$2 a standard drink advocated
October 15th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Alcohol has become so affordable that it is cheaper than bottled water and approaching the price of milk, says a study made public today.
Silly comparisons. Tap water is still near zero. Bottled water is a premium product – comparing it to discounted alcohol is misleading. One should compare it to the more expensive alcohol products. And milk is outraegously expensive – but that is no reason to make alcohol the same.
A $2 minimum price per standard drink would reduce binge drinking without affecting social drinkers, Professor Sellman said.
First of all a minimum price would be the wet dreams for the liquor industry. Their profits would go up massively. Nothing wrong with that – just a surprise that someone who equates them to drug dealers wants them to make so much more money.
So what would $2/standard drink mean for certain items. A standard drink is 10g or 12.7 ml of alcohol.
- a 350 ml bottle of 4% beer could not cost less than $2.20. 5% beer would cost $2.76 or $33.07 for a dozen – not sure if GST would be on top of that
- a 750 ml bottle of 12% wine could not sell for under $14.17
- A 1l bottle of Baileys could not sell for under $26.77
- A 1125ml bottle of vodka could not sell for under $65.55
Related posts:
- Well done TVNZ
- Labour’s $2 a standard drink policy
- Labour in retreat
- How much should we pay for a drink?
October 15th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Wowserism advocated by academics. elitists, and do-gooders and abetted by a weak government.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Load of crap – by comparing standard drinks by alcohol weight with other beverages by volume you can make the figures come out any way you want.
In truth moderate consumption of alcohol is beneficial to health, physical and mental.
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2010/10/pointy-headed-prat-beneficiary-claims.html
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:10 am
There is scandal in the report; That a bottle of Waikato tap water should cost more than the equivalent of good honest booze.
Luckily the “report” does not call for more taxation to achieve their (humourless society) goals so the left wing pollies will ignore it.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:14 am
“First of all a minimum price would be the wet dreams for the liquor industry”
not for manufacturers of codys/woodstock/lion brown/tattoo/vat 69 etc etc etc etc
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Wowserism as Manolo put it.
Simple economics at work. People are prepared to pay a premium for bottle water and so companies take advantage of that.
If people stopped buying bottled water because they felt it was too expensive, the price of bottled water would drop. (Then it would be cheaper than alcohol – perhaps we should regulate bottled water producers instead of increasing tax on alcohol???)
The relative expense of bottled water vs alcohol has nothing to do with any perceived or real relationship between alcohol and health, or between alcohol and water. It is simply a reflection of what consumers are prepared to pay.
A fundamental issue with trying to compare the two in the way the wowsers are is that they are not competing products. Someone who buys more water is not going to buy less alcohol and vice versa. Therefore the comparative prices per glass, litre or any other measure is meaningless…
Other than to show that economics is working – people will pay more for bottled water and so they do
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:18 am
You can get a 500ml can of beer from a supermarket in Switzerland for 0.90 francs (approx $1.25NZD).
What’s wrong something being priced according to what it’s worth?
If a society has a problem with alcohol, then pricing/taxing is not the way to address it (sticking plaster/ambulance-at-bottom-of-cliff approach).
There are obviously deeper issues that should be exposed and tackled.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:19 am
The problem is the price of water is too bloody expensive
Vote:In South Korea, you can buy a 500ml bottle for 35 cents.
That’s what it should cost not $2.50 like it is here
October 15th, 2010 at 11:23 am
From an equality viewpoint this would by far disproportionately effect the poor? How many “rich pricks” buy $6 wine?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Isn’t it ironic that a washed up lawyer like Geoffrey Palmer once wrote books such as Unbridled Power, warning of the unfettered power of the NZ executive?
That same lawyer now, through his cushy government job at the Law Commission (can you pronounce ‘quango’ still Geoff?) churns out reports on a daily basis which mostly contain attacks on our rights and civil liberties.
What a fucking sell-out.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:24 am
This is a brilliant idea. We should apply this logic to everything that causes a problem.
Q. But people make vodka at home from potatoes?
A. Well lets put a minimum $2 price limit on each potato.
Q. But people can grow their own potatoes?
A. Well lets put a minimum $2 price limit on each potato plant.
Q. But this will all cause inflation to increase and would be hard on low income families?
A. Increase welfare payments.
Q. How do we reduce carbon emissions?
A. Lets put a $2 price minimum limit on petrol.
….
Profit!
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:28 am
marynicolehicks,
Actually the answer to your last question is “let’s tax everyone else to pay for our trains”
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:33 am
This would never work anyway. All the cheap alcohol brands are made with Ethanol from Fontera (by-product of cheese making process?). If any political party successfully reduced the amount of drinking it would reduce Fontera’s profit and dairy farmers would not make as much money. They would blame the government as it is always their fault. The art of politics is to appear to do something without achieving anything. That way you apparently please more people.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Who pays for these studies and the operation of anti-alcohol groups? I suspect the government does. Why?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:35 am
750ml Pump – $3
568ml Guinness – $9.
I think I see where the problem is…
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:36 am
DavidP: The government does and ALAC is also funded by the liquor industry.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Who the hell is Professor Sellman to be social engineering without even the popularity contest of being elected to the office of telling other people what to do?
Here’s a question for Professor Sellman. At what point of raising prices will people stop buying commerical alcohol and start distilling their own with its resultant social, medical and legal impacts? Answer: We’re already there and you trying to make people better with a tax isn’t going to improve things.
Is there a $2 stardard price on over educated stupid this week or something?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Murray, Sellman has been pushing a fallacy, as reported three years ago, but it’s still treatred as gospel:
http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/i-told-you-those-lying-bastards-were-making-it-up/
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:43 am
@OliverI
Narrows eyes… do you mean per glass or bottle?
You must mean per glass right? Nobody makes wine for $6 per bottle surely…
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Tax is always the answer ffs.
Id still pay $65 per bottle of glorious vodka!
If this ever came in, watch levels of illegal drug use sky rocket. People like to get fucked up! and godbless us.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Chthoniid – I frequently see wine on special in the $6 range at both New World and Pak’n'save supermarkets.
disclaimer – I don’t buy or drink it.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:55 am
surely you cant conclude from that report that alcohol is too cheap. i would have thought that the more glaringly obvious conclusion was that bottled water was WAY TOO EXPENSIVE!
we talk about tying to make people eat and drink more healthily …. why is it then, that i can buy a bottle of coke for half the price of a bottle of water! for f**ks sake, way to make people healthy. genius!
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Standard drink should be $10 not $2. That would stop alcohol abuse significantly. And home brew can have an excise imposed if you get caught.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I could not agree with you more that this is a ‘silly comparison’. What is it about people who deliberately distort comparisons to make a point, when even the most casual analysis reveals the truth. A bit like comparing the number of candidates elected with the number of elected offices won?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Price of water is clearly too high.
And putting the price up will only mean more money spent on alcohol.
If the wowsers really wanted to attack preloading then they should advocate subsidising drinks in bars.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
“You must mean per glass right? Nobody makes wine for $6 per bottle surely…”
Chthoniid, in the paper this morning – two bottles of the Obikwa range from South Africa for $11 at Countdown. That’s $5.50 a bottle and it’s come from South Africa. And to think people accuse supermarkets of loss-leading….
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Prof Sellout needs to get himself on a decent boozy bus trip. That should clear his mind nicely.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
@ GPT1: Could you imagine hitting the turps with that appalling bore? You’d need heroin just to take the edge off.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Dan 11.18 I remember backpacking in Switzerland where we used to buy cans of beer from a vending machine in a camping ground! Imagine the wowsers going on about too many liquor outlets having vending machines to deal with?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
It’s interesting that a lot of people seem to think that price should be related to the underlying cost of production plus distribution etc (i.e. bottled water should be cheap). But you only see that with commodities in a very competitive market – like iron ore or crude oil. You don’t really see this with branded consumer products (unless the brand itself is all about cheapness). The manufacturer wants to make as much money as possible, for as long as possible. End of story. Selling your product as cheaply as possible is rarely the way to make enduring profits. Mostly they try to make a brand which makes your feel like you’re getting something special and are happy to pay a good price. And there needs to be pretty to profit in the chain for the distributor and retailer as well.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
My biggest problem with this article (though I agree the sentiment is ridiculous) is that the facts aren’t even correct. A very quick look at the Woolworths website shows that water can be purchased for as little as $0.19 for 250ml (4L bottle on special at $2.99 – next cheapest is $0.21, 2L not on special at $1.69) – I don’t know if the author just looked at 750ml bottles, which are naturally more expensive since they’re a convenience product, but if you’re looking at cask wine you also need to look at the budget options in the water aisle.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I hate these irrelevant comparisons people make to try and prove a stupid point. A common one is to say that “petrol is cheaper per litre than milk” – as if there’s something wrong with that! Of course petrol and alcohol are cheaper – there aren’t big underground supplies of fresh milk in the Middle East, we have to suck it out of cows’ udders then transport it under refrigeration – that costs a bit.
If you’re not buying “brand-name” water, you can actually get the bottled stuff pretty cheap.
On Police Ten-7 last night, there were all these drunk arseholes (all looked >20 btw) swearing, fighting, arguing with cops on the streets, running away when arrested. One guy wanted to “see a doctor you faggot cunts” and made himself puke in the cells. He was let off with a “6-month good behaviour bond”. Another guy got a fine of $80 for D&D.
These pricks are the problem, not the price of alcohol. Fine them properly. Lock them up. Punish them – word will soon get around that you can’t act like that or there will be consequences. These dickheads will ignore the piddly fine, ignore the behaviour bond, and then start a fight the next time they get drunk – even if they have to pay $2 per 10g of EtOH for the privilege.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Hear hear.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Cigarettes,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Smoker.
THEN THEY CAME for the Alco-pops,
and I didn’t speak up because I didn’t like them anyway.
THEN THEY CAME for the Spirits,
and I didn’t speak up because I don’t like them either.
THEN THEY CAME for Beer,
Vote:and by that time no one was left who thought it odd that a grown man couldn’t have a beer.
October 15th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
chthoniid @ 1143, My Boutique wine (Three varieties and very small quantities) is made by a very gifted wine maker at a winery for around $6 a bottle for making and bottling but excluding any cost of freight and fruit. That cost is incurred post delivery of fruit to winery to case pickup from bottler.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“If the wowsers really wanted to attack preloading then they should advocate subsidising drinks in bars.”
If they really wanted to attack preloading they would tie an alcohol excise increase against sugar content.
- The kiddies like the alcopops because they are sweet
- If they are too expensive they won’t buy them
- If they choose an alternative (possible but not 100% likely) they will likely get less alcohol content or drink less of them because they are less sweet
- If the producers reduced the sugar content to get around the excise increase they defeat themselves as the reduced sweetness won’t attract the same group of drinkers or to the same extent
I accept this is not a perfect solution, but it is a means to reduce the amound and/or effects of preloading wihout a general alcohol tax increase – i.e. it is a targeted approach, targeted at the problem group
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Sellman is a typically arrogant wanker who thinks that he knows best and all us peasants should shut up and listen, because he is a Professor. Alcohol is priced too high as far as I am concerned. I don’t drink much but I nearly fall over when I see the price of Glenmorangie.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Their data is bullshit. This is the kind of thing you expect from the IPCC!
Apparently a standard drink is bnotional drink that contains a specified amount of pure alcohol (wikipedia). NZ Food Safety say the 500mls of 5% (by volume) beer is the equivalent of 2 std drinks. This means that one std drink is 100mls of 12.5% wine.
The researchers say that they found cask wine for 62 cents per std drink, beer for 64 cents and bottled wine for 65 cents; whilst milk was 43 cents per 250mls and 67 cents for the same amount of bottled water.
Well by my calculations that means: 3 litre cask of 12.5% wine is $18.60 (Cheapest I could find a New World in Wellington was around $21) ; 12 x 330ml cans of DB = $10.43 (NW price is $15.99) and a bottle of 12.5% wine at $4.88!!! (cheapest in NW was about 2-3 times that price). It also means that the researchers found 2L bottles of milk for $3.44 (NW is $5) and bottled water at $2.68 per litre (NW has 8 x 300ml bottles for $7.59 or $3.16per litre but they did have 10L containers for $1 per litre).
So either their data is fucked or Dunedin is the cheapest place in NZ to buy groceries. Professor Nick Wilson and fellow researcher Fiona Gunasekara need to show us the data – if it exists!
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Interestingly there was in effect a ‘cosy’ relationship between the temperance people (ban or at least restrict liquor) and the breweries (who owned most licenced premises). They both favoured 6 oclock closing, the temperance people to supposedly limit consumption, and the breweries because 6 oclock closing saved the costs of opening into the evenings without reducing consumption too much. Male primary school teachers were hired to man the beer pumps during the peak 4-6pm period.
Agreed that minimum pricing will be a financial windfall for the industry. Even though it is intended to limit advertising, I suspect much more money will be ploughed into indirect promotions and consumption will not drop significantly. The best answer is to progressively raise excise duties over a decade or so to cut right into consumption. The danger here is the Government may get addicted on the revenues and be reluctant to increase prices beyond the point of optimum revenue return.
There are political problems with greatly increasing excise duties – the ‘working mans beer’ has been a sensitive topic ever since Nordie’s 1958 Black Budget. In pre GST days, there was a higher tax on a bottle of soft drink than a bottle of beer, because with soft drink, the tax was a price percentage, whereas with beer it remained the same until increased by legislation. However I think that minimum pricing will cause more problems than higher excise duties. However I would support a ban on the sale of alcohol at a price which is less than the duty imposed ie subsidised by other sales.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Brian, as a single-malt drinker I agree with you.
Vote:Next time you’re town I’ll shout you some Dalwhinnie and Macallan Elegancia. Cheers.
October 15th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Manolo – which town?
Last single malt I actually brought was Laphroaig.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Single-malt capital of NZ: Wellington, of course.
Some from Islay are too peaty for me. I do prefer Speyside malts, but am open-minded and always prepared to try a good drop. Have you tasted Scappa, the one from the Orkneys?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Nope – but I am in Wellington next week.
I liked the peaty Islay malts. I thought laphroaig was like drinking nectar. And Prof Sellman wants me to pay how much?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Brian, let me know the date you’ll be here. If possible, we’ll meet a drink some good stuff (my shout).
Vote:Drop me your email details, if you wish. Cheers.
October 15th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Manolo,
Still waiting to catch up with you at The Lady. When is the next Libs meeting?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
A better idea is to forget about Beer and wine and Single malt – the persons who buy the good stuff for socialising will be adversely affected and drag our beer quality back to the 1950s due to price. We need to deal with Goon , Alco-pop and those 9.99 ‘light spirits’ masquerading as vodka, gin and rum !
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
I haven’t attended one for ages. No longer at the The Quiet Lady. So, we’ll have to drink somewhere else in town.
Vote:Your call of venue and I shall attend.
October 15th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Manolo,
Where’s easier for you? Are you up around Boulcott St area? I like The Shepherds Arms in Thorndon for a quiet ale, but not so good for a malt drinker such as you. Your choice of Vivo or The Arms (whisky or ale) – next Tuesday at 5pm
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
They really are stunners aren’t they…..
Let’s put a minimal price on drinks, then act all suprised when we find we have a black market for cheap grog…
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Dime no need to pay $65, I can hook you up with some good juice at $15 a bottle.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
The Arms would be perfect. What about Thursday 5.15pm instead?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Does this mean there will be no more Suntory time?
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Manolo,
Done! See you then
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
You can safely ignore Doug. He’s a longstanding fundy wowser christian, content to twist any data to his world view. You can take most of what comes out of the “national” centre for addictions research with a large grain of sodium chloride also, though it’s likely they would want to tax that too.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
# Murray (6,314) Says:
October 15th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Dime no need to pay $65, I can hook you up with some good juice at $15 a bottle.
Dime…assuming Murray is a fellow homebrewer of spirts I can beat that offer.But we will have to barter…..Murray will be out of business and in prison with his arse being used as a dartboard as selling Homebrew is an offence in the peoples socialist republic of OW-tear-roa.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Time to kill off the lie that NZ is a cheap place to drink. Inbound tourists for the RWC next year will find that at $8 a pint (500ml, not a pint) downtown Wellington is more expensive than central London, Edinburgh, Rome, Paris, Dublin, or Cardiff.
I’m just back from France. A 5L cask of perfectly drinkable Merlot or Sav B is about $15 from a big supermarket. In Rome the tiny cafe under our flat did 660ml bottles of 5% beer for less than $4.
On top of that, we’re a low wage economy. This is an expensive place to drink (and a good place:-)).
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Seams like the herald is stooping to new lows of sensationalism. A huge front page story on how bottled water is more expensive than alcohol. Does anyone with half a brain consider the Herald a respectable Newspaper anymore?
“PRICE OF DRINKING
43c… milk (250ml glass)
62c… cask wine
64c… beer
65c… bottled wine
67c… bottled water (250ml glass)
78c… spirits
* Price per standard drink”
How fucking missleading. If they wanted to be bloody sensible they would have put tap water up in that list, and budget coke, and orange juice. The herald is nothing more than textual diahrea.
Vote:October 15th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
“just a surprise that someone who equates them to drug dealers wants them to make so much more money.”
You forget, its not surprising when the person is a stupid, idealistic, liberty hating retard.
Vote:October 16th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Brian Smaller and Manolo, Laphroig is a very good drop. I hope you guys enjoy.
Vote:This whole alcohol thing is a complete bollocks and the hysteria which comes from headlines such as “Booze cheaper than water” from the Herald are worse than Paul Holmes crusade against P.
I would just like ALAC, Geoffrey Palmers mob and all the rest of the do-gooders to fuck off out of my shed and my private life.
If I want to come home from a big day at work and quietly abuse alcohol without beating my wife or putting my children in the clothes dryer then thats my business. I pay my taxes, turn up for work on time and dont bash my wife or kids.
Kindly fuck off from my private life you eggs.