Reaction to alcohol package
August 24th, 2010 at 7:55 am by David FarrarThe dairy owners are not too happy:
Several changes announced yesterday included a law that will clarify that dairies and convenience stores cannot be off-licences, therefore cannot sell alcohol.
Ashok Darji, who owns Ash’s Wine and Lotto Superette in Mission Bay, says the move unfairly targets and punishes dairies.
“It basically contradicts. People who want to get a lot of cheap alcohol will go to the supermarket. And a little superette – that’s mostly a customer coming home from work and just wants to pick up a bottle of wine.
“It’s not really our core business, but it’s more a convenience thing. They’re not coming here to buy a dozen beers, they’re going to supermarkets, so why [punish] us?”
Mr Darji has been selling wine at his superette for more than 10 years.
He said during that time, he had never had any problems regarding his selling alcohol, and was upset that he – with many others around the country – would be punished.
It would be interesting to see some solid research on how much alcohol is sold where, to try and ascertain if dairies are a problem.
In this story, my dreams come true. Labour is campaigning for the entire Palmer report to be adopted:
Labour leader Phil Goff said he wanted the commission’s full set of recommendations, including an increase in alcohol excise and tougher rules on advertising.
A vote for Labour means a vote for a 50% increase in alcohol excise tax, a ban on Tui billboards, sports teams losing tens of millions of dollars in sponsorship, outlawing the Speights Southern Men ads, a compulsory one way policy at 2 am, and making it an offence for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine in a restaurant with their parents.
This story reports on the impact on RTD makers:
Independent Liquor Group has been given a serve in liquor law reforms announced yesterday.
The South Auckland-based firm dominates the market for “Ready To Drink” products popular with the young – the segment most directly affected by the changes.
The company, owned by private equity group Pacific Equity Partners, got sobering news with the Government limiting the maximum alcohol in RTDs to just 5 per cent.
Many RTDs are 7 per cent and above. In particular, Independent’s bourbon and coke brand Woodstock is a market leader in the RTD market. Its alcohol content is 8 per cent.
I’ve never had an RTD myself. From what I can tell, the intent of the package is to make it hard for people to get hammered on RTDs. What we don’t know is whether this means people will stick with RTDs if they are the same strength as beer, or will they move onto hard spirits?
Derek Cheng reports that the Government did not agree to the recommendations to ban Tui billboards:
Tui billboards, alcohol-sponsored music festivals and sexy television advertisements depicting euphoric parties will not be affected by the Government’s alcohol reform package, despite evidence that a crackdown on marketing would reduce youth drinking.
If you do want Tui billboards banned, Labour is promising to do so.
Having said that I don’t think the current ASA self-regulatory model is effective. There needs to be a sanction for ads which breach the code beyond no longer displaying the ad. I think there needs to be actual penalties for advertisements that breach the code.
The Auckland Mayoral contenders support the 4 am closing.
The NZ Herald editorial says the package is a solid start:
Anything less than a full-scale embrace of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations on reducing the harm caused by alcohol was always going to lead to accusations of Government tinkering and timidity.
But the plans announced yesterday amount to a reasonably practical and coherent response to the problems that have arisen from two decades of liberal liquor laws.
Sensibly, the temptation to return to a time when access to liquor was strictly constrained, but drinking habits were in many ways worse, has been resisted. Instead, there is to be a targeted assault on the excesses encouraged by the current regime.
Vernon Small reports those who wanted more:
The Salvation Army, Alcohol Action and the Drug Foundation said the Government should have raised excise on alcohol to make drinking more expensive – a key recommendation from the Law Commission, which reviewed all the alcohol laws.
The Drug Foundation said it was “deeply disappointed that two vital areas of reform have been ignored: the proliferation of cheap booze and the intense marketing, advertising and promotion of liquor”. …
Professor Jennie Connor, head of preventive and social medicine at Otago University, said the changes would make no substantial difference to the heavy drinking culture, or to the scale of harm caused. They were a small step in the right direction, but were like “fighting a bushfire with a couple of garden hoses for the next 20 years. The Government has seriously misread public concern about heavy drinking and needs to rethink its policies”.
If Professor Cooper thinks the public were demanding a 50% increase in alcohol excise tax, she is seriously wrong.
John Hartevelt reports another critic:
The director of Christchurch’s National Addiction Centre, Professor Doug Sellman, said the Government was wrong to see alcohol abuse as essentially a youth problem.
Research found that 92 per cent of New Zealand’s heavy drinkers were 20 years and over, and 70 per cent were 25 and over.
“Aiming measures primarily at youth while avoiding anything substantial that would reduce heavy drinking among adults is scapegoating young people for the country’s heavy drinking culture and fails to address the main issue,” he said.
The Government had avoided the big policy decisions, such as increasing prices and restricting advertising, and ended up with a package that was “like treating cancer with a couple of aspirin”.
So does that mean banning Tui billboards would be like chemotherapy?
The Press reports Bob Parker supports the package:
Liquor-law reforms will enable Christchurch communities to “write their own futures”, Mayor Bob Parker says.
The Government yesterday announced a package of alcohol measures.
The reforms feature a proposal allowing communities to decide their own “alcohol plan”, including the concentration, location, and opening hours of liquor outlets.
Parker said he felt “very positive” about the proposed reforms.
“We’ve been waiting for something like this for a long time.”
Finally The Press editorial says they are a step in the right direction but a lost opportunity:
The package of Government policies to reduce problem drinking is a step in the right direction but it is still a relatively modest step.
While the measures it will introduce are welcome, in several areas, including the adult drink-driving limit and the price of alcohol, the Government has resisted calls for more decisive action. …
Overall, therefore, although the Government package will assist in the battle against excessive drinking, it also represents a lost opportunity to make more serious progress in our society’s goal of ending the binge drinking culture.
Related posts:
- The cost and costs of alcohol
- Blaming alcohol
- Roughan on alcohol and competition
- The Law Commission proposals on alcohol
August 24th, 2010 at 8:08 am
“A vote for Labour means a vote for a 50% increase in alcohol excise tax, a ban on Tui billboards, sports teams losing tens of millions of dollars in sponsorship, outlawing the Speights Southern Men ads, a compulsory one way policy at 2 am, and making it an offence for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine in a restaurant with their parents.”
C’mon DPF, do not insult our intelligence by flying this ridiculous kite.
We all know socilaist Labour is capable of all these imbecilities and even worse ones, but that does not excuse Labour-lite’s Simon Power feebleness and pandering to the wowsers.
Do you believe making water mandatory, fining parents, outlawing diaries, restricting RTDs, etc. will make teenagers drink less? Did you also believe microchipping dogs would stop attacks, and changes to S59 would halt child abuse.
If so, keep spinning.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:12 am
Have the govt. been explicit on what they want to achieve with the reform? Is it about youth drinking less, preventing violence or alcohol related deaths?
I agree with Manolo. The youth drinking culture in NZ is so deep rooted that these changes will be fairly ineffective. Achieving culture change on this scale is near impossible with regulation, change has to start in the home. From the parents.
This is a view from a youth, and I know all too well the effects of youth alcoholism.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:14 am
The issue with RTD’s is that they were specifically designed to appeal to a section of the society where alcohol consumption was not high, i.e. women and the young. They are essentially alcoholic soft drinks and are far easy to consume than a half dozen beer. Restricting the alcohol content probably won’t make much of a difference in that regard.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:23 am
“It would be interesting to see some solid research on how much alcohol is sold where, to try and ascertain if dairies are a problem.”
No research required. Nanny National has already decided they are.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:25 am
The problem I have had your coverage of the alcohol reform debate, DPF, is that you have not offered any solutions as to what we should do about the poor drinking culture we have in this country.
All you have done is criticize those that have.
[DPF: That is false. I have often commented favourably on the measures I do agree with. And I dedicated a post to why we should legislate a drinking age, not just a purchase age]
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:27 am
How nice for the Government to now legislate who may sell certain products and the times for when people are allowed to be open in order to sell goods on their own premises.
Just as bad as the anti smoking brigade effectively banning customers from going into a bar, and effectively bankrupting many honest bar owners who wanted to make a living.
Legislation isn’t going to stop binge drinking. Commonsense will. While Labour are saying they will make it worse, there isn’t any difference between the Nats or Labour. It’s like saying you only want to have half your house robbed or the whole place!
Who would have thought that Nats would do this too?
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:34 am
“Who would have thought that Nats would do this too?”
And who would have thought ACT would continue its unholy alliance, some say subservience, with National?
Vote:What would it take for Hide to break away from his master Key?
August 24th, 2010 at 8:36 am
‘Just as bad as the anti smoking brigade effectively banning customers from going into a bar, and effectively bankrupting many honest bar owners who wanted to make a living.’
Of course my rights to enjoy a drink without your second hand smoke aren’t important.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Not at all Yeswedid. Why not let a bar allow smoking and another bar be smokefree? What about allowing sealed up smoking areas inside bars? How dare the Government tell a bar owner they had no choice about how their business be run. If everybody were like you, smoke free bars would be flourishing.
Manolo. Who said ACT supported these changes?
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:41 am
I don’t think this legislation is targeted to Mr Mission Bay superette…Isn’t it designed to restrict wholesale liquor outlets on every corner in Sth Akld?
If the community of Mission Bay want to keep their existing superette then they can can’t they?
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Manolo 8:08 am,
You raise a good point, Manolo – any human behaviour is primarily dependent on the choices of the individual, which is in turn based on that individual’s value system. Whether that be how we raise our children, or how we choose to drink alcoholic beverages – and I believe the two are linked. Children (who later become adults within a functional, or not, society) learn values, rules, and consequences to breaking those rules primarily from their parents. Well THAT used to be the case, anyway.
