Public Forum on Alcohol Reforms

July 27th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

I’d definitely attend this if I was in Wellington. I encourage those interested in this issue to go along and hear the debate and have their say also:

Responsible Drinking: Who’s Responsible?

Responding to the Law Commission’s paper
in our Lives: Curbing the Harm

Trinity Group invites you to attend a public forum to discuss the Law Commission’s recommended alcohol reforms
Trinity is a specialist hospitality company based in Wellington. It owns and operates bars, restaurants, bottle stores, and hotels and motels in the lower half of the North Island.

Trinity Group wants the government to:
• Retain the current alcohol purchase age at 18, and to establish a of 18 years old
• Encourage people to take personal responsibility for their drinking, and to
• Encourage people to drink more in regulated environments, such as bars.

Featuring the Hon Peter Dunne, United Future Leader and Associate Minister of Health and Gerard Vaughan, CEO, Alcohol Advisory Council of NZ

Chaired by Jeremy Smith, Managing Director, Trinity Group

6-7pm, Tuesday 27 July 2010
at the St Johns Bar, 5 Cable Street, Wellington
We will be serving complimentary nibbles and non-alcoholic drinks

www.trinitygroup.co.nz

Good on Trinity for arranging a forum, with balanced speakers. I find it interesting that they promote a drinking age, as well as a purchase age. This is where I tend to be also.

Tags: ,

20 Responses to “Public Forum on Alcohol Reforms”

  1. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,065 comments) says:

    Trinity is a specialist hospitality company based in Wellington. It owns and operates bars, restaurants, bottle stores, and hotels and motels in the lower half of the North Island.

    Trinity Group wants the government to:
    • Retain the current alcohol purchase age at 18, and to establish a drinking age of 18 years old
    • Encourage people to take personal responsibility for their drinking, and to
    Encourage people to drink more in regulated environments, such as bars.

    [DPF: They are open about what they do and what they want. Good on them. So what about the issues?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. SouthernRight (54 comments) says:

    Trinity want money. Thats all.

    I run a bar during the age shift. The problems we faced with patrons were huge. All our older, more reserved yet more affluent patrons started drinking at home, all the hoons and clowns come in. I stopped selling good beers and top shelf and had to stock RTD’s. Spew, broken windows, crying girls and wheelies in the carpark.

    LIFT THE AGE AND DO NZ A FAVOUR

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Captain Neurotic (206 comments) says:

    Danyl – Regardless of their personal financial interests, I completely support their view.

    At least they are advocating for a change that will help with the drinking problem in NZ. Lucky them that they are in the right business to profit from this change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (22,754 comments) says:

    …to establish a drinking age of 18 years old
    Encourage people to drink more in regulated environments, such as bars.

    Not allow parents to give their pre-18 year old teenagers a drink at home? Nanny state for the benefit of the liquor industry?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jack5 (4,569 comments) says:

    Trinity’s input…

    Alcohol’s a legal drug and costs the country’s health system more than any other drug. If you get bashed in the street in the evening the likelihood is that the thug is at least half-pissed.

    Heeding Trinity on alcohol regulation is like getting advice on amphetamine control from the country’s drug-dealing gangs and from Auckland’s triads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. freedom101 (462 comments) says:

    As an Otago Uni graduate of about 30 years ago, and now seeing my own children down there, there’s no doubt that the drinking culture is far worse than it was 30 years ago. Lowering the age to 18 has definitely encouraged more drinking, and a worse binge cutlure. Also, student loans have helped fuel it. Drinking is not cheap, especially with the volumes that students now consume. So I fully support raising the age back to 20.

    With 18 being the age, it’s now socially acceptable for 16 year olds to get pissed at home. I see this amongst my youngest child’s friends.

    I suspect that the reason that DPF supports keeping the age at 18 is that he doesn’t have children so doesn’t see first hand the impact of the age reduction. It’s a bit like Helen Clark being PM but totally lacking empathy for parents, as she wasn’t one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. redeye (631 comments) says:

    Jack5@11:32 “Heeding Trinity on alcohol regulation is like getting advice on amphetamine control from the country’s drug-dealing gangs and from Auckland’s triads.”

    Never a truer word was write.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nick Archer (137 comments) says:

    ‘We will be serving complimentary nibbles and non-alcoholic drinks’

    Bummer no alcohol!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    If I owed and operates bars, restaurants, bottle stores, as well as hotels and motels… I would won’t people with personal responsibility for their drinking to drink more in regulated environments such as I owned as well.

    Young people are largely un- responsibile drinkers that cost regulated environments money.

    Responsibile drinkers drink and stay at home… un-responsibile drinkers drink at home then go out.

    Regulated environments don’t make money from un-responsibile or responsibile drinkers these days.. Food is their cash earner…. they would be better to hate learn to cook at home programs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    “Heeding Trinity on alcohol regulation is like getting advice on amphetamine control from the country’s drug-dealing gangs and from Auckland’s triads.”

    Sure but the issue here is that they’ve set up a public forum to discuss such issues, not their own past or current lobbying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. MT_Tinman (2,985 comments) says:

    SouthernRight (22) Says:
    July 27th, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Trinity want money. Thats all.

    I run a bar during the age shift. The problems we faced with patrons were huge. All our older, more reserved yet more affluent patrons started drinking at home, all the hoons and clowns come in. I stopped selling good beers and top shelf and had to stock RTD’s. Spew, broken windows, crying girls and wheelies in the carpark.

    You certainly didn’t run it very well then, did you?

    I suspect that’s why you talk in the past tense.

    RKBee, wrong.

    The money in most restaurants is in the booze you sell along with the food.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    “Food is their cash earner…”

    Not by a very long way. Margins on food are tiny by comparison with alcohol in bars/restaurants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nick R (497 comments) says:

    I love people who bleat about encouraging personal responsibility. The beauty of encouraging personal responsibility is it means you don’t have to do anything or change anything or spend anything. You just whinge about the conduct of other people who choose not to accept personal responsibility (as you define it).

    I think this is a perfect solution – if by “solution” we mean that it makes people feel better while imposing the least possible inconvenience on companies which own and operate bars etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    RKBee, wrong.

    The money in most restaurants is in the booze you sell along with the food.

    Imm… Yes… but they come for the food.. not the booze.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott (1,699 comments) says:

    I finally agree with Danyl! Something sensible after 811 posts!

    There is a strong feeling that National is in bed with big alcohol interests and so no way will have the courage to raise the purchase age to 20. I think they should and decrease the number of alcohol outlets and generally take a less liberal stand on alcohol.

    Also a big “wake up and smell the coffee” to those who say prohibition is the problem. In NZ we have liberalised alcohol and lo and behold the situation of alcohol abuse has got worse! So liberalisation and liberal values generally cause harm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Not by a very long way. Margins on food are tiny by comparison with alcohol in bars/restaurants.

    No wonder the kids drink at home… it would be irresponsible for them to drink out.. at those markups.

    I think the point is people expect to pay premium prices when they go out for food and drink at good bars/restaurants…
    The problem is today prices and laws stop even those that can afford it to now reconsider their options…
    And the younger one’s can have a better and cheaper time withot it… so why bother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mpledger (429 comments) says:

    Personal responsibility is all well and good but alcohol is a drug of dependence and dependence is a chemical process of the brain.

    Once you’re addicted to that bottle of wine every night than rational thoughts about what alcohol is doing to you just aren’t on the table.

    [To be truely balanced they need a Doctor from ED and someone from youth line.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Well hitch the wagon up, sounds like a real hoot. But seriously I use to run a club bar and were strongly encouraged, by the parasites in council, to go to similar “host responsibility” courses. What a fucking load of sanctimonious crap severed up by bullshit artists trying to justify their pitiful existence on earth. About the only redeeming feature of these courses was that they were held at a local club and the bar was open at lunch time. Yes it is about personal responsibility but more so about common sense, what I and thousands of other Kiwis don’t need are holier the thou wankers shoving there tax paid lifestyles down our throats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Jack5 (4,569 comments) says:

    side show bob at 7.07:

    …what I and thousands of other Kiwis don’t need are holier the thou wankers shoving there tax paid lifestyles down our throats…

    No one gives a rat’s arse about your personal drinking habits, side show bob. If you want to destroy yourself, that’s your business. If you drink moderately and hurt neither yourself nor anyone else by this, that’s fine. But what booze does to our kids and grandkids and to our communities is everyone’s business.

    Do you really want it to be only about individual responsibility? Everyone for themselves alone? Wouldn’t that mean at the extreme that if someone’s kid or grandkid gets beaten into vegetable by an idiot liquored up at your bar then dad or granddad takes out the shotgun and sorts out you as well as the idiot?

    That’s not how a viable, civlised community works, thank goodness. We all get our say, not just those who make a living from the alcohol industry. Then if the majority decides to regulate booze sales more tightly, so be it.

    As for those who oppose booze being on tax-paid lifestyles, there are more down and outs from booze than from wowserism, probably by about 50 to one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. fishe (143 comments) says:

    This:

    “Heeding Trinity on alcohol regulation is like getting advice on amphetamine control from the country’s drug-dealing gangs and from Auckland’s triads.”

    And this:

    “Personal responsibility is all well and good but alcohol is a drug of dependence and dependence is a chemical process of the brain.”

    I guess it’s a positive thing that Trinity are organising a debate, but they’re hardly the right people to do so. Commercial entities involved in alcohol sales should have no input whatsoever in this debate – their interests are obvious and I can’t see how they can have constructive input.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.