Law Commission on Alcohol
April 25th, 2009 at 10:36 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports some proposals from the Law Commission:
One of the issues for later discussion was the substantial gap between the taxes the country received from alcohol purchases, $795 million, and the estimated social cost of harmful misuse of alcohol of $5.296 billion.
“It does seem to me that the taxpayer should not be asked to shoulder as much of the burden as is currently being met from public funds,” Sir Geoffrey said.
“It does seem that the case for increasing the price of alcohol to ensure drinkers contribute more to the costs imposed on society is persuasive.”
He suggested increasing the excise tax would be appropriate.
The estimated social cost figure is no doubt exagerrated – they probably assume that a crime commited when drunk would never have happened if sober etc. But nevertheless there may be an economic argument to increase the excise tax. However if you increase it too much, you will just help the black market out. You also may push people away from drinking in bars (a more controlled environment) and into buying alcohol more cheaply from bottle stores, which is more likely to lead to binge drinking.
The legal drinking age should also be increased he said.
There is no such thing. Sir Geoffrey should know better. There is a purchase age and it should not be raised. A 19 year old should not be a criminal for buying a bottle of wine.
What they should do is look at whether there should in face be a drinking age, and if there should be an offence to supply alcohol to those under the drinking age.
There was an equally strong case for limiting the hours off-licences could be open.
“I do not understand why bars need to be open to 6am on a Sunday morning.”
People once said they should not be open at 7 pm. It is not for Sir Geoffrey to understand. If enough people want a drink at 6 am, then why not. Having said that, most bars now close by 5 am.
There was also a strong argument for lowering the blood alcohol from 80mg per 100ml for adult drivers to 50mg per 100ml.
No there is a very weak argument. A very small proportion of crashes involve a driver with blood alcohol between 60mg and 80mg per 100ml.
“For under 20-year-olds it should be lowered to zero regardless of licence status.”
This I agree with.
Related posts:
- The Law Commission proposals on alcohol
- Public Forum on Alcohol Reforms
- Blaming alcohol
- Benefits of alcohol
April 25th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Implementing a drinking age is silly – why should responsible parents not be allowed to give their children a glass of wine with dinner – at home or at a restaurant? It doesn’t hurt the French. What we need is for people to stop nagging others and trying to control them. This is the same nanny state we had under Labour – it is just a different set of issues.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:09 am
We all know that this is just old fashioned wowserism.
Increase the price of liquor by increasing taxation would only mean the problem drinkers would cut something else out to feed their habit, almost certainly adding to their (and our) problems.
Likewise with lowering the blood alcohol limits for driving. Those who cause problems on the roads are well in excess of the existing limits already and are people who don’t give a damn anyway as evidenced by the recidivism in this area.
Btw I am a teetotal so none of this effects me
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Lamentable findings from a lamentable man. A Chardonnay socialist like Palmer couldn’t advocate anything but more taxes, legislation, controls, and state intervention in the lives of its citizens.
Will the National government take notice? Let’s see if the new Minister has the guts to send this report to the rubbish bin where it belongs.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:58 am
So if they increase excise tax on alcohol to stop the taxpayer having to “shoulder as much of the burden as is currently being met from public funds” does that mean we will get an additional tax deduction in an amount equal to the increase in excise tax intake, or will they just find another reason to keep and spend the money they purport to be saving the taxpayer? I bet it will be the latter.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I’ve been living in Switzerland for the last 12 months. Purchase age for wine and beer is 16; spirits is 18.
I think half of the problem in NZ is the 18-years-old age limit.
Sure, you still get the odd drunken youth, but you also get the odd brawl between a couple of drunk middle-aged men.
I know that it would almost be carnage if you dropped the purchase age for beer and wine to 16 in NZ, but I’d if we did, I’d give it a generation or two and I think things would be better than they are now.
I’ve just got back from a night out on the town in Zürich, and I wouldn’t say fewer people are drinking here than in NZ, but they just know how to do it responsibly, perhaps because there isn’t that prohibitive attitude toward alcohol that I feel in NZ.
Not sure, maybe Kiwis have deeper issues when it comes to drinking – I dunno.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
A quick wander through Bob Jones’ Prancing Pavonine Charlatans … (and other follies) gives you a good reminder of just what sort of politician (and man) Palmer was/is.
That he is leading the anti-fun/anti-booze movement comes as no surprise.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Can somewhat agree with bottleshops not needing to be open at 6am, but trying to close bars early is stupid.
As one who occasionally has got home on a Sunday morning after six I can tell you the people at the clubs aren’t very likely to be the ones causing trouble, vandalism and assaults.
Most of the altercations you see in the Auckland CBD are young people who aren’t even old enough to get into a bar or are on there way home completely trashed by 12.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Dan the difference is parent responsibility. I agree as have seen it in Europe as well. Big difference is you don’t have European parents giving drink to pre-teens and allowing them to go off to a park and cause havoc with their mates.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Put as many taxes on as you like, it won’t touch the problem. Even if the taxes cover the costs of all damage it is still a collectivised system as every drinker is forced to pay the cost of damage caused by a stupid few.
Leave the consequences of stupid actions with those who cause them and do not impose that cost onto others. This way incentives are changed and that is the only way to change behaviour.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Quite so. Didn’t he advocate for guilty-until-proven-innocent on the basis on any rape allegation a while back? Anything for a bit more state control.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I agree with radvad. Taxes are not the solution to this problem. But successive governments have used this problem as a conscience crowbar to extract more tax revenue today (which disappears into treasury’s coffers)… while the health/social disorder issues just fester until tomorrow.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Dan, yeah, european drinking culture in such countries as switzerland, france etc. is markedly different than here. They have generations upon generations of cultural heritage surrounding drinking that we just lack. Interestingly though, so should the British, but they’re rubbish drinkers too, no? I’m sure someone has done some cool studies on this.
I think bars should be able to be open whenever the hell they want, but maybe the hours of serving alcohol can be dissociated from opening hours. E.g. stop serving alcohol at 2am in bars. But the bars need to stay open as lots of DJs don’t even start sets until 2/3 in the morning.
Agree with most comments here that taxes are not going to change dick – just potentially give the Govt more money to fix some of the social problems – hardly a good preventative approach.
I realise it’s incredibly difficult to prove any causal effect, but it seems like (from some anecdotal reports) that those anti-binge drinking ads of the past few years are doing some good to change public opinion on binge drinking (the “it’s the way we’re drinking) ones. I see more creative campaigns and initiatives like this, targeted at youth, as positive steps.
One of the nasty side effects of having a clear legal delineation of drugs is that it engenders in peoples mind a view that some drugs are “good” while others are “bad”. We need to move away from this mindset to one where things like nicotine and alcohol are seen as potentially dangerous drugs to be used in moderation – not significantly different from weed and amphetamines etc.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
radvad/getstaffed – I believe the increases of tax on alcohol is suggested to pay for the misuse of alcohol, not a solution to the problem. I have no problem in increasing the taxes on alcohol to shift some of the burden of costs by the tax payer to the users – whether alchohol, tobacco, car accidents etc. I would support making it legal for 18yo to drink in licenced premises, but not legal to buy in off-licences till 20. Give some teeth to intoxication in public place laws. Let bars open till what ever time they want, unless they are causing a public nuisance. They are still by law not allowed to serve intoxicated patrons – are they not? Also give stiff penalties to those who knowingly supply alcohol to minors. (I say “knowingly” having experienced the 14yo raiding liquor cabinet and getting totally trashed on vodka hidden in a Pump bottle)
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
shady – yeah it’d be great if laws of selling to intoxicated patrons were actually enforced. A technological solution could help – use a breathalyser with a relatively high level set – anyone a bit suspect just says their name – then it’s a simple pass/fail thing and removes the onus from the bar staff.
Not sure how this would work practically though in a busy bar – hard to think it through…
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
It is ridiculous that someone can be mature enough to vote at 18 but not to purchase alcohol. I have no objection to a purchasing age of 20, so long as it is consistent with the age of voting.
Also, I have no objection to an increase in tax on alcohol, so long as income tax is reduced by the same sum and there is no increase in the overall tax take.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
1. No minimum drinking age.
Vote:2. You pay for your own medical costs if you turn up in hospital drunk – or if you cant pay, the cost is treated like a student loan and comes of your income.
3. Severe – and I mean really severe – punishment for supplying alcohol to anyone under 20 who is ‘too much under the influence’. Now – how do you know what ‘too much’ is? – well thats simple. If they need to be arrested for disorderly behaviour or similar, then they are in a state of “too much”. what that would mean is no bar would serve an under 20 with more than a couple of drinks.
4. We revert to the old system of ‘no food – no alcohol’ after say 2am – and food means sitting at a dining table. If you really need to drink after 2am then go home or to a club.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I thought the new driver limits were good. Booze and vehicles was never a good idea.
As for drinking age, removing it completely would be the stupidist thing NZ has ever done, and because of that, it should be done immediately. As time goes by I cannot deny people who hide in theory the benefit of never seeing their crap ideas destroyed by reality. We need no extra back-ups, just open the flood gates. Where do I sign up for no the drinking age vote? Pollsters, ask me, call me, run a legislative lottery and rig it so I win. What do you need to get it done?
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
This is not a subject the Law Commission should be getting into. Sir Geoffrey Palmer for goodness sake he has absolutely no grasp of of everyday human behavior. He tries but at the end of the day he would be the most extreme version of an intellectual snob there could ever be. I hate to say it but alcohol abuse needs to be looked at by experienced behavioral sociologists such as experienced probation officers who manage this issue everyday and perhaps people who are counselling A and D problems. The legal issues on alcohol abuse are not that difficult and it does not need an august body like the Law Commission to be pontificating on the issue.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
DPF: the report only talks about costs. This matters. In a cost-benefit analysis, all kinds of private costs get netted out by private benefits; in a pure cost analysis, EVERYTHING counts as a cost. I’ve put up some initial thoughts on the BERL report on which this stuff is based over at Offsetting Behaviour, here: http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2009/04/costs-of-everything-value-of-nothing.html . I’ll go through it in more depth next week. But I’d be very skeptical about any policy conclusions coming out of this kind of methodology. You simply can’t honestly base policy conclusions on a report that measures only costs and not benefits.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
If it is illegal for persons underage (whatever the age) to purchase liquor, why not simply make it illegal for them to be drunk in a public place? The cops could lock them up until they, or their parents pay the substantial fine. No space in nick? Make some. Mummy and daddy would not be pleased and the uppity little pissheads might start to realise that there are consequences for being naughty. OTOH, we can’t be having their little psyches damaged by suffering consequences, can we!
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Couldn’t agree more Mara. I think there is already a law to take care of being intoxicated in a public place – no matter how old you are. I think in these instances it’s more that the police just don’t have the resources to take care of it. Should be major fines for anyone supplying minors with alcohol.
As an aside to my previous post on people “knowingly” giving alcohol to minors, I think realistically the parent has to take responsibility – in my case with the 14yo, even though there were no clues that any mischief might occur, with teenagers in the house, I probably should have locked the liquor cabinet! (I remember at a similar age doing the same – although I didn’t get trashed!)
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
“Forget about the last one, get yourself another!”
It was all Dave’s fault.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
The drinking problem here isn’t about access of lack of access to alcohol its about our society’s attitudes and responsibilities.
Vote:We live in a very consumer orientated selfish society where the focus is on me me me I want I want I want. when all is needed is moderation and respect for others and yourself
We also have double standards about about many things drugs and alcohol being just two. You can go out and get trashed every night of the week but don’t you dare smoke a bit of weed
What is to be done ?
I don’t know may be a small tax on alcohol to fund education programmes etc It’s a toughie
April 25th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
>>Having said that, most bars now close by 5 am<< Hell!! that’s a major improvement … pull the other leg please.
It is a pretty un imaginative report and typical of the ‘there should be a law against it” brigade. So apart from the above comment you make sense DPF
One way to save money would be for the guilty party to have to cover societies costs for their stupid over indulgece. Rasing prices hurts the majority who are responsbile drinkers. Double or treble the fines for drunken behaviour, so long as the judges imposed the higher fines .
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
jcuknz, I think you miss the point as there are not, to my knowledge, any fines automatically imposed on underage drunks.
Vote:Young people can fall about in the streets newted on piss or glue and the cops do nothing unless the kids break other laws.
What fine do you wish to double or treble, if no law exists to discourage youth drunkenness at all.
April 25th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
If you have finished your school education and you are paying taxes and old enough to be married and signing contracts then you are old enough to have a drink.
Raising the drinking age to 20 is inconsistent.
Like David I lean towards there being no drinking age. Recently my daughter started university and her classmates decided to go to the student pub to have a beer celebrate completing the first quarter on the day before semester break. Being 16 my daughter was the only one who couldn’t go, she wasn’t even allowed to join her friends and just have a coke. I felt sorry for her.
If there has to be an age then make it 18, but make 18 the age of majority, the point where everything kicks in that adults can do that children cannot, and make anything you want to kick in younger than 18 subject to parental consent. The risk assessment part of the brain is at least developed by 18 but for kids for whom it has kicked in early parents, who know their own kids capabilities better than the state does, can make the call.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
One can get a drivers license at 15 still albeit with a permit now. (I had my full license at 15)
One can by fags at 16. (I was buying them for my mum at 5 years old)
One can buy grog and enter bars at 18 now.
One can go to war at 18.
One can vote at 18.
So why not make everything at 18 now??
But……
We now have a pack of shit kids and shit parents out there. Why one asks?
Well I blame it on many things and number one would be the PC bloody world we live in.
So my very simple answers are:
Bring back the cane and/or strap in schools.
Compulsory 12 month military training.
NO DPB for under 20 year old solo mums.
Bring back borstals.
Get the mental off our streets and back into institutions. ( and yes I have one in my family before you all start). not me
Reducing the drink limit is one of the dumbest ideas ever, having a couple of wines or beers is not the problem here and will solve NOTHING!!
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
It says click to edit but I can’t!!!
Vote:so…
Reducing the drink DRIVE limit is one of the dumbest ideas ever, having a couple of wines or beers is not the problem here and will solve NOTHING!!
April 25th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Micheals, I definitely think the military training idea has merit, if I continue to compare Switzerland with NZ.
Switzerland has compulsory military training, with an inital bootcamp of 18 or 21 weeks, and then three weeks per year until they have completed the required number of days; service duration is 260 days for enlisted soldiers, 500 for non-commissioned officers and 600 for officers.
Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
I’m not sure this could ever happen in NZ. Our Armed Forces would need massive resourcing to support such a programme. And of course the difference in geographical situation means an effective military force is much more appropriate for Switzerland.
I really think that the military service in Switzerland does help young guys learn some discipline and respect, and gives them a sense of responsibility, whereas the recent NZ government seemed to be trying to find every way they could to remove responsibility.
Anyway, I think I’ve dragged this thread far enough off topic.
Vote:April 26th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Geoffrey Palmer is just another collectivist, (or pseudo-liberal) one of those who has been wrong in almost everything they have ever done over the last twenty or thirty years (or more). They refuse to make the decisions that will allow them to discriminate between good and bad people and good and bad behaviour.
This is the mindset that is apparent when he says that alcohol causes $X amount of damage to “society”, and that therefore “drinkers” must pay for this damage. This whole concept is just an incredibly sick socialist delusion.
It is not “society” that suffers, victims are always individuals. It is not “drinkers” as a collective who cause problems, but individual drinkers. In fact I would say that many people could be “drinkers” all of their lives and not cost anyone else one damn cent.
Geoffery Palmer’s proposed solution is just more of the same neo-communist poison that over the last thirty or forty years has brought NZ society to a state of decay it has never even been close to before in its short history.
The problem is not alcohol so much as it the pseudo liberal religion of Geoffrey Palmer and his like devotees. The doctrine of moral relativity that says no one person can be responsible, it is society’s responsibility. No one person can be bad, or even behave in a bad manner. They are merely victims of society’s ills. All socialist countries suffer from this same “progressive” malaise.
However even when the real problem is so starkly evident, Palmer and his devotees will refuse to face the reality of their wrong headed thinking until the day they die. If there was ever any chance that they could be persuaded to take a new approach it should have entered their thick skulls by now.
Palmer is a modern liberal. His attitudes and the attitudes of all such liberals were shaped when they were five year olds, and their understandings have not developed that much since then.
The solution to the problems of drink today is to hold individuals responsible for their own behaviour, acknowledge that there are bad bastards out there, and serve them the justice that they should be served. The justice NZ has been denied while Palmer and his brain dead ilk have held ascendancy in society.
The plans these idiots at the Law Commission have come up with will do nothing to address the problem. Without a doubt they will make the situation worse.
None of our social ills will subside until we acknowledge the cold hard reality that we need to stop listening to the collectivist nonsense of modern day liberals, and we refuse any longer to bear the consequences of their delusional behaviour.
They will lead us to destruction- but only if we let them.
I am so sick of watching the posturing of these self destructive narcissists. They posture and society continues to decay.
When is the revolution???
We need it now. Right now.
Vote:April 26th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Palmer etc are years late in their reality check. Guarantee that Palmer etc haven’t really seen the real face of alcohol in New Zealand.
Vote:The age issue is no go. People can fight at 18,marry at 18,receive government handouts and others but not yet allowed to buy or drink alcoholic drink in public. What a gutless attitude from Palmer. Why should the over 20′s make that choice ? Perhaps we should look at ourselves !
We certainly have a booze culture which is still fostered largely by the long gone 6pm swill where the aim was to get drunk as a skunk.
That drunk mentality still spills through our young people. Yet we have reduced smoking tremendously, I believe alcohol consumption is worse health wise,economic and social than smoking.
Last week in my pleasant street seven newly planted trees were broken in half and then with huge efforts ripped out after the council had replaced them for the third time.
What is needed is a co-ordinated campaign by the community to rein in this abuse of a mild “drug” to its correct use. Destroy the myth of “the rugged southern man” with Speights and point out the shame of vandalism,unacceptable social behavior, watering money down the toilet and increased promiscuity. Accept the fact that being drunk is wrong and a disgrace !!!
Alcohol strategy needs to be focussed on remedial community changes not tinkering with laws which invade personal freedom.
April 26th, 2009 at 10:01 am
well said Neil.
Another thing which needs to be emphasised again is the minor role a report from the law commission should be playing in any alcohol policy. Psychological and sociological research needs to be key. Alcohol is a drug like any other.
Vote:April 26th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Neil, the thing is, I’m not even sure that Kiwis drink a greater volume of alcohol on average than other countries with a more civilized and responsible drinking culture, e.g. Switzerland.
It’s just that by-and-large, the Swiss don’t turn into obnoxious, violent, vandalizing, promiscuous, anti-social, idiots after a few drinks.
Vote:April 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I support raising the drinking age to 21, others present the case better than me.
Vote:The Law Commission is a cosy cabal of Liabour cronies and their recommendations should have no impact on the new government, indeed the recommendations are designed to cause division and dissent within the government at a time when the full focus must be on the economy and the elimination of waste. There is no need for a law commission. We elect 120 lawmakers who include capable lawyers within their ranks. Lawyers have no more expertise on what should be appropriate licensing parameters than ‘Joe sixpack’.
April 26th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I don’t think that 18 & 19 year olds drinking in pubs are the problem here. The problem is people buying 12 beers at the supermarket, drinking them all at home and then beating up the wife/kids/neighbours/gang-rival. The other problem is people buying liquor for 14 year olds and then they go nuts.
I’m not sure if I buy into the whole “more control is better”. In continental Europe there aren’t too many controls over alcohol, it’s pretty cheap, but yet there aren’t the binge drinking problems that we have. Contrast that with the UK and New Zealand, where alcohol is tightly regulated but we have more problems. I’m not saying that we should remove the controls, as binge drinking is sadly a part of our culture now, but taking a “more restrictions will make things better” approach doesn’t necessarily seem logical when you look at international comparisons.
I say focus on the problem areas – make a ‘drinking age’, drive up the prices a bit to discourage ‘mass-consumption’. Change some planning rules so that any off-street parking is banned for bars and pubs, focus education more on a “a little alcohol is fine” rather than demonising it and thereby making it a “cool, rebel thing” to do.
Vote:April 26th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
I actually think 16 is an appropriate age for beer and wine, as per Switzerland, for example. And beer and wine here is cheap. You can get a 500ml can of beer from the supermarket for 90rp ($1.40NZD).
It would be interesting to see what would happen if NZ lowered the drinking age to 16, but there were tougher consequences for petty offending and minor assault (or even if the police just did their job properly). I guess initially the prisons would fill up, but I think the novelty would wear off – it really does seem that the tighter you regulate it, the more problems you have.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am
” There was an equally strong case for limiting the hours off-licences could be open.
“I do not understand why bars need to be open to 6am on a Sunday morning.””
Maybe because hospo staff want a drink after work?
Vote: