Selling liquor to under-age people
May 15th, 2011 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarBelinda McCammon in the SST reports:
A TRANS-TASMAN alcohol blitz has left police disappointed at the number of liquor outlets that continue to break the law despite an extensive campaign warning retailers not to sell alcohol to minors.
Operation Unite, which started throughout Australia and New Zealand on Friday night, is the fourth time the nations’ police have worked together in a weekend of action targeting alcohol harm.
I’m all in favour of Police operations where they crack down on outlets selling liquor to under 18 year olds. In fact I think they should be doing it far far more often.
But why is it a Trans-Tasman operation? The issues are a purely local one. Is there some belief that we should only crack down, if Australia is also? Trans-tasman operations make sense for crimes which involve our borders, or criminals working together from both countries. But why for a simple under-age drinking sting?
The New Zealand side of the operation, which lasted from 6pm on Friday and finished at 6am yesterday, involved 1069 police officers.
Sales practices were tested by controlled purchase operations at 208 off-licence liquor outlets, and there were 46 incidents of alcohol being sold to minors. …
121 controlled purchase operations were run at licensed liquor outlets to test whether minors were being sold alcohol.
46 incidents when alcohol was sold to minors on these occasions.
It seems around 35% of outlets sold liquor to an under 18 year old. That is a massively high figure and to me suggests the Police should be doing these crackdowns monthly or even fortnightly. It also reinforces my belief that better enforcement of the current law is preferable to changing the law.
May 15th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
It would make good sense for Australian states to coordinate action for maximum publicity. AFAIK NZ police are part of the Australian Police federation and so NZ police thought as good time as any.
Still cannot understand how so many shops still get ‘stung’ over liquor sales to under-age. This is just asking for a wholesale cancellation of licences and sales being restricted to dedicated liquor stores as in the old days.
Vote:May 15th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
However we will ignore those purchasing u/age, supply by the U/age to other underage, public drunkeness, casting offensive matter, indecent exposure, offensive behavour, damage to property and the other downstream outcomes.
Vote:We will still target retailers who are targeted at times of very busy activity with 17yr 11 mnth clevers in stings on the basis they are permanent addresses, with the ability to pay fines and be punished with interruption to their income stream and under pressure with low turnovers and margins from the supermarkets selling booze cheap as loss leaders.
And we will call it justice just so the people know that we are doing something about the youth binge drinking culture.
If I fail to secure my firearms and a stolen weapon of mine is used in a crime, I will have my licence revoked, when was a prosecution brought against a person who failed to prevent misuse of liquor in their home or from liquor removed from that home?
How many youths are maimed or killed from incidents following drinking liquor taken without permission or provided by adults known to the damaged.
May 15th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
As long as we still throw around the term ‘wowser’ for anyone who complains about our drinking culture, nothing will change. There’s so much hypocrisy around this issue.
Vote:May 15th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
I’d be interested in their methodology. Did they go out of their way to pick someone who looks old enough, and send them in? Or are they sending someone who is reasonably clearly not old enough. If the former, then I have some sympathy for the retailer. If the latter, I’m gob smacked that a third sold liquor to them.
Vote:May 15th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
I think the trans tasman operation is a publicity stunt. It works to be fair to them.
Vote:May 15th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
“It also reinforces my belief that better enforcement of the current law is preferable to changing the law.”
This is the case for so many of our new laws. We already have many laws that, if enforced, wouldn’t require the new laws that are being pushed through (both by National these days, and more-so (probably due to the length of time they were in office) the Labour party.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 7:51 am
nz cops are so incompetent they need the help of the aussies.
Only reason i can think of for making it transtasman.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 8:34 am
So named “Trans-Tasman Operations” could be the excuse for some top brass having trips to Aussie …could be a junket for some?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 8:35 am
They used a 16 year old to do the buying and a 17 year old accompanied him (or so I read in the paper).
Since most places have a sign that says something like “we check everyone who looks under 25″, looking <25 should mean an age check.
Interesting enough all but one of the off-licences (where the age limit is proposed to go up to 20 complied) wheres it was the on-licences (where the age limit is proposed to stay at 18) had the high failure rate.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
It’s hardly surprising that licensed outlets aren’t complying if nobody is enforcing the rules. This sort of operation should be regular – how hard is it for a cop to go round with a 17 year old every few months to every bottle store / supermarket in the area and see if they are served of not?
Vote: