Public drunkenness has been decriminalised for a little over a year in Queensland. Queensland was the last state to do so. Late last year, the Queensland Government raised the idea of recriminalising public drunkenness.

Already, this proposal has led to concerns from other interest groups. Here we will focus on one of those groups.

Disabled people, particularly those with mobility and speech-related issues should have some concerns about public drunkenness returning as well.

I think back to a very uncomfortable, anger-inducing and frustrating time at the start of a night out a number of years ago.

I sought to enter one of Brisbane’s most well-known pubs with a small group of friends. They all got in ahead of me. I had been gently holding onto the rope barrier outside of said establishment for balance. When it got to my turn, I gave the security guard my ID as requested. He took a look and then decided to bar my entry on grounds of being drunk.

Initially I calmly stated to the security guard that I had a disability and that I was not drunk. I was then asked if I had a card, as if I should be carrying something to label me, just because I have a disability. I then proceeded to not so calmly explain to him that this was a dehumanising request.

It was at about this time that my friends had realised that I had not joined them inside and they came to get me. We then left.

The problem is some of us with reduced mobility appear drunk. We may sway and stumble. Additionally, some with speech issues, or a combination of both will appear drunk as well.

This is why there should be some safeguards built into any recriminalising of public drunkenness. At the very least, security personnel and the police should receive strong education on the similarities between mobility limitations and being intoxicated.

Under any changes, people should be able to request a breathalyser be used when confronted by police, if they are adamant that they are not drunk or are indeed sober.

Even better still, the threshold for meeting the offence should be no lower than posing a threat to public order.

Since there is no detail, it is hard to know exactly where laws will land. However, safeguards will still be necessary.