Long on Alcohol
July 8th, 2010 at 7:51 am by David FarrarRichard Long writes:
Sir Paul Reeves, our new campaigner for tougher drinking laws, should have learnt a lesson from the ill-fated Citizens for Rowling campaign. Sir Paul was a leading member of that gathering of the great and the good who coalesced in 1975 with the aim of trying to keep Labour prime minister Bill Rowling in office by blocking the rabble-rousing National Party leader Rob Muldoon.
Mr Muldoon was indicating the combative style he would bring to Kiwi politics when he said of Rowling on the hustings: ”I can see the cold shivers moving around his body looking for a spine to run up.”
As for Labour’s Maori affairs minister, Matt Rata, Mr Muldoon declared: ”The five happiest years of Mr Rata’s life were those he spent in standard two.”
Heh.
But in spite of such raw provocations from Mr Muldoon, the Citizens for Rowling group sank in the mire of Kiwi egalitarianism.
Even though the list included such national heroes as Everest conqueror Sir Edmund Hillary, the overall view was that a bunch of elitists were presuming to tell average Kiwis how to vote.
Citizens for Rowling ended up probably doing more harm than good to Labour’s cause. As Mr Muldoon said at the time: ”The average chap doesn’t want to be told how to vote.”
I agree it did backfire. Likewise the efforts to have an Australian Republic backfired because it was seen as the elite telling the commoners what to do.
Now Sir Paul has been named as a leading member of another 15-strong group presuming to tell us what is good for us – or more precisely what is bad for us – in terms of laws governing the demon drink.
The eminent persons group is an eclectic mix, ranging from churchmen to Maori and Pacific Island spokesmen to sports stars, including the wonderful Evers-Swindell twins.
They back higher alcohol prices, reduced outlets, more restrictions on advertising, tougher drink driving limits, and an increase in the purchase age from 18 to 20 – in effect the prescription written by Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Law Commission.
And yes, you do recall correctly: Sir Geoffrey was also a member of Citizens for Rowling.
Maybe it should be called “The Wowsers Strike Back”
Some of the most tragic cases of liquor-induced deaths have been among under 18-year-olds. They were able to obtain and misuse hard liquor in spite of the legal purchase age. In some cases accompanying friends did nothing while they drank themselves to death.
We have heard heart-tugging pleas from relatives seeking action as a result of these tragedies, but penalising the entire community with higher prices and other restrictions will not relieve the underage drinking problem.
At some stage it has to be acknowledged that there are parental responsibilities in this as well as community responsibilities.
There are problems with alcohol abuse in NZ. Response to that problem should seek to target those who cause harm when drinking, not the entire population.
Related posts:
- Public Forum on Alcohol Reforms
- Alcohol monitoring bracelets
- Law Commission on Alcohol
- Youth and Alcohol
July 8th, 2010 at 8:14 am
This is fascinating stuff from Sir Paul – is on the wagon now? the reason I ask is that having shared a couple of bottles of red with him I observed his idea of share was about 9 to 1in his favour
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 8:17 am
DPF,
The recommendations in the report are well thought out and generally well targeted to achieve the results they are looking for.
The excise tax increase is probably the only measure which could be argued to unreasonably penalise swathes of the population to address the purchasing habits of the minority. Perhaps general public interests could be better served by defining the specific drinks to be targeted and applying specific tax increases on those. (An idea probably fraught with it’s own dangers, but at least an attempt for a more targeted approach.)
You will have a difficult time trying to argue that 4am closing times are somehow unreasonable to the populace. Even Lion Nathan question drinkers’ ability to make responsible purchasing decisions after midnight. (That submission was with respect to off licence openig hours, but logical reasoning would say it also applies to on licence purchases too – a bit of an ‘own goal’ there by LN.)
The social experiment to allow 18-19 year olds to purchase alcohol is a proven failure. There is no shame in admitting we got that wrong.
You often call for the need for a drinking age – the report covers that and (as I have noted previously) the parental/supervising adult responsibility recommended in the report is a better measure to address this in a non-nanny state manner which also affords parents flexibility to exercise judgement in their parenting.
The people in the group may or may not be wowsers – the recommendations within the Law Commission report are not
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Letter sent to the Dom Post a few days back:
“I am not surprised several religious leaders are among the list of prominent New Zealanders supporting the Law Commission report on alcohol.
In my opinion, these myth-peddlers and sellers of fiction, who believe they know best and you ought to live miserably on earth before attaining joy in the eternal life that follows, are not better qualified to opine than any other person.
I would ask them to leave me alone. As an adult, I make decisions in my daily life and am prepared to pay for the consequences. Certainly, I do not need any do-gooder to tell me how to run my own life.
Yours in liberty.”
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Nearly all those folk have been buggers for the bottle at one time or another. But yet again, that old New Zealand attitude that I am responsible enough to drink, but the riff-raff are not, rears its ugly head. Hypocrites.
The truth is that most people in New Zealand are responsible drinkers, and those that aren’t are vastly in the minority. So lets have policies which look after the majority and don’t let the minority spoil it for everyone.
There is no bad alcohol, only bad people. Let’s go after the bad people.
Perhaps general public interests could be better served by defining the specific drinks to be targeted and applying specific tax increases on those. (An idea probably fraught with it’s own dangers, but at least an attempt for a more targeted approach.)
Elitism at its worst. Keeping Chardonnay untaxed and going after Cody’s is about Remuera housewives telling Kelston solo mums what they can drink and how much. Again, most people in both groups are responsible with alcohol and should not be punished.
You will have a difficult time trying to argue that 4am closing times are somehow unreasonable to the populace.
Not really. Some of my best nights out have been concluded at the Supper Club just off K Road, which opens after that time and closes at Midday. I didn’t punch anyone, murder anyone, or vomit in the street, but I had a great time. You want to stop me enjoying myself like that? Fuck you.
The social experiment to allow 18-19 year olds to purchase alcohol is a proven failure. There is no shame in admitting we got that wrong.
Actually those drinkers of that age are mostly responsible. It’s the ones younger than that who are not responsible. But having a drinking age instead of relying on the purchase age would help that. Otherwise, although I was against lowering the age, I think it is wrong to take away rights from responsible adults once they have been granted.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 9:02 am
“Response to that problem should seek to target those who cause harm when drinking, not the entire population.”
Well, the majority of the entire population will not be affected in a major way by the changes proposed. In fact, if it lessens the number of idiots who have car accidents and/or end up in A&E, then there is a positive effect.
As for Long’s comment about Muldoon’s comment about Mat Rata, what does that have to do with the debate? It seems that Long is trying to divert attention away from the drinking issue.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 9:02 am
@BlairM
“Elitism at its worst. Keeping Chardonnay untaxed and going after Cody’s…”
Actually that was about not about Kardonnay you …. but about not unduly raising the price of beer if the evidence shows that pre-loading on RTD’s is a greater problem. I won’t accuse you of being a complete ignoramus in that you couldn’t possibly see that.
“Some of my best nights out have been concluded at the Supper Club…”
YOUR best nights don’t define the rest of society – you are the one being “elitist” not me. Grow up and find a way to enjoy yourself that doesn’t require drinking after 4am.
The drinking age option is a nanny state intervention which further erodes parents rights to exercise judgement in parenting. (And is no less a restrictive a measure as legislating closing hour at 4am which you rail about above.) Placing responsibility on the parents/supervising adults is a better means to achieving the same result while allowing parents to exercise judgement.)
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 9:24 am
When Sir Paul et al either comes up with real solutions to the real problem or better still takes head out of arse and listens to the good solutions already on offer then I may take some note.
Until then Sir Paul and the others can FOXTROT OSCAR and go and find some other cause celebre
( To give Sir Paul et al a starter for 10 The problem begins in the home mostly those of Sir Pauls ethnic compatriots. Concerntrate the mind on that and the solutions should be clear)
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 9:44 am
I agree, but the trouble is that the attitude to cigarette smoking is now moving on to alcohol, and soon food as well. And then… who knows? Basically, we are a purely legalistic society with very little concept of personal responsibliity.
This C S Lewis quote seems particularly apt:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Manolo: Here is one just for you also from CS Lewis:
A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 9:46 am
“in a non-nanny state manner”
Raising the age to 20 is this?
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 9:49 am
If that ‘ minority’ end their lives then good riddance to them, the main problem is stopping them causing harm to others while they pursue their foolish course. Part of that harm is when they are not successful in their endeavours.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 9:53 am
and of course raising the price to discourage drinking and rebranding labels to state health risks, ala cigarettes, has nothing to do with the cost and impact for Key and his fatcat mates with vested interest in wineries and big business that are already feeling the pinch of recession.
of course not…no no lets all blame the youngers who have done nothing but inherit and continue an NZer tradition of drinking to excess.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 10:15 am
I fully agree with more personal and parental responsibility but taxing RTDs out of the market is a positive. The majority of the sweet, brightly coloured alcopops are aimed at nothing more than getting kids into alcohol quickly and easily. They are a cheap and easy way for kids to get pissed as quickly as possible. Seriously, when was the last time you saw an adult drink one of those?
Sure, some of them are more adult oriented but it is too difficult to differentiate so all pre mixed would have to be targeted. For those complaining about lack of freedom, nanny state etc, how hard is it to mix your own bourbon and coke? I’m talking about trying to find a way to stop what is the equivalent to a pusher putting P into weed to get some new customers.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 10:26 am
nah zero tolerance kaya. all or nothing. Fuck being selective.
increase taxes on the lot and change the labels to give health warnings and less than flattering pics of drunken slappers, battered munters, alcohol related road accidents, damaged livers etc etc…
they did it with low tar and light ciggies why bother differentiating between alcohol ?
It’s like deciding whats healthy food and what’s not to take the GST off…
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 10:28 am
@questlove
The definition of stupidity is to continue doing the same things the same way and expecting a different outcome.
That can be manipulated to argue either side of the case, but quite simply, if we continue to allow drinking in the manner we do, by the groups we do, with the accessibility as it is, then we are going to get the same outcomes.
My view is that lowering the purchase age to 18 has proven to be a failure. There is a greater propensity for youth to be involved in unacceptable alcohol-releated behaviour/activities now than was the case prior to the age restriction being reduced from 20 to 18.
I don’t agree with the report recommendation to an increase to 20 with no exceptions. I have stated previously that I would support a return to the previous age limits which did allow for 18 years olds to have a drink in restaurants and licensed premises when accompanied by parents or guardians.
I would support that return to the previous age restrictions in conjunction with the recommendation to place more onus on parents/supervising adults to act responsibly in supply of alcohol and supervision.
My approach does not prevent 18 or 19 year olds drinking – it merely requires that it be with the explicit permission of their parents and with supervision by their parents or by a responsible adult with the parents permission. It combines this with placing the onus of responsibility on the parents and making them accountable for consequences. In short, it demands nothing more than good parenting, while allowing parents flexibility to exercise judgement.
(Incidentally – just in case it is worthwhile preempting – any argument about the complexity or confusion within the previous age restrictions is specious. They were neither complex nor any more difficult to police than any other age limit. If you can be reasonably expected to be able to understand the ‘give way’ rules, you can equally be expected to understand simple graduated age restrictions on alcohol.)
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am
pollywog – “why bother differentiating between alcohol ?”
because alcopops aren’t actually alcohol. They are fizzy soft drinks that have been laced with alcohol to make it easier to get new customers. It took me years to develop a taste for alcohol, the stuff tasted horrible when I first tried it. Bloody kids these days get everything handed to ‘em on a plate………
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 10:36 am
It combines this with placing the onus of responsibility on the parents and making them accountable for consequences. In short, it demands nothing more than good parenting, while allowing parents flexibility to exercise judgement.
so if your kid gets caught drinking and causing crime, lock up the parents…
yeah, good luck with that.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 10:45 am
because alcopops aren’t actually alcohol. They are fizzy soft drinks that have been laced with alcohol
oh now see if you’d said they were fizzy drinks laced with p then i’d grant you have a point
It took me years to develop a taste for alcohol, the stuff tasted horrible when I first tried it. Bloody kids these days get everything handed to ‘em on a plate………
no shit, i remember the piss trips round sth otago in the MK3 with the person riding shot gun pouring beers and passing the glass round. I’d get shit faced first and couldn’t stand the taste of beer so i’d end up tipping it out the window. Rather that than think i couldn’t handle my piss or keep up with the rest of the boys. It was only speights anyway.
some southern man i turned out to be…heh
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 11:20 am
This argument has been round since I was a teenager in the 50′s with 6′oclock closing and only beer being consumed by most of ue.Nothing has changed much except the closing hours and the variety of liquor,personally I cant see any solution to the problem of abuse by some people anr in my experience it has nothing to do with age.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 11:28 am
@ bhudson
There was a recent thread concerning purchasing age so it’s already been discussed ad nauseam.
I’ll just say that I disagree that legislating 18 & 19 year old must ask their parents permission to have a drink will change NZ’s attitudes to drunkenness nor make a difference to the next generation.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I despise eminent persons telling the unwashed on what to do with their lives. The fact that they contain knights and Dames is one reason why that appellation should be removed. But we can handle it. Let them have their say. People including me can give them the raspberry.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Abuse of alcohol is a serious issue. We have to get community buy-in for the problem. Having a group of these busy-bodies will delay reform and I would have thought Paul Reeves and Geoffrey Palmer should get that. The failure of the citizens for Rowling should have taught them that. But I guess the Knighthoods and all the ego that goes with that has distorted their judgement. I think I now get it when Jim Bolger and Helen Clark wanted to remove them. Maybe seeing these busy body types flashing around their “K’s” might cause John Key to have second thoughts. I am starting to dislike them.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Response to that problem should seek to target those who cause harm when drinking, not the entire population.
Alcohol is a poison to everyone. Simple fact. It just doesn’t kill as immediately as cyanide. Anyone feeling the effects of alcohol is reacting to self-induced harm. My solution would be to eliminate (that’s a commie term for “for your own good”) commercial alcohol suppliers and instead encourage homebrew/moonshine.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
The title of this post sounds like my sharebroker’s advice.
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
“There are problems with alcohol abuse in NZ. Response to that problem should seek to target those who cause harm when drinking, not the entire population.”
I agree DPF – the police could start by actually enforcing the Sale of Liquor Act – i.e. actually fine bars that serve obviously drunk individuals. But they vary rarely do. Is the National Party concerned with this?
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I dont know of any bars that will serve obvious drunks .its the drunks who are not obvious you have to watch out for and the police do enforce the Sale of Liquor Act,
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
boloni: a lot of it will depend on the local council’s attitude toward the issue. In Dunedin there are several council officers who are concerned with enforcement of the Sale of Liquor Act (police pass complaints on to them). Unfortunately these officials drink at bars which seem to be populated by problem alcaholics.
Last year one such person crashed his car into the casino – and the bar he’d been drinking at all day was let off with a warning (luckily they have a council liquor licensing inspector as a regular). When he was arrested he had a blood-alcohol level that was 3 times the legal limit. The next day he was back at the same bar crowing about how he’d represent himself in court, and get off the charges. Now you tell me how the person(s) who were serving him could not have known that he was drunk?
Vote:July 8th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
I personally would never serve an obvious drunk or ler a customer get drunk, but the problem I encounter if they have been dtinking at other bars and are not obviously drunk when they come into our establishment
Vote: