8 pm closing!

October 25th, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Claire Trevett reports:

’s amendment had apparently time-travelled all the way from the 1920s and proposed off-licences shut at 8pm rather than the proposed 10pm.

The explanation for this early “lights out” was such a masterpiece of delicious, pious absurdity that it requires repeating: it was because people buying any later than 8pm were likely to be already a bit tipsy “and may not have the judgment and self-control necessary to make cogent decisions”.

Good God. The woser factor out in full force. We weak humans need protecting from ourselves because at 8 pm we’re already “tipsy”.

Tags: ,

29 Responses to “8 pm closing!”

  1. RightNow (6,640 comments) says:

    Because shift workers don’t tend to be Labour supporters?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (9,418 comments) says:

    This will be a popular policy. [Tui]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (13,304 comments) says:

    A complete and utter socialist fool with prime ministerial aspirations. Figure that out!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Positan (383 comments) says:

    re Manolo

    Come on now, be fair – Little is only exhibiting the same completely-out-of-touch tendencies as Shearer who has made “Leader.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Flyingkiwi9 (54 comments) says:

    As a University student (which makes me more informed on this matter) the only time we have started drinking before 8pm was when we started drinking before lunchtime.

    (Fun fact: that night no one got pregnant, drove drunk, injured themselves, damaged property, annoyed police, got in a fight or even disrupted the neighbours.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Sounds good to me. If you dont know that youd like a drink later by 8pm then you are too stupid to be out by yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. williamsheridan (63 comments) says:

    I understand he is proposing an amendment whereby purchases from union-owned premises and purchases from vendors who undertake to empoy an extra NZ-born apprentice drinks-pourer for every 12-pack sold will be exempt from the curfew.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. peterwn (3,139 comments) says:

    If some MP’s carry on like this – why not simply revert to 6 o’clock closing. The liquor industry loved 6 o’clock closing – kept their costs down – spartan bars with sawdust covered concrete floors and leaners – no seats – and males unaccompanied by females were banned from the lounge (‘ladies and escorts’) bar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RF (1,260 comments) says:

    Let’s make another rule that is just as modern. Men drink in the kitchen and women in the lounge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I suggest that all alcoholic beverages be banned from all Parliamentary buildings and precincts.

    Anyone who has consumed any amount of alcohol cannot enter the house for four hours after their last drink.

    Before they speak in the house they declare whether they have consumed alcohol at all on that sitting day.

    At the very least the enfeebled leader of NZF would only be seen about 6 sitting days a year.

    Little is such a twat as to go off the twat scale at a rate of knots not previously experienced by any twat – FFS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. edhunter (490 comments) says:

    You laugh now, but first they banned smoking inside, then it was public places now it’s plain packaging. Once they’ve finally get tobacco banned do you think they’ll rest on their laurels? yeah right it’s on to the next cause that we the unthinking populous need to saved from, in 20yrs time I wouldn’t be surprised to see prohibition on the cards again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. wreck1080 (3,721 comments) says:

    It’s a stupid suggestion of course, but, at least they’re thinking about it.

    Alcohol does immense damage to society.

    What are some solutions? Do we just accept this as the cost of a good night out?

    I’d think if alcohol were just invented today, and there was no history of consumption, it would be banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Steve (North Shore) (4,489 comments) says:

    Andrew Little is a typical Unionist Cork Soaker. He has no fucking idea of anything outside of the 8am to 4.30pm day.
    As I said, cork soaker

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    and at last,

    at long, long last, Claire Trevett (assistant political editor, NZ Herald)
    has made some sense.

    Was a long time comming.

    i guess that even a monkey, given a machine gun, will hit the target one day,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    +1 PEB @6pm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Steve (North Shore) (4,489 comments) says:

    Ran out of edit time on Andrew Little:

    Please make me Leader of the Liarbore Party and then Prime Minister and I will soak your corks, all of your corks, forever

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    May as well prevent the sale of desserts after 8:00pm while you’re at it.
    I’m sure that would cure obesity for the folk who lose all control of their appetite on a full stomach.
    Just need to find a way to make bars alcohol-free. They’re already smoke-free…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. hmmokrightitis (1,506 comments) says:

    This from a man – Little, and I use the term loosely – that has the sort of face that makes me think that he would be keen for as much alcohol to be consumed as possible by members of the community, merely to increase the chances of him getting laid.

    A face like a dropped pie. Poor lad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Johnboy (14,857 comments) says:