearing type of bus. So I may simply drive my car, contributing to congestion, pollution and the costs of road maintenance, yet by parking for free, 20 minutes' walk from university, I ensure that the Government shall not reap any revenue and I shall still get some good exercise.
Ayrton Coll, Waramanga
Email a friend