The Law Comissions report on alcohol reform is out, and it’s big.
I will leave it to others to raise some of the more general issues within the report. I want to touch on just one for now- the purchasing age- not the drinking age because we of course don’t have one, but the age you can purchase alcohol in this country.
I’ve never been keen on suggestions that alcohol issues were anything other than something we should all collectively take responsibilty for. The debate on raising or lowering the purchase age has in my mind acted as a distraction to the much broader problem we have (and we do have a problem). If our issues were centered around 18 and 19 year olds, those who would directly be affected by such a change, then maybe this would be the golden ticket. But I don’t believe this is the case.
The issue we’re facing extends beyond this cohort, and in very simple terms, I don’t believe this is the measure that will have the greatest impact.
I want a debate to be had on this, but not to be distracted by it, or for the young to be the scapegoat for an issue we all need to take responsibilty for.
But what do you think?
@Kezia – You’re right, it is the men who sexually assault women who are to blame and no woman should ever be attacked for being drunk.
I was more thinking about the people who walk down the street vomiting or the ones who pass out and having the self control not to get into that state in the first place.
There’s a lot that needs to be done to make society safer for women.
100% Agree with you Rebecca.
Yes I think people who drink do need to take personal responsibility too and if they do have to be picked up by the police, taken to hospital etc then I think the $250 fine is a great idea.
And then give the court bailiffs more powers to sort out so they can start doing stuff like clamping the car, repossessing the tv etc etc and link it up with customs so that they can’t leave NZ…
Playing hardball and being a Nanny State are 2 different things. By imposing tough penalties for those who get drunk to oblivion and cause other issues or those who buy alcohol for minors we are just giving them plenty of incentives to NOT do these things. Ultimately it will still be their choice, but they will know that there are tough consequences if they make the wrong choice.
Adults choices should come with adult consequences.
In terms of alcohol tax the one thing I would like to see go up in price or be eliminated completely is RTDs – if you need to have a sweet & sickly alcoholic drink then you’re clearly not ready for alcohol!
RTD’s should go.
Rebecca said: Dangerous ground Loota: it doesn’t matter weather a young girl or a woman is off her face, barely coherent, wearing nothing but a g-string, a prostitute or whatever, no one has the right to assault her. No one deserves to be raped or sexually assaulted just because they were drunk.
Facts are facts, and we know in reality that vulnerable people are taken advantage of every day. People have to take personal responsibility to make themselves less vulnerable, whether its working a dangerous job in forestry and checking that they have followed required safety procedures or locking the doors of their house at night even in a “safe” neighbourhood.
I personally am keenly aware of the personal risk I expose myself to if for x. I fail to lock my car doors, or if I leave my pin number or passwords lying around.
What am I going to do, blame someone else if something bad happens, and say that the guy who uses the pin number or steals my stereo from an unlocked car wears ultimate responsibility and blame, they had not right to?
Well of course they don’t, but what good does that theory hold for me when I am still the one who has to deal with the consequences of personal loss and trespass?
Loota you are only a step removed from those who think a husband can’t rape his wife….not cool.
Of course National won’t move on increasing tax on alcohol – not in the year they increase GST and only cut tax in real terms for a very small few.
Most of their MP’s will however support an increase in age of purchase of alcohol to 18 – blaming this group for a societal problem is of similar to blaming the unemployed for policy settings which maintain unemployment to counter inflation and reduce the size of government.
People forget that alcohol use problems existed before the 1999 changes. Thus reversing them is not progress. The only major change has the way young people drink cheaper off licence supply before hitting the town and easier access (place and time). The media reports the greater visibility of the young drunks in town, but the reduction in house party venue events is forgotten (which in the age of texts and social connections would get out of hand if we reverted to former ways).
As to what should be done, well its treatment and targeting of drunkenness.
There needs to be sufficient tax increase to fund treatment or improved treatment.
There needs to be a legal interdiction on problem drinking to support host responsibility. A legal definition of drunkenness by blood alcohol is required (allowing arrest and fine if this is in a public place) – this being used to test patrons before they enter licensed premises (this prevents binge drinking by those coming into town). The two combined should prevent public drunkenness. Then the issue derives down to host responsibility not to serve drunks; co-fining the last licensed establishment to serve someone arrested for public drunkenness.
So keep the age at 18, maintain advertising, locations and hours as they are and instead of selecting victims to be blamed for problem drinking – simply target the problem drinking.
Rebecca said: Loota you are only a step removed from those who think a husband can’t rape his wife….not cool.
You are making up unjustified inferences about prostitutes, g strings and rape and then trying to position on top of me. Not cool Rebecca, not cool.
Loota take a step back and think about what you are saying: you have essentially said that a woman who was raped while intoxicated has to take personal responsibility for this fact. This amounts to you saying she has asked for it because she put herself in that position. The same logic you are applying has been applied many many MANY times to women who were raped because they wore short skirts, walked home late at night, worked as prostitutes or married a rapist.
As I stated above, regardless of the circumstances no woman ever deserves to be raped, violated or assaulted.
I’m all for personal responsibility when it comes to drinking but to excuse a would be rapist because the woman was drunk tells me you accept that sexual assault is okay in some circumstances.
If this is not what you meant then you need to watch how you phrase things.
Rebecca said: Loota take a step back and think about what you are saying: you have essentially said that a woman who was raped while intoxicated has to take personal responsibility for this fact. This amounts to you saying she has asked for it because she put herself in that position.
Look, perhaps I could have been more careful with my phrasing. But I would really prefer not to be accused of misogyny based on your personal interpretation of what I wrote – the content of which are the same principles you will hear at self defence classes and ACC workplace courses up and down the country. Look after your own physical safety and wellbeing first.
I am not talking about young women here but of a principle which applies to ALL people of all genders, races and ages – do what is sensible to keep yourself safer and less vulnerable to harm.
Now we can have the debate that in a civilised society no one would should have to be on guard like this, no one should disrespect or infringe on others’ rights, society should be a safer place, criminals bear the full responsibility for their own criminal actions, fine. I agree with all those points as well.
“if you need to have a sweet & sickly alcoholic drink then you’re clearly not ready for alcohol!” – zzzz come on, less choice is boring.
“….and link it up with customs so that they can’t leave NZ…”
– Man, we don’t want to live in a poilce state 
That’s going a bit far.
RTD’s are not the problem. They are enjoyed by not only teenagers but drinkers in their twenties and thirties who want an alternative to drinking beer. They are already more expensive than other alcohol types when you calculate the price per unit of alcohol.
Raising the price or eradicating RTD’s from the market is just not an option. If people want to drink a more sweet tasting substance they will simply revert to buying full strength spirits and mixers, where they will likely be mixed at much higher concentrations. This is exactly what happened when the Labour government imposed a ridiculous tax on alcohols between 14% and 28%. Taking away one market pushes demand into another.
Think about it, which of the two would you rather young people drank?
Taxes are being raised on anything and everything, so why not on alcohol?
Because it takes away a quiet drink in a bar away from poor people.
@Loota no I do not know of a specific country which has done it I speak from personal experience. People who have beengradually brought into drinking alcohol. Sharing a glass of wine with their parents at dinner situation are much better adjusted to alcohol and have better drinking habits.
The people who have poor drinking habits I have met are all people who never drank in a supervised context. They are the ones who sneaked alcohol and got wasted with their friends their entire life. If there isn’t an attitude of prohibition more reasonable drinking habits can develop.
It also somewhat disturbs me you seem to think it is peoples own fault for being raped…
@Spud I would hope the fines would be regulatory like parking fines rather than criminal. Unless you could show it was something like a person spiked your drink I don’t think you should be let off for unintentionally getting too drunk because when you drink beyond a certain point you know there is a risk of going too far even if you don’t want to…
@SPC I don’t think a legal intoxication limit can be made. People get drunk at different points and may well be on a combination of different drugs. It is something that I think must be measured ultimately by behaviour…
“I don’t think you should be let off for unintentionally getting too drunk because when you drink beyond a certain point you know there is a risk of going too far even if you don’t want to…” – I disagree because it’s happened to me a few times, never did anything embarrassing, but went from feeling fine to suddenly being very drunk and going oh bleep
It can happen by accident, and sometimes if you’re really tired and sick you find out the hard way that your tolerance to alcohol has gone down that night. 
I think if people know they are tired or sick they should probably be staying home rather than going out to bars anyway personally (it is what I do at least unless there is something I actually have to go to like a birthday) but I see your point.
Rob said It also somewhat disturbs me you seem to think it is peoples own fault for being raped…
Seriously, why be disturbed by made up, untrue fiction?
Rob – “SPC I don’t think a legal intoxication limit can be made. People get drunk at different points and may well be on a combination of different drugs. It is something that I think must be measured ultimately by behaviour…”
No. Australians are beginning to test patrons at the door now, this is because this is an objective test, the punters can see is fair.
The reason why people are not called on being drunk by licensed premises staff is because there is no objective test. An objective test – we cannot let you in if you are above this blood alcohol level, or we cannot serve you more alcohol if you are above this blood alcohol level is one people can/have to accept.
As to being on drugs – the point is the other way, it is because such things as medical drugs affect behaviour that drunkenness needs to be determined by blood alcohol (remember the case of the Cabinet Minister who claimed his late night “drunkenness” was cause by diabetes – a blood test would clear that up).
Also determining drunkennness by “behaviour” without a blood test is very arbitrary and is a court nightmare in terms of prosecution. This deters police from ever prosecuting for public drunkenness – and traditionally they have only ever charged under the drunk AND disorderly category.
Some people behave well while drunk and some do not. But the distinction is not known earlier. If all people drank more moderately the binge drinking culture would change. Rather than many getting drunk and only those who behaved drunk (or is the behaviour distintion so that only younger, or more outgoing louder personality/cultural style being targeted for being behaviourly drunk). The problems with this is of course the suggestion that only some people would get prosecuted for the offence. And for those for whom playing sober enough was effective their drinking example would maintain the binge culture and the related behavioural problems from others.
So for the range of reasons – a way to check entry to licensed premises, a way to vet those buying drinks at the bar. A check on those in public places (and the host reponsibility of bars where they were earlier) there needs to be this to restrain public drunkenness. Disorderly behaviour, whether drunk AND disorderly or not, is a separate category.
I’m just a little surprised to see some here, of all ages, seeing being able to drink as aligned with being able to vote, or drive a car… Haven’t we got the importance of alcohol to our lives a little out of proportion?
How many under 18’s are currently, annually being arrested for drinking under age, anyone know? Important I think if we are going to use emotive terms like “criminilasing” young people… My understanding is that it is NOT the young person (Nicola) who is getting criminalised for their under age drinking but bar managers and drinking establishments for selling it to them.
Spud, your right to a quiet drink, like all rights in our society is subject to the harm it creates to those around you. There are many instances where people are doing no wrong but or no harm to others but the law frowns on an activity.
I mean many people can drive safely on open roads at 110kph but it is illegal to do so, we recognise the need for a safety minimum…
I just dont accept being able to partake in alcoholic beverage is some kind of basic human right not to be impinged upon at any cost.
Alcohol doesnt kill, people do, cars dont kill, people do, guns dont kill people do, drugs dont kill, people do, and so on.
@Rob, sometimes it can’t be avoided.
Seriously if we’re adults then they should treat us like adults and not ruin a good night with paranoid unpleasant and time consuming nonsense! 
“Australians are beginning to test patrons at the door now” – What next? A patdown?
I mean it goes a bit far, intoxicated people are easy to spot anyway!
“If all people drank more moderately the binge drinking culture would change.” Which is hard to do if all you can afford is two drinks because the prices are too high
Hence the preloading. 
I don’t want to go to a bar and be given some invasive test
What a fun killer. 
“Spud, your right to a quiet drink, like all rights in our society is subject to the harm it creates to those around you” I’m a well behaved friendly drunk
Those who are not need to control themselves. 
I’m all for a speed limit, an alcohol limit for driving and for people being encouraged to say when.
“I just dont accept being able to partake in alcoholic beverage is some kind of basic human right not to be impinged upon at any cost.” – I do think it’s a right. As long as a person isn’t breaking any laws – vandalism, drunk driving etc. That’s about knowing what kind of a drunk you are and tailoring your drinking to that.
Here’s a link to the Commission’s summary
http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/Publications/Publication_154_465_Press%20Release%20Alcohol%20in%20our%20Lives%20R114.pdf
Spud, people cannot pre-load that much if they get tested before they enter licensed premises – that’s the point of entry testing. Well they can – but within a limit.
What I was getting at is that poor people who want to go out cannot afford to buy enough drinks to stay merry for the night. So they preload. If they were to arrive at their venue in a less intoxicated state then they would have the downer of sobering up.
If you want punters to enjoy venues and drink in a civilised manner then the drink price should be lower, that way the poor punters can arrive at a venue in a more reasonable state with no fear that they are going to be faced with the prospect of being stone cold sober half way through.
It’s just a change from arriving drunk and staying drunk to arriving not yet drunk and socialising at a less than “fully” drunk level. Sure I realise that socialising at a less than drunk level is an alien concept to Anglo-Saxons unable to sing or dance, or even relate to females – unless with an excuse for their behaviour. But then younger people could learn in a better environment and older people are usually past it anyway and their drinking less would reduce the belly size and help them improve their fitness.
“It’s just a change from arriving drunk and staying drunk to arriving not yet drunk and socialising at a less than “fully” drunk level” – Exactly
!!!!
“Sure I realise that socialising at a less than drunk level is an alien concept to Anglo-Saxons” – They won’t have to get drunk if they don’t have to preload, gives more choice
“But then younger people could learn in a better environment” – Yep, cheap drinks in bars would help that!
“their drinking less would reduce the belly size and help them improve their fitness.” – Agreed, and maybe if the alcoholic drinks were cheaper then they could splurge out on some non alcoholic drinks in between too.
Invasive testing??? C’mon folks let’s maintain some reality. IF we havent got a dedicated force of parent hunters, carrying out snap home inspections to ensure people arent smacking their kids (and no, George we dont have that –
) then everyone is not going to be invasively tested. Have people actually looked at the proposed measures by the Law Commission.
Spud you may think it is a moral right to be able to drink and get “amiably drunk” but there is no legal foundation underpinning it as a “right”. I know some people who think they are friendly drunks, but that’s because they are drunk. Not saying you are not Spud, just differentiating between you and others whose perception of who they become when they are drunk is skewed by being, well, drunk. I’m not a wowser by the way.
@ SPC: ooohhhh, haarrrrssshhh! But quite possibly true
“Have people actually looked at the proposed measures by the Law Commission.” – Have read parts, far too busy to justify to myself reading 500 pages when I have my own work to do.
Glad you’re not a wowser
I get mildly intoxicated and p****d far more often than I get drunk. 
I’m one of those people who doesn’t get mentally drunk. I’ve even blogged here drunk. 
I am a friendly drunk, I get no complaints from anybody, quite the opposite.
It may not be a legal “right” but it is legal and if it weren’t people would do it anyway.
Despicable…
Sunday Star Times 2 May 2010 – Radio boss stifles anti-drink ads
I’m 50 / 50 on this – I do think that ALAC should be able to run campaigns on total abstinence, but I can see why the radio station would want to keep on advertising alcohol.