I am sitting on the Justice and Electoral Select Committee as we hear submissions on the Alcohol Reform Bill for two days in Auckland.
There have been so many powerful and moving submissions. Some brave individuals have shared their own stories of alcohol harm. Overwhelmingly submitters are urging that a decisive leadership role is taken in dealing with alcohol harm. Submitters illustrate time and again what research has shown and that is as a drug alcohol causes greater harm to others than to self.
One submitter yesterday afternoon showed us a photograph of an advertisement in a local off-license for RTDs (ready to drink) which cost $1 per can. He pointed out that a can contains one and a half standard drinks. This means 20 standard drinks for$12. According to the submitter, a health professional, depending on the person somewhere in the vicinity of 30 standard drinks is enough to kill you.
This example illustrated key points that submitters are overwhelmingly saying which is that the Government needs to strengthen this Bill in relation to issues like price, availability and advertising/sponsorship. There is also huge support for lowering the blood alcohol level to 0.05 from 0.08.
I prefer a liberal approach to this issue. I see my position as consistent with positions I have taken in support of marijuana law reform to the Health Select Committee (though I do not use the drug myself – I advocated the drug being available by ration card), then the equality of those of age 18 before the law, and the equality of sex worker and client before the law, and of the course the equal human rights of all New Zealanders as established in the Bill of Rights and Human Rights Act (no discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation).
The problem is not the accessability of alcohol or its cost, it is when the drug is taken to excess. To presume that behaviour can be managed by price, or discrimination based on age, is to presume that this is a problem based on underclass status or age. That is a discriminatory presumption.
I am not convinced that there is a particular problem with the 50 to 80 level for drink driving, there is not a lot of evidence that many deaths result from use at this level. If we were to bed in gains from better targeting of repeat offenders, I doubt if much extra would be gained from reform in this area.
If we target drinking to excess – repeat offending for drivers, and establish an offence of being drunk in a public place (as defined by a blood alcohol rating) more responsible progress is made. In this later aspect, if 18 to 20 year olds were required to have ID and this ID could be lost if they are found drunk in a public place, then there is a tool to manage problem behaviour without targeting all people who just happen to have the same age as them. Thoose of an older age group being fined – a sufficent financial penalty to them because of their own behaviour, not a price increase on the moderate drinking of others.
SPC – well said even though I don’t agree with you on the marijauna issue.
The drinking problem which has steadily grown over the years dates back to the early 70′s which is the era which was the start of the relaxation of discipline of young people leading to the abdication of personal responsibility. Most young people now grow up in families and communities where there are no consequences for bad behaviour – political correctness has a lot to answer for..
I agree with SPC re targeting drink drivers and have long advocated tougher treatment of repeat offenders. Everyone can make a mistake, ask Ruth Dyson, and a fine and short suspension is adequate. However for repeat offenders the conseuences must be severe enough to hit home – eg second offence stiff fine, 3 months jail, five year suspension of licence and sell the vehicle irrespective of ownership. These would be a minimum and scaled up depending on blood alchol level. Third or more offenders, or driving while disqualified would incur longer jail terms with vehicles again sold irrespective of ownership.
I see no problem to having similar penalties for being drunk and disorderly in a public place, with heavy fines and jail terms for recidivist offenders.
In my experience fear of being caught is the best deterrent to bad behaviour. We have drifted too far from that and it is past time for action to be taken and unless we reinstate meaningful penalties this problem will only get worse.
Actually, “the public” hasn’t urged stronger measures on alcohol “reform” at your select committee, a few individuals with a personal interest in more restrictive alcohol laws have urged it. The rest of us, who enjoy a drink and aren’t interested in having even more pointless restrictions imposed on us by govt, didn’t bother to attend.
I suspect that if we had a select committee looking at motor vehicle “reform” and the submitters all turned out to be people who’d been run over by a car at some point or environmentalists who’d like us all to ride a bike instead, you’d be able to recognise that “the public” wasn’t urging more restrictive laws on who should be allowed to use a motor vehicle. This case is no different.
Drinking enough water will kill you. Maybe it should be taxed even more.
What I don’t understand is why you bother hearing the submissions when you have obviously made up your mind that more taxes and controls are your prefered option.
More people will die from alcohol related incidents than in the Canterbury earthquake and Pike river combined. Many more thousands will suffer injuries and families will be devastated.
Mrajuana and alcohol need to be treated similarly or the hypocrisy turns young people off heeding warnings.
I know a few people who think they handle alcohol well, they dont. One was videoed to prove the behavior, and was shocked, but didnt change the behavior.
Johnbt, you must be really dismissive of the WWG report them, because if ever a report was over decided before it was compiled that was.
“drinking enough water will kill you” Actually “enough” water wont kill you (unless you are taking ecstasy and then “enough” is debateable”).
Still if you are happy that your drug of choice costs me and other tax payers millions each year in public health, police, etc so should not be criticised…
one suspects that the people who were too busy imbibing to bother to show up at select comittee hearings on alcohol reform did everyone a favor. unless a display of just why we need to address this issue would be helpful in clarifying the problems caused by excessive consumption.
i myself have had to face this issue personally on many occasions, thankfully, as an observer/victim as opposed to a perpetrator. i had the soul destroying experience of watching both my father, and his wife die in their fifties from a lifetime of alcohol abuse.
this enriching(?) experience was to set a pattern of behavior for me that led to two failed marriages due to alcohol addiction. i need not explain why i wasted so many years attemting to rebalance my worldview by trying to right a wrong through taking up with women who had these issues. most of us who have reached our late forties and fifties have experienced the desire to address the issues our parents left us with by getting involved with other peoples alcohol problems, only to become(in their minds) part of the problem.
this has had the effect of reinforcing a negative self image that has hindered my potential progress through my life.
recently, i undertook a course of full time study to fill in gaps in my ecucational developement. nearly all the other students were under twenty. you can imagine the disquiet i felt upon discovering how the alcohol culture has changed from one of “i can drink as much as i want because i can handle it” to ” lets get a wasted as possible”. it is viewed as a “right of passage” into adulthood to go out on your 18th birthday to do no more than get completely written off. this change in approach towards more binge drinking activities bodes very badly for this generation five to ten years down the track, when they are expected to be taking their place in society as responsible, contributing adults.
are they going to be able to demonstate to their children a healthy, balanced approach to drug use? or are we setting ourselves up for even worse outcomes with the next generation produced? remember, it is not what we say that our children will follow, but what we do.
to those who attempt to belittle the necessary process of examining the imbalances created by abusive behavior regarding all drugs, i ask what it is you wish to hide, or what it is you are afraid of? have you become dependent on one form of drug, or another simply because you dislike your own reality? if so, you should be in an ideal position to understand why our young people are looking to hide from theirs.
have you simply accepted the corperate propaganda that says alcohol is a harmless and helpful addition to our social lives? if so, then it’s time you realised that drugs(alcohol,cannabis, p. cocain,heroin, etc) are actually cutting people off from others in ways that can’t be seen by the users until the negative symptoms show up.
it seems obvious that until we can drop our pointless, and narrow attitudes to what is a pervasive and worsening problem, then we will fail our children, and grandchildren. without an open, mature, intelligent debate on what our approach needs to be as a society, then i’m afraid that our childrens future will be dictated more by corperate imperatives than what is actually good for us. and that profits don’t generally equate to good outcomes for people.
What alot of people seem to turn a blind eye to with regard alcohol (or cannabis) use is that for the majority of users, such products are an enjoyable part of their life.
What I am not so keen on is the constant alcohol adverts we see on tv and in sponsership in NZ, in Aus there are very few alcohol adverts on tv. Just remember back to the Coruba ‘green flash’ adverts that were seriously on 3 times an ad break at some points in that adverts cycle.
Does a 13 year old go to bed before the alcohol adverts come on tv? No.
Does the ‘smirnoff project’ advertised during the new drew and shannon live show on c4 actively get around such laws anyway so the alcohol brand name is recognised by all ages? Yes.
Completely disagree with drunk in a public place laws (as, let’s be honest, everyone leaving a bar would be in this position) and as such the law would be an ass. There are already laws in place for when ones drinking in public is negatively affecting others to such an extent, disorderly behaviour.
I think that more research is needed to study the extent to which crashes are occuring due to alcohol impairment (or not) of those with BAC between 0.5 and 0.8. It is almost always the case that those who have alcohol in their system after crashing are around double the current limit. Quite happy to hammer repeat drunk drivers as they are putting others lives at risk.
I’m happy with current prices for alcohol (I mean who really wants to pay more for a product?, I’m yet to meet someone who loves driving into a servo seeing the price of petrol up 5c).
And finally, keep it 18, and dicriminalise cannabis, with fair, just and sensible laws surrounding these product we will in fact see ourselves living in a happier and safer society.
BBfloyd
Thanks so much for sharing your experiences.
Andrew, why would everyone leaving a restaurant, bar or nightclub be drunk under public drunkeness laws?
We already require hosts not to serve drunks. It really depends on where the blood alcohol level for being in a public place is set.
The old drunk and disoderly law was done away with – there was no definition of what “drunk” (no blood alcohol definition as there is for drivers). A public drinkenness law viturally requires orderly public behaviour to avoid attention from the police and a blood alcohol check.
your welcome tracey.. i thank john kirwin for showing me a better way of facing myself.
SPC – I mostly agree with you, except that I don’t think people should be jabbed and tested and get into trouble if they get drunk.
Drunks aren’t crooks, it’s people who do stupid things when drunk who can be got for vandalism and disorderly behaviour etc. I also know some disabled drunks, (it’s their only fun) and they are harmless. 
“a few individuals with a personal interest in more restrictive alcohol laws have urged it. The rest of us, who enjoy a drink and aren’t interested in having even more pointless restrictions imposed on us by govt, didn’t bother to attend.” – Dude I hear ya!
Hiking up the price is just going to sting the poor. 
!
@johnbt – Yeah I only recently learned that you if you drink a couple of litres of water that it can kill you!
That has been my anti hangover strategy for years! 
If 30 standard drinks in one sitting is enough to kill you then I should be dead several times over.
I have been served when inebriated many times and I am proud of my record of never being denied service at a bar. I get served when I am intoxicated because I do not scream, pick fights with other patrons, get my arse out, vomit or urinate in front of others. Social etiquette, self control and personal responsibility are things that are very hard to teach let alone legislate into existence.
I find it very amusing that cannabis is rated number one in the drug harm index in the police’s New Zealand Illicit Drug Strategy. The real harm caused by cannabis is the amount of young Maori men who are arrested for possessing it.
bbfloyed – most of the imbibers probably didn’t even know it was on and have busy lives.
In answer to your question, I’m not addicted to anything. We humans are just like the monkeys who were given unlimited booze. A percentage were abstinent, most were moderate and a few were drunks. Sure some people do drink to escape misery, but some are just genetically predisposed to it. For most people it is pretty harmless. For some it is awful.
BTW – My sympathy over the alcohol problems.
We already had this talk about “killing yourself” and people explained to whoever posted it that time, that it makes no sense. To kill yourself with alcohol you must consume the lethal dose within a short time and it is possible only with high-alcohol content spirits like vodka. With beer and drinks of similar strenght it is impossible to drink yourself to death because your stomach has limited capacity, the intoxication progresses slowly and you’ll throw out or pass out before there’s serious poisoning.
And yes, you can die from drinking water, not only with ecstasy, but just from water (unlike beer, you won’t pass out when you had enough). Look up “water intoxication” in Wikipedia.
I do support some changes, but being misinformed and hysterical about it won’t get you wide support.
Like I said in one of previous discussions, limiting locations and opening hours where you can buy alcohol would be good. The density of liquor stores in this country is insane. And instead of raising prices, increasing access to therapy for those who need it would be better. Alcohol does not cause violence or crime, it only increases violent and other bad tendencies in people who have a problem already.
Also, people who cause trouble tend to prefer certain kinds and brands of drinks and if you must increase tax on something, do the market research and target these (I guess anything that’s flavoured is an example. I never tried any of them, yuck). Do not tax extra the majority who drinks moderately and without any harm to others (mostly beer and wine).
Melusina said ‘limiting locations and opening hours where you can buy alcohol would be good’
Limiting locations is a bad idea. I remember a story about how some south American states banned alcohol sales in certain counties. What happened was that everyone drove to the next county to get drunk and incidents of drunk driving went up.
Making it illegal is obviously the worst way of going about it because it’s highly costly and will have the least effect on stopping people from doing it.
SPC said ‘I advocated the drug being available by ration card’
The problem with rationing is that there is nothing to stop one person buying the good with their rations and selling it on the black market or bartering/privately selling it to their mates or whoever. Rationing is needed when there is limited supply of a good, not when you want to limit peoples intake of the good.
Raising the price of all alcohol would be inequitable because there are some people who drink alcohol but don’t abuse it. That being said there are some kinds of alcohol (like the RTD’s) that aren’t exactly made for a healthy enjoyable drink with your dinner, they are there to get you as f###ed as possible as quickly as possible, so raising the price of those paticular drinks would be a good idea
Advertising against alcohol abuse is also good because those who don’t abuse it won’t be effected by it.
Limiting the age, as we have already seen on a mass scale, has absolutely no effect whatsoever. Limiting hours would also have little effect because theres nothing to stop people going in to buy alcohol earlier and it could also be an annoyance
So IMO the best way to campaign against alcohol is advertising and raising the price on the specific drinks that people are more likely to abuse. That being said they may just resort to regular drinks like wine/beer/occasional spirits if the prices of those drinks rise… Advertising is the only method that has no downsides, save the cost to the government.
BBFloyd: assuming that your own personal experience is the basis on which the govt should form legislation is a common error. The great majority of us aren’t alcoholics and don’t need the govt acting as if we were.
One reason National was able to successfully flay the last Labour govt with the “nanny state” insult was said govt’s constant assumption that instead of policing particular harmful acts it should instead concentrate on trying to send people some kind of legislative message about what behaviour MPs felt was appropriate. We didn’t like it – you may have noticed this when you got your arses thoroughly kicked in the last election. This post shows Labour is still a sitting duck for the “nanny state” attack, because it takes exactly the same approach. Here’s a thought – if drunks are causing violence, vandalism, car crashes, etc, we could just police those crimes as the crimes they are without treating the general populace like recalcitrant children.
It’s really funny how many “experts” discuss this problem without knowing the facts. One of the included problems is that information is not coming to the public. In May 2010 the World Health Organization has accepted with all member states a resolution on a Global Alcohol Strategy. The harm alcohol does and the effective measures to reduce the problems are shown in detail. Did the New Zealand people got this information? In many countries the alcohol lobby is so strong that medias and government health agencies did not dare to inform the public.
The WHO calls all of us “passive drinkers” because we all suffer directly or indirectly from alcohol-related harm and we pay during a lifetime without ever being asked an awful lot of money for alcohol-related social costs. (income tax, insurance premiums)
The best measure to reduce harm is to reduce consumption by higher alcohol prices. This reduces consumption in all groups. The majority, the moderate consumers have the best profit. They pay a little more taxes but have the full profit of less social costs. And everybody has the freedom to drink as much as he likes or want to afford. Our freedom is only restricted by the alcohol industry which forces us to suffer and pay the social costs they produce. They have the profits the public has to pay the damage.
To reduce the availability is the second best measure.
To bring down the BAC-limit would be very effective. If it is combined with strong controls. In Europe the result was a reduction of 15 to 20% in mortality, alcohol related accidents and injuries. And the effect remained for years. Why not use the experience of other countries and science?
Dylan – supplying marijiana by ration card is really
a policy to undermine illegal supply and regulate access to
safer use levels. Sure some might on-sell their ration card amount – but the original supply is no longer from illegal sources.
If people choose to go to the bother of taking drug education courses and such so they can get a ration card so they can on-sell extra supply of the drug above the basic amount that other people can get by ration card so be it. But if there was a maximum amount allowed in personal possession off the ration at any one time this could be constrained.
Ration cards go hand in hand with taxation revenue gain and cutting off contacts between the public and suppliers of (other) illegal drugs. For similar reasons safer party pills should also be available.
The best measure to reduce harm is to reduce consumption by higher alcohol prices.
Actually, this is the best way to raise money for the govt and to punish the poor for having low incomes – it’s not the best way to do anything else much beyond that.
Our freedom is only restricted by the alcohol industry which forces us to suffer and pay the social costs they produce.
1. Pretending your freedom isn’t restricted by govt legislation may work for you, but isn’t likely to work for anyone who actually bothers to think about it.
2. The alcohol industry doesn’t “force” you to do anything. That’s the govt’s job.
3. Nor does the alcohol industry “produce social costs.” It produces alcoholic beverages. If some of the people who drink the beverages produce social costs, the govt should take it up with those people, and already has the legislation it needs to do so.
Psycho Milt says:
March 6, 2011 at 7:30 am
“The best measure to reduce harm is to reduce consumption by higher alcohol prices.
Actually, this is the best way to raise money for the govt and to punish the poor for having low incomes – it’s not the best way to do anything else much beyond that”
PM that is entirely correct.
The rising price of cigarettes has the same effect. It is punishing and hurting the poor by making them poorer – the very same people who Labour claim to represent.
When the decision is a kilo of sausages for the kids or a pack of ciggies or a 12 pack of beer so often the choice is is one or both of the latter.
“most of the imbibers probably didn’t even know it was on and have busy lives. ”
I’m sorry but most people dont write submissions to ANY select committee, not just this one.
In television they regard a single complaint as being representative of about 8000 people, precisely because most people wont lodge a complaint.
Advertising is specifically designed to get people, by subliminal or direct means to take up a product. People who dismiss the impact of this tool are naive.
“And instead of raising prices, increasing access to therapy for those who need it would be better. Alcohol does not cause violence or crime, it only increases violent and other bad tendencies in people who have a problem already.” I think I love you!
!
@Dylan – agreed about not limiting hours. Would extend that to bars. Forcing people out into the streets, who are now tanked up with nothing to do, isn’t a good idea.
Plus the ladies have nowhere safe to hang while they wait for their taxis. 
Kontrabass, We tax payers should have the final say on the taxing of our p***!
@SPC but after you have legalised marijuana that will have already gotten rid of the legal supply. There would be no need to ration for that purpose, legal marijuana would be cheaper than when it was illegal and people would buy that instead
sorry rid of the illegal* supply
Dylan those licensed to grow the marijuana would have licensed outlets to sell it through in ration card amounts – this way the production and supply is all taxed and controlled at every point. The same outlets selling safe party pills would take this market off organised crime – thus breaking the contact between organised crime and the public for other drugs being targeted such as P.
Organised crime risking confiscation of supply and fines/confiscation of assets and jail time could not compete. Rationing supply is to ensure safe use levels – and rationing supply (off a card) to a maximum legal possession at any one time allows enforcement to identify illegal supply and distribution.
Thanks to all those who have commented. The Alcohol Reform Bill follows a huge amount of research showing the extent of alcohol harm in NZ. The Law Commission Report has been seen as a significant piece of work and most people support the need for action to reduce alcohol harm. This isn’t just an issue of harm to those who drink – those drinking to excess cause harm to others – violence and accidents to name a couple. There have been thousands of submssions and they are not all from individuals. The liquor industry, community groups, health organisations, business associations, local government are among submitters. As yet no-one has argued that there is not a problem or that nothing should change. There are a range of views among submitters about a number of the issues eg pricing and advertising/sponsorship. The impact of such measures in relation to tobacco is an important consideration as is international experience in relation to efforts by other countries to address alcohol harm. I am certainly willing to consider all of the evidence. On that point I have to say that the evidence about reducing the blood alcohol level to 0.05 is compelling. NZ’s 0.08 is one of the highest in the OECD. This change is a no brainer and pushing it out for at least two more years is irresponsible.
Carol – your comment that no-one has argued that there is not a problem appears misinformed, or you have not yet heard from Eric Crampton http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2011/03/alcohol-submission.html or Matt Burgess http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/07/problem-of-social-cost-studies.html who has reviewed social cost studies in particular the work relied upon by the Law Commission or Matt Nolan and friends at TVHE http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2011/03/04/there-are-others-who-need-your-generosity/
You may also want to consider the following paper on Bootleggers and Baptists http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv7n3/v7n3-3.pdf (excerpt below)
“Indeed, the pages of history are full of episodes best explained by a theory of regulation I call “bootleggers and Baptists.” Bootleggers, you will remember, support Sunday closing laws that shut down all the local bars and liquor stores. Baptists support the same laws and lobby vigorously for them. Both parties gain, while the regulators are content because the law is easy to administer. Of course, this theory is not new. In a democratic society, economic forces will always play through the political mechanism in ways determined by the voting mechanism employed. Politicians need resources in order to get elected. Selected members of the public can gain resources through the political process, and highly organized groups can do that quite handily. The most successful ventures of this sort occur where there is an overarching public concern to be addressed (like the problem of alcohol) whose ”solution” allows resources to be distributed from the public purse to particular groups or from one group to another (as from bartenders to bootleggers).”
I’d suggest that as a Select Committee member either you have yet to here all the evidence yet and conduct independent research to verify claims. There is a real risk that the committee is being led to legislating a moral panic.
Also if you think we are drinking more as individuals you may want to check Statistics New Zealand alcohol availability information which shows that broadly we are drinking about the same amount of alcohol today as we did in 1995. Adjusted for population growth this would show that individually we are drinking less http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/alcohol_and_tobacco_availability/Alcohol-available-for-consumption_HOTPYeDec10.aspx
Please keep an open mind on this issue, it maybe that the problems you want to address may not be solved by alcohol regulation but by looking at education, social assitance, employment and social instiutions that support communities.
The “evidence” regarding .5 to .8 is biased by the fact that testing takes place after road incidents. The blood alcohol level at the time of the accident was higher than the later test showed. Thus the only reliable evidence reates to those who died in accidents (the blood alcohol level does not diminish) and even then only for those who died at the time of the accident.
If one looks at road deaths where alcohol alone as involved there is little to show for the 50 to 80 range.
i will clarify a couple of points for those who seemed to either misunderstood, or overreacted and simply misinterpreted my comments.
1. i put my comment on here to show what life can be like for the people around problem drinkers. that soesn’t give license to assume i am painting the whole alcohol culture as “evil”. i myself prefer beer to tea, coffee, or water/fruit juice when i’ve been out working in the sun all day, or had a hard game of squash. to those that need to overreact in order counter my comment,i ask again. “what are you afraid of”?
2. using my personal experiences as a basis for forming legislation was never mentioned. by me anyway. there has never been a time that i have managed to convince myself that i knew better than eveertone else, and therefore i should be the one dictating terms to all. my reason for making the statement i did was simply to highlight the plight of many thousands of kiwis who grew up in housholds like mine. if one needs to misinterpret that as dictating solutions, or policy, then we have to ask again”what are you afraid of?”
@spud… it was a rhetorical question(no need to answer)but thanks for taking the time to read it anyway.
Fortunately the alcohol problem is not getting worse, just more visible and more discussed.
Older members of the public will remember the time when police would be called to attend and be forced to shut down household parties attended by drunk teens – sometimes riot gear being required vs thrown bottles and the like.
With teens in bars this happens less now, but the drunk teens are more visible in urban bar settings (and less able to just crash and then walk home).
@spc… quite correct on the “more visible and more discussed” point… my concern is that, what is coming about as a result of the “debate” regarding youth drinking habits? is this going to become, in five to ten years, another one that got away from us simply because we got bogged down in the sort of partisan dialogue that prevails now?
assuming that simply Talking” about these issues will somehow cause a timely and sensible response (while that would be great) is a trifle naive. it’s the quality of the debate that needs to be looked at.
making alcohol more easily accessible, and cheaper, while removing some of the checks and balances that, (albeit only partially successful) had young people immersing into the prevailing drinking culture at a slower pace. for most, this gave us the chance to learn how to drink in a way that was less socially and physically damaging.
how do we counter the problem that the drinking culture has become entwined with youth culture to a much greater degree than before? just to quote one example of an aspect of this issue that i havn’t seen mentioned.
there are many facets of this debate that would force us to have to face ourselves as we are, and not how we wish to see ourselves….are we up to it? i fear not, but i sincerely hope to be proved wrong.
@bbfloyed
No problem. 
You have a right to voice your opinion. 
@All -I know some alkies, one has just gotten into a rehab programme. No one could stand between him and his drink, price hike wouldn’t have changed that.
There is one obvious change, there is more drinking by females than before (as average consumption is not increasing).
The other is the change in purchase location (from bars and clubs and bottle stores run by the hotel and nearly as expensive as at the bar, to wholesaler liquor outlets, then to wine shops, and now to supermarkets and local convenience bottle stores (sometimes taking over sites of former dairies) run independently of bars.
Some business interests – such as those in hospitality might like to end off licence sales at supermarkets (whereas the arrival of the wholesale liquor outlet would have been contentious to them in the past). The same sort of attitude once resulted in “import licensing” to protect local industry.
But in the end the issue is not access to alcohol but how we drink it.
My own favoured policy response is still the same it was back in 1999 – we should provide teens with alcohol free social venues (similar to that of licensed venues sports bars/clubs/concert venues/internet cafes for them to utilise. Thus they do not practice for drinking in bars at unsupervised house parties, but learn to socialise without use of alcohol so at 18 they go to adult venues at perhaps set the example for less responsible less well socialised older drinkers. In former times adult society useds to manage alcohol free social dances and the like for teens, now we leave them to it and then let them loose at age 18 to binge drink from liquor outlets and then the more expensive bars and clubs already tanked up. As to the latter, I prefer the setting of a blood alcohol level that defines a person as drunk – and to that standard bars and such have entry checks (and can also use as an objective standard to refuse to continue to serve “drunk” patrons). And to that standard people can be fined for being drunk in a public place if they come to the police attention because of their behaviour.
“we should provide teens with alcohol free social venues (similar to that of licensed venues sports bars/clubs/concert venues/internet cafes for them to utilise.” What a great idea!
“As to the latter, I prefer the setting of a blood alcohol level that defines a person as drunk – and to that standard bars and such have entry checks (and can also use as an objective standard to refuse to continue to serve “drunk” patrons). And to that standard people can be fined for being drunk in a public place if they come to the police attention because of their behaviour.” Dude, no
It would be a bleepin awful night out to be treated like children / criminals by having to have an annoying booze test. Most people are fine! And no fines!
! People would just p*** up at home if going out was made to be that unpalatable and bar owners would find it a pain! 
!
I’ve just found out that Beer is a surname! Awesome!
!
So silly question – are their any dry candidates?? A vote for labour is a vote for a dry electorate?? Just a thought.