This morning, it was announced that the Palaszczuk Government has struck a deal with cross bench MPs that would see the the strictest Lockout laws in the country introduced to the bars, pubs and clubs of Queensland. If you can't tell from the rhetoric that I used in that first sentence, I'm not exactly leaping with joy with that announcement. I'm sitting here with a Number of things flowing around in my brain, so bear with me while I try to collect and express my thoughts that are as linear and ordered as the headphones in your pocket.

NB: Before we get into the nitty gritty, I'll be upfront and honest; I'm a 21 year old who enjoys drinking alcohol and going to Fortitude Valley with his mates to throw a few shapes on the dance floor and come home as the Sun begins its morning commute to work. My honesty comes with one condition, though. I would very much urge you to come at this argument with an open mind.

The Valley is a weird place. No doubt about it. Its like an Olympic village of assholes who are all out for the same reason - to have fun - but who seem to think that everyone else is out to stop them achieving this goal. For 99 times out of 100, you can go out, ingest alcohol, dance a bit and head home with no issue or problem. However, it can't be argued that Australians don't have a disproportionate problem with violence when they're drunk. I'm not here with a psychology or sociology degree with a few fancy letters after my name, so I'm not going to try to explain why Australians in particular become Mohammad Ali when they've downed a couple of cold ones, but I can attest to the fact that we (as a nationality) tend to do so. Due to this, I, like most people, detest and revile those who take it upon themselves to start fights and, all too often, destroy lives. Something needs to change, but I don't think that stricter lockouts are the answer.

The Tackling Alcohol-fuelled Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 brings a lot of bold changes to the nightlife table. All venues would need to stop serving alcohol at 2am, except those in specific 'safe night' precincts, i.e. the Valley, Surfer's Paradise. There are some other exceptions to this rule, such as at airports or commercial canteens, but for the large part, most places that you'll go to grab a vino will stop serving at 2 or 3am. In addition to the cutoff, the current 3am lockout in safe night areas would be brought forward to 1am, meaning that if you're in, you're in and if you're out, you're out. Another new rule is that no high-volume or rapid consumption drinks can be sold after midnight, which would mean, no shots, doubles or anything of the like. Largely, it would seem that the goal of these new laws, and the number of others in the legislation, are aimed at limiting the volume of alcohol consumed by punters on a regular party night. Not innately a bad idea in itself, but will it have the desired effect of reducing violence?

Let me describe to you a scenario. It's a Saturday night, and the Valley is in full swing. DJs are spinning banger after banger. Partygoers are doing as they usually do, drinking, dancing, socialising repeating the previous three steps. Knowing that they won't be able to drink for as long, people have loaded up early and hard, meaning there is an abnormally large number of very intoxicated patrons early on in the night. As 1am approaches, people notice that the new lockout is approaching, and decide to move to another club/bar in which they want to spend the rest of their night. However, due to the long lines that are common at that time of morning, a lot of people are struggling to make it inside by 1am. 1:01 comes along, and swathes of patrons are told to hit the road because they aren't allowed inside, which draws the ire of some of the more drunk individuals. Knowing that they can't make it inside any more bars, these people head towards taxi lines, which are notoriously long and slow. Public transport is largely useless as well, as most bus lines have stopped service. Now you have a lot of drunk, annoyed and angry young people walking around the streets of Fortitude Valley with no where to go because the transport system can't cope with that many people. These people are on the streets, away from the security and police that are in and around clubs, with no real direction for their nights. If you ask me, this is a perfect storm for fights, injuries, or, god-forbid, deaths.

1am is simply too early to stop people from coming into venues. 1am is almost early enough to be home to catch the start of Rage on the ABC. There is safety in clubs, as security guards and bouncers patrol dance floors and bars with immediate and direct contact with police and paramedics at a moment's notice. It is very uncommon for large fights (or worse) to occur within a venue because of this added factor of security. The government is now proposing to push large numbers of people out onto the street at the peak hour of business away from the safety of security and police to long lines for overwhelmed transport systems and they expect there to be less violence? That seems mind-blowingly, Tertiary-Transport-Concession-Card-levels of stupid to me. It would seem to me that a better idea would be to allow people to leave gradually over the course of the night, so as to not put strain on transportation at any one time.

I don't argue that the number of incidents will drop when lockouts come into effect on July 1st of this year. How can you argue? Less people will mean less incident. Maths is maths. Or if you weren't a great student in high school, maths is nap time. However, this is not the point that I am raising. I am concerned about the rate of occurrence. One in five people (not a real statistic, just for argument's sake) sent to the deck because of a cowardly punch is still one in five, no matter whether there are five people or 500 people. Lockout laws will do little to address the underlying problems that we face, and it is because of this that I don't believe that they are a long-term solution.

At this point, you might be looking at another tab on your screen (no, not the one for Tumblr) and seeing that lockouts in Sydney are having an effect. Let's talk that through. A few weeks ago, NSW Premier, Mike Baird took to the ever-professional platform of Facebook and stated that assault numbers were down 60% since the introduction of strict lockout laws in Sydney. However, the head of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, stated that this statistic is misleading, as there was already a decline in the numbers trending before the lockout were introduced. When factoring in this decline, the number is more like 42.2%. Going even further, Weatherburn stated that due to the seasonal nature of the statistics, its too early to even state whether these were accurate numbers at all. On'ya Weatherburn, for providing me with ammunition.

"But a 42.2% drop in the number of assaults is still a 42.2% drop in the number of assaults, right?", you're thinking. Yes, that is correct, but the question that I raised before still remains; what are the rates? According to some reports, foot traffic in Sydney's King's Cross has fallen by 84%, which would mean that the 42.2% 'drop' is a rise in the rate of assaults. 84% less people should mean an 84% drop in the number of assaults, no?

If we're looking at Sydney why not look at Melbourne, too? In 2008, a lockout was trialled, but dropped after it was found that the instance of assault actually went up. Currently, Melbourne does not have a lockout, and the rate of assault is dropping. When you look at why Melbourne has such good numbers, there are a couple of factors that seem to show up. Increased security presence, 24-hour public transport, and inspectors that are ensuring that laws are being upheld, are seen as the main cause. And, not to brag, but I totally brought that up three paragraphs ago. But I can find numbers and statistics to suit my argument all day, and so could supporters of lockouts, so there is only some comfort to be found in that.

Disregarding all of the economic arguments for why lockouts cause bars to close, or the fact that Casinos are exempt from the laws (not that casinos give a large amount of money to the government), or the fact that the government is going to letting you indulge your other vices and put your children's school tuition into pokie machines all night (but not that the government gets any money from pokies), the facts that I have brought up before seem like fairly strong evidence that lockouts aren't the best long-term solution to the problem. In fact, I don't think that they're a solution at all. I would be happy to be proven wrong, and for there to be no more violence in nightlife hot spots, and no more unnecessary deaths of innocent young people, but I don't forsee that happening. Better public transport, a more efficient cab system, the legalisation of ride-sharing, more security and police presence and the inspection of venues for breaches of the law, alongside education and awareness programs are the solution to this epidemic. Lockouts aren't a cure for the pain, they're just like drinking until you can't feel it anymore.