Of course today we see the results of 30+ years of socialist indoctrination; where we have systematically removed traditional values/rules, respect for authority and your elders, and certainly the consequences of breaking what used to be regarded as societally acceptable behaviour. This ‘indoctrination’ starts from birth, and so we have many people now, and especially those up to the age of 30, who are self centred, narcissistic, and who as a result are not prepared to have others regulate their behaviour – and certainly no law change is going to change their behaviour and choices.
Implememnting even more socialist based laws is NOT going to solve a problem which is the result of socialist conditioning over the last 30+ years. If you want to change behaviour, whatever that behaviour may be, you need to start with strengthening the family, empowering parents, and allow responsible parents to instill Judeo-Christian based principles into their children. Only by doing this will we have responsible children who know the difference between right and wrong, and what is and isn’t responsible behaviour. In short, we must teach individuals to take personal responsibiblity for their actions, and this must be founded on a strong personal morality and values based system (not some eternal law instead).
Anything else is just another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff … and will ultimately FAIL IMHO.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:43 am
Clint – all bars do have smoking areas they are called ‘outside’.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Not good enough Yeswedid. Do you own a business?
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Yes I own a business but it’s not a bar, but what has that got to do with anything? I’ve spent my fair share of time in bars so I think I’ve had plenty of time to form an opinion.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:57 am
So booze is bad for us but if we make it really expensive then that’s OK? So only really rich people are allowed to get pissed?
Vote:I drank a really expensive bottle of French red last night and just managed to find my way to bed. That’s much better than some 18 year old getting pissed on a few beers?
August 24th, 2010 at 8:58 am
Good, so you know very well what would happen if suddenly the Government decided to make the decision on your opening hours and what you sell etc. Do you really think that Government legislating is going to make it all better?
You would be crying bloody murder if politicians meddled with your business.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Gosh Clint I didn’t see that argument coming.
A government will always set rules, as long as all the businesses that are in your sector have the same rules and it is a level playing field then what is the problem?
Anyway the government has done very little that will affect bars in this latest round of alcohol reforms.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:12 am
This sucks for dairy owners. Just goes to show who has organised lobbyists and who hasn’t. I can’t see any rational reason for allowing supermarkets but not dairies to sell alcohol. Will just mean people jumping in their cars instead of walking up the road.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:19 am
These laws don’t go far enough. Dairies often sell milk and cheese and these are known to cause obesity and heart disease. The government must do something! This is what I propose:
1. Dairies be banned from selling milk and cheese, so that they can only be purchased in supermarkets. Except in tourist areas where foreigners have come to accept eating dairy products freely, where local councils we be allowed to permit dairies to sell milk, cheese, or both milk and cheese.
2. There should be special rules to allow dairies and Party Central to sell milk and cheese over the Rugby World Cup, because we don’t want the rest of the world to realise that we’re governed by miserable nanny-staters. But the cheese at Party Central must be sold in cubes with a toothpick through each in order to reduce the rate of cheese consumption.
3. Sale of cheese at Party Central be restricted to people 18 and over. Sale of cheese in supermarkets be restricted to people 22 and above. Sale of cheese in dairies (where permitted) be restricted to people 19 and over, unless the person is a tourist in which case they only need to be 17 or over. Sale of milk to be restricted to people over the age of 20 in all cases.
4. The government to tell milk manufacturers what percentage of fat they’re allowed to include in their milk.
5. Under no circumstances will supermarkets, dairies, or Party Central be allowed to sell alcohol and cheese together in case drunk people eat too much cheese.
6. Cheese flavoured potato chips will be banned. So will cheese and onion and other cheese derived flavours.
7. There will be a special tax on dairy products sufficient to cover the cost of heart disease and diabetes treatment, and to cover the cost of the milk and cheese licensing system.
8. Cheese will only be sold between the hours of 10am and 4pm, except on Fridays where it can be sold between 10am and 5:30pm. And Sunday when it can only be sold between 1am and 4pm so that people will not be tempted to blow off church attendance in favour of cheese buying. Milk will only be sold on Tuesdays between 2:30pm and 3:30pm, because why do retailers need to be open any longer than that?
9. People will only be allowed to buy milk and cheese from one retailer each week. They’ll have their hand stamped after each purchase and council inspectors will conduct random checks outside supermarkets. Retailers will be fined up to $500,000 for selling dairy products to someone who already has a hand stamp, or outside the permitted hours.
These simple rules will certainly solve NZ’s diabetes and heart disease problem. Only child pornographers could possibly be opposed to them. Think of the children!
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Make sure the first class pasangers chairs are placed port side and well seperated for the steerage ones wont you.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:26 am
davidp – you forget that 1/2 of the National MP’s are farmers so they will never restrict the sale of milk or cheese.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:30 am
YesWeDid said…
Of course my rights to enjoy a drink without your second hand smoke aren’t important.
A drink in your own property/place is fine, because you have rights there. A drink in a private bar is different since, you don’t have rights to demand it be smoke-free, because the owner is the ones’ who has the rights. If he/she allows smoking in his/her property, that is up to him/her and not up to society (er! government the nanny). If you don’t like it because it is a smoking bar, then go and drink somewhere else, because you don’t have rights to what is not yours (properties of others).
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:33 am
This move has been cunning on the part of the government. The Law Commission Report moved the Overton window with some utterly unacceptable ideas. The government’s exploited this by suggesting they want to implement only some of these – which would have been fringe ideas prior to the report. So now we get people like DPF saying “it could have been a lot worse. … I think Simon Power has done a pretty good job with this one.”
No, the government has not done a good job with this one. The government has exploited the move of the Overton Window to suggest poor legislation which is unlikely to meet cost/benefit analysis and fail to deal with the problem – if it is even large enough to bother dealing with outside how it is already dealt with.
first time caller: “Isn’t it designed to restrict wholesale liquor outlets on every corner in Sth Akld?”
No, it’s poorly designed with broad and uneconomic measures which are likely to fail on cost/benefit.
“If the community of Mission Bay want to keep their existing superette then they can can’t they?”
No. Not according to the interpretation.
Also of note: “no compensation will be payable for licensees who are not eligible to have their current off-licence renewed under the proposed criteria”.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:39 am
The Press reports Bob Parker supports the package:
Liquor-law reforms will enable Christchurch communities to “write their own futures”, Mayor Bob Parker says.
The Government yesterday announced a package of alcohol measures.
The reforms feature a proposal allowing communities to decide their own “alcohol plan”, including the concentration, location, and opening hours of liquor outlets.
Parker said he felt “very positive” about the proposed reforms.
“We’ve been waiting for something like this for a long time.
Be afraid.
Be very afraid!
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Falafulu Fisi – A bar owner can’t use a ‘property right’ to decide how they run their business they have to work within the requirements of their liquor license and the relevant laws.
You seem to think we live in Somalia.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:45 am
I agree, its a joke dairies are caught by the reforms and hopefully they will come out by select committee once they have a chance to mount a defence. Surely trading hours are sufficient, no need to outlaw dairies from selling alchohol as well.
Vote:Like many on here, I am uncomfortable with some of the reforms (not all), but unfortunately, the public want something done and National have been cornered by Palmer’s poorly researched (economically speaking) report. You know you have a problem with the intelligence of much of the media, when it has been widely claimed reducing the drunk driving limit to 0.05 is necessary because has apparently been shown to have some benefit to the road toll. The costs & consequences of such a move are ignored. When the government says, we need more research, its not good enough, apparently we need it now and the evidence is “compelling.” Ridiculous.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Dairies sell wine and beer at a large mark-up. Hell, they buy their stock from Pak N save anyway. Who goes to the dairy to buy cheap piss? You go there because it is CONVENIENT. The meddling government’s plan will make not one jot of difference to the amount of alcohol consumed in this country and to who does the consuming. Looks like Key has gone for the Salvation Army and Temperance Union vote – no matter how DPF tries to spin it..
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:51 am
@ davidp You left out “any business selling cheese is required by law to offer free vegetables to ensure patrons have non-cheese alternatives.”
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:53 am
glubbster – what is the ‘cost’ of not allowing people to down 6 beers and then climb into their car and drive home?
Surely the drink driving limit should be at a level where the average person is still capable of properly controlling a vehicle after the ‘maximum’ number of drinks.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:56 am
I’m with Falafulu and Clint on that one. The business owner should have been able to offer a service which may be a smoky bar, a bar with a smoking and non-smoking area, or a non-smoking bar. The customers choose whether or not to patronize the bar. Instead we get no choice. Gone are the days of a nice cigar at Logan Brown after dinner for example.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:56 am
I doubt it – a bunch of puritanical noisemakers, who want to tell everybody else how to live their lives, do not the public who as usual will have their freedoms further restricted.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 9:59 am
What worries me most is this type of comment – taken from DPFs post of yesterday about this bullshit move.
The adult who supplies alcohol (with consent) to under 18 year olds must do so responsibly and supervise the consumption. Again – long overdue. This is what may have made a difference to the Kings College case.
The case I assume he refers to is the one where a boy stole a bottle of alcohol and, knowing it would be confiscated if responsible people caught him with it, drunk the lot very quickly instead of just relaxing with a drink as would be the norm.
The boy died.
This bloody stupid attempt to make alcohol harder to obtain and drink legitimately will in fact make this sort of thing more likely to happen, not less.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 10:00 am
I think the reforms are progressive though I would have liked to see the age in bars raised to 20 or older. I also think that individual Bar Owners should be able to set their own age limit above 20 should they wish to do so without breaching civil rights or other politically correct nonsense. Something also needs to be done to clear the drunks off the streets as the Police used to do before drunkenness was declared an illness rather than a misdemeanour.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Brian Smaller – agreed. I frequently nip down to the dairy for beer or wine. The dairy buys it in from a location further away, they store it (and my dairy is good because they keep the beer cold) until I want it, and save me about 10 minutes round trip (as well as petrol) for the sake of about 30% above supermarket price. There is added value for me in being able to get beer and wine from the dairy, but if I have to go to the supermarket the two losers in the equation are the dairy owner and the atmosphere (due to the additional exhaust fumes from me having to drive further). Overall I save a bit of money and the supermarkets sell the beer to me instead of the dairy. I simply can’t see the merit in this.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 10:10 am
davidp, I would wish that we still had a vote button so that I could say how good that comment was, but that would be cheesey.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 10:14 am
YesWeDid said…
Falafulu Fisi – A bar owner can’t use a ‘property right’ to decide how they run their business they have to work within the requirements of their liquor license and the relevant laws.
Primary function of the government is to protect its citizens rights. Banning a private citizen’s rights to choose what he/she does in his/her own property is not protecting his/her rights to enjoy what he/she chooses to do with his/her own, is it? The government shouldn’t legislate private property owners because some idiots want something provided for him/her by someone else, such as a free-smoking bar. If you want one, then establish a free-smoking bar for yourself and no doubt there are many out there who don’t smoke that want to come to your bar to drink there. But don’t dictate to others who want smoking allowed in their bars.
YesWeDid said…
Vote:You seem to think we live in Somalia.
Somalia is anarchy, there is no law and functioning government there, so your comparison is irrelevant. Are you happy with what Chavez is doing in Venezuela ? I bet you do.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:26 am
“Looks like Key has gone for the Salvation Army and Temperance Union vote – no matter how DPF tries to spin it..”
The former part of your sentence is true, because the duplicitous Key changes colours faster than a chameleon and panders to whoever offers him the possibility of grabbing a few votes. The latter is even a bigger truth.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 10:27 am
davidp 9:19 am,
Very well done.
Vote:And perhaps as responsible world citizens New Zealand should henceforth cease the exporting of any dairy products, especially cheese – it’s the responsible thing to do, afterall.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:50 am
YesWeDid, on your argument the limit should be zero as this is the optimal level of control of a driver. Harm minimisation is not the only thing to consider. Have you considered the unintended consequences of dropping the limit to 0.05?
How can you assert a policy position without even considering the economic implications? Superficial thinking.
Check out a good summary on here: http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/07/drink-driving-research-proposal.html
and the point generally http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-makes-kiwis-think-like-economists.html
Again, to say there is compelling evidence of the need to lower the limit is patently ridiculous at this stage.
Vote:Perhaps police should stop all car chases as in very few cases the chase leads to death? On your reasoning we should let these drivers get away too?
August 24th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Respect.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Is the Minister being disingenous re: loss leaders? Usually he strikes me as being straight up but this ‘data collection’ sounds a sop. It is common knowledge that supermarkets use beer as a loss leader regularly. Is it just me or is the Minister talking bollocks?
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Dobbie, its difficult to work out pricing. How can the government consider a minimum price without that information. Think first before you make such a strong comment. And contrast to Labour’s regular knee-jerk reactions.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Why is the government even considering minimum prices? Below equilibrium, it’s ineffective. Above equilibrium, it leads to deadweight loss.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Alcohol is too cheap. When you can buy a RTD for $1/bottle and get wasted for $10.00 then we have a problem in the making. I agree with Goff. The Government is tinkering around the edges. As best they are making it harder to impulse buy alcohol and that may have a marginal effect on alcohol abuse. Perhaps. Some tightening in the opening hours of clubs may have a marginal effect though that will penalise the moderate drinkers just as much. The nanny state stuff on parental responsibility are just rubbish. The big elephant in the room is price. If a standard drink was at least $15.00 and RTD were $7.50 a bottle with lower alcohol, and similar increases ACROSS the board – it will become too expensive for young people, especially, to get drunk.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Sorry to go off topic – but the Spirit Level Thread has gone a bit cold and I thought this extract from Toby Young in the Spectator was quite funny.
Extract ‘Toby Young suffers from Status Anxiety’
To my mind, the key issue is not the reliability of their data, but the conclusions they draw. Suppose we accept, for the sake of argument, that in-equality does cause various forms of ill health. That doesn’t mean we ought to equalise incomes. The problem with ‘evidence-based’ arguments for particular social policies is that they presuppose the political combatants share a common goal — in this case, maximising public health. But that isn’t the case. For most conservatives, a certain level of dysfunction is an acceptable price to pay for our social and economic freedoms. To pretend that such differences can be elided, and that important policy decisions can be made on the basis of ‘evidence’ alone, is to trivialise political debate.
To illustrate this, take a solution to the problem of inequality that Wilkinson and Picket don’t consider. One way to tackle it would be to take the poorest 20 per cent of UK wage earners and forcibly expatriate them to an uninhabited island. If, as Wilkinson and Pickett claim, there’s a causal link between income inequality and social dysfunction, this measure would significantly reduce ill health among the remaining 80 per cent, since the gap between the richest and the poorest would shrink. Not only that, but the wellbeing of the expatriated 20 per cent would also improve since they’d now be living in a more equal society. A key argument of The Spirit Level is that it is not discrepancies in the average level of income between countries that account for different levels of public health, but the degree of income inequality.
Such a draconian measure would be monstrous, but it’s hard to see how Wilkinson and Pickett could object if their sole aim is to maximise ‘wellbeing’. The problem, of course, is that forcibly expatriating 12 million people would grossly violate their rights — and the rights to life, liberty and property are among the things that have to be weighed in the balance when assessing the merits of equality. To pretend that a purely ‘rational’ appraisal of the facts leads inevitably to egalitarianism is intellectually dishonest and one of many reasons this book belongs in the trash pile.
Toby Young is associate editor of The Spectator.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
“Alcohol is too cheap.”
That’s your opinion. Others like me will disagree.
To be consistent with your own statement, I would suggest you pay three times the price next time you buy some alcohol. That will make you feel better and will placate your qualms and social conscience (it will make the shop owner very happy too.)
Otherwise, let the market decide the price of goods. Consumers are wise enough to pay the correct price.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
“Alcohol is too cheap.”
I see. We’re back to opinions again. Can you back that the harm of legislating through minimum prices will be less than the benefit of doing so? I would suggest not. Government should only intervene where market failure is large. That has not been anywhere near proved in this case and furthermore, you would still have to prove that minimum prices would be the best solution for government to undertake. This is also very difficult given the likely significant distortionary impact and unintended consequences.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Perhaps the government should just make it illegal to be intoxicated in public.
I was surprised that at present the law allows for an intoxicated person to be detained for 12 hours (or more if recommended by a health practitioner) but it is not actually illegal to be drunk in public. (From searching NZ Legislation – someone correct me if I’m wrong).
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0072/latest/DLM1102233.html?search=qs_all%40act%40bill%40regulation_intoxicated+public_resel&p=1#DLM1102233
Police could have an amount of discretion, but ultimately if they had the power to determine someone is intoxicated (mechanism to be determined) then they could focus on trouble spots as needed and arrest a few louts to show things are changing.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
No one agrees with tvb’s (& Phil’s) fallacy, I think we have established that on a different post.
Vote:There ARE loss leading products in supermarkets. These can work economically, since the market is not a one product market. If the price can be set to the equilibrium, then theoretically, this will cut out the loss leaders, which is both efficient, and good for the government’s purpose being harm minimisation or whatever that means. In practice, the equilibrium price for a product varies from time to time so it is very difficult for a government to give effect to this policy. To be frank, I dont think what the government does in respect of price makes much difference tot he outcomes they are seeking to minimise.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Clint Heine (1,012) Says:
August 24th, 2010 at 8:27 am
Legislation isn’t going to stop binge drinking. Commonsense will.
Wrong! FAIL!
If we haven’t got common values then how can we have common sense?
If being drunk in public and committing shit behaviour isn’t unacceptable how can common sense prevail.
This whole country lauds people/heroes getting pissed.
Look Key just awarded Auckland $50 million of our money so they can have a party.
bet most will be pissed.
Key is being the dick he is because he is a compromiser not a man of principle.
The issue is very very clear.
Drunk people behaving in a disorderly manner, some even committing crime.
so what do we do?
We deal to the offenders, namely the people who are drunk and committing the crimes or disorderly behaviour.
All Key has done is swap around the deck chairs, not deal to the offenders.
It’s called harm minimisation, which shows that he is unfit for the job.
two laws
1. Drunk and disorderly.
Get breathalysed and then nicked, jailed until taken to next available day’s magistrate.
2. No alcohol as a driver
Get breathalysed and then nicked, jailed until taken to next available day’s magistrate.
Immediately firearms and drivers licence’s on probation as is liscenses for heavy machinary etc..
If the pain is enough people change behaviour.
Vote:You can’t talk to drunk people.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
You cannot have a debate about alcohol abuse without having a debate about how much it costs to get drunk and whether that is too cheap. I say it should be too expensive for the person on the average wage to get drunk. I think it should cost close to $100 to get drunk and that should put off most especially the young.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
tvb – you can front-load the cost of getting drunk but that also increases the cost for someone just having one or two drinks. That’s applying extra cost even to those who aren’t contributing to the social problems that this hoohaa is all based on. ]
Vote:As one who likes to have a couple on the deck on a warm summer evening, I’d be voting against your proposal. I’d much rather that the irresponsible are more accurately targeted, for example by outlawing public intoxication (and policing it).
P.S – I could withstand a reasonable hike in price, but then you’re into disproportionately impacting the poor – and that is unlikely to go down well with the great unwashed.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
“I say it should be too expensive for the person on the average wage to get drunk. I think it should cost close to $100 to get drunk and that should put off most especially the young.”
We have an aspiring dictator in our midst.
Live and let live is my advice to people of your ilk. I could be more forceful, but politeness prevents from doing so.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Dairy owners voice their opinion: http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10668400&ref=rss
Of course, wowsers and “we-know-best-what-is-good-for-you” elitists and lame politicians never buy alcohol from dairies, so their plea is likely to be ignored.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I will put it another way should you be able to get wasted for $10 on RTDs or anything else for that matter?? You can have you couple of whines on the deck if you must. I just think it should cost about $4-5 a glass for the cheapest wine. That is not too expensive for the average punter. But if a kid wants to get blotto then it should cost about $100.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
tvb, stop digging.
Vote:Your social reegineering will be perfectly home in Cuba or North Korea. I invite you to try these “democratic” republics.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Mike NZ, your laws are laughable. Heine might be (in my view) too libertarian is his views on the matter, but I’d rather that any day then your laws prescribing command and control. Have you considered the economic costs of your policies?
On your government must do something view, perhaps we should also take all cars off the road because some could crash each and every day…
tvb give it up. You have made your point, it has been rejected.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
tvb – . You can buy wine for $2-3 a bottle in Italy. Having a large Italian family and having lived there for a number of years I can tell you that there are as many piss heads there as here, so that whole “they have a different drinking culture’ thing doesn’t wash with me. How about you pay $5 a glass for wine. I like the fact that I can get a good wine for under $10 a bottle at the supermarket (or for $15 at the dairy for same).
Your logic is fucked. People would save electricity if it were $100 a unit as well. Emissions would decrease if petrol was $20 a litre. We would eat less red meat if decent steak was $30 a kilo – no wait – it often is. Scratch that last one.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
“I will put it another way should you be able to get wasted for $10 on RTDs or anything else for that matter??”
Yes, if you want to and don’t harm others.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Besides the other arguments tvb, kids who can’t afford alcohol are very likely to resort to cheaper, more dangerous, intoxicants like glue and petrol.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I had a very drinkable bottle of red last night, cost me $10. on special at the supermarket.
I intend to open another tonight. This one cost $12 but I’m celebrating tonight.
Haven’t destroyed anything since drinking it, haven’t been arrested, beaten anyone up, stolen anything, driven dangerously because I was incapacitated (although I did speed by 3 or 4 kph for a few seconds at lunch time today) or vandalised much (just this blog with my comments).
That despite (officially) binge drinking.
Maybe it isn’t the booze after all.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
@RightNow: What, an unintended, undesired and potentially significant effect from a poorly thought out government policy?! Say it ain’t so!
@MT_Tinman: What’re you saying? It’s not what we’re drinking, or necessarily even how much, but the culture of what we do when drinking? And by “we”, I mean a small minority.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Well when they set the bar at 5+ standard drinks in a sitting it’s pretty hard not to be a binge drinker. I’ve tested myself after 6 beers in 3 hours and still been under 400 on the breath test. Different patterns for different people.
JiveKitty – I know, who’da thunk it?
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I will put it another way should you be able to get wasted for $10 on RTDs or anything else for that matter??
Because we can numpty.Why on Earth would we want to pay more to get something we can get cheaper? Im ok with drinking for free if thats possible.
You can have you couple of whines on the deck if you must.
Danke Mein Fuhrer! You are most generous!
I just think it should cost about $4-5 a glass for the cheapest wine. That is not too expensive for the average punter. But if a kid wants to get blotto then it should cost about $100.
Well you make some wine that costs about $4-5 a glass and try selling it to the rest of us….and we’ll see if we can find a better deal elsewhere…No kids going to paya hundred when he can get the same result for far less with a little effort.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
It would be a pity if the brilliant Tui beer hoardings were prohibited. Some of them are hilarious.
Vote:It wouldn’t be so bad if their beer was prohibited because it is shit.
COST OF GROG
A mate plays his best golf when he has a hangover. It ensures that he keeps his head down and plays in a methodical manner. But he complained that was golf was becoming far too expensive.
“If I have to spend $100 on piss on a Friday night to play good golf on a Saturday – the game’s too tough.”
August 24th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
We are not Italy. We have a culture that abuses alcohol to excess. Ask the Police on what we are dealing with. I think a kid should have to spend up to $100 to get drunk with consequential rises in ALL alcohol. Sure a couple of wines gets a bit dear to match that, but alcohol should be priced out of reach for the drunks to get drunk and for the young to get blotto. And when you face up to that you just might start to get on top of binge drinking and alcohol induced violence in our very violent country. And our road accidents and much else harm that is caused by alcohol in our society. I say ALL the measures announced by the Government are useless to stop abuse.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Just because you think it doesn’t make it worthwhile. If the costs to society of such an imposition is greater than the benefits it brings, such a policy should not be implemented. You, the wowsers and the government have weak cases for this, so you, the wowsers and the government sink to utilising emotive appeals. “Ask the police what they have to deal with.” “Think of the children!” “Think of the road accidents!” “Think of the violence!” “I look down on drunk people. They’re smelly.” (Note that I’m not attibuting all these sentiments to you individually.)
Yes, these are costs with which alcohol has some correlation (not causation), but these costs are already covered by and large through the taxes that are already paid on alcohol and furthermore, at some point as well, the increased level of prevention costs society more than it benefits. This is likely the case at present at least in terms of solutions offered given these solutions are on the whole poorly targeted – they affect the majority of drinkers instead of the minority causing the trouble. The problem as it is seen is the culture. Onto your specific hobby horse, price isn’t likely to have significant impact on that – there are easily accessible substitutes and a good likelihood that some form of black market will arise – and it imposes further costs on the majority of drinkers who don’t engage in poor behaviour.
Target the culture (through such measures as actually enforcing the law as it presently stands, encouraging individual accountability and responsibility and stigmatising stupid drunken behaviour) and maybe there’ll be support on cost/benefit grounds – as it should impose few costs on those who don’t engage in poor behaviour and decrease the costs of those who do engage in poor behaviour – and from those of us who care about our rights. Of course, doing this would be a long-term solution and take time to implement, so it won’t give you, the wowsers or the government that oh-so orgasmic instant gratification from imposing your own values upon others who have no need of nor desire for such imposition. But hey, would you rather have that or would you rather have an actual solution?
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Surely then those who get drunk off a glass of wine should also be banned right? Then it wouldn’t matter if you created these magical prices and distorted demand, you’d be able to ban them right away.
It’s crazy. Kiwi booze prices are not cheap. It’s cheaper for me to go and get pissed in London right now. Not just in shops, where you can buy any alcohol under the sun. But in pubs and some clubs. It isn’t about price… after all, once you ban something people ALWAYS find another way to get pissed. Will you be banning homebrewing? Will you be legislating that police can enter properties to ensure people are not making or selling home brew?
I love the Italian example. They are drunken animals too. Most of the West has a binge problem. Much of the ex Soviet bloc do too. It’s not about RTDs or whatever. It seems that this government is pandering to somebody…. I hope they know who!
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
@Clint – I’m not so sure that most of the west has a binge problem. I’ve been to Italy close to 10 times and stayed in cities, small towns etc. Same for France. Not once have I seen a pack of drunken idiots despite being in the Italian equivalent of Courtney Place quite often. I’ve wondered if binge drinking has anglo-saxon roots. Think Kiwis, Aussies, South Africans.. any one of these nation groups give the Germans a run for their money at Oktoberfest.
Vote:August 24th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
The Govt seems to have a very warped view of who causes the problems. Having been in several bars over the years to well past 4am I don’t think I have ever seen any real drunkness or aggression, but lots of pissed people letting off steam.
The drunk wankers I’ve seen causing the trouble appear for about 2 hours around midnight and have got drunk on cheap liquor at someones flat because they can’t afford to drink in town. Or they are way to young to get into any bars and just walk the streets looking for fights.
Can’t say I see a massive decrease in work for the Police coming after these law changes.
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Dom post editorial (25/8) was a shocker. Along the lines of tvb. Someone with some spare time needs to write a letter to the editor…basically argued that the costs of increasing the price (how was not clearly enunciated) were outweighed by the benefits in harm reduction. Without looking at any unintended consequences of such folly.
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 6:38 am
I would be surprised if Labour made a full alcohol reform a party vote particularly if it included something like changing the drinking age. I think Goff’s comments should be considered his own personal opinion.
The entire law commission report annoys me. It was a good chance for quality work in this area but the question seems to have been what will reduce levels of drinking the most particularly among young people rather than what will best alter our culture of drinking and prevent alcohol addiction. Most of the reforms don’t actually touch on addiction problems or cultural issues. It also failed to clearly state beforehand that we actually do have a drinking problem, presumably we have a baseline drinking rate that cannot be altered based on New Zealand’s genetic make up, socio-economic situation and international trade/activity even with a 99% enforced death penalty the drinking rate would not be 0 and as low as possible is not necessarily the best answer to what we want drinking levels anyway. It is difficult to assess your goal in reducing drinking or in fact if you already have the perfect set up without first assessing the actual level you are aiming at. It is good to see your focus on it, keep up the posts.
Vote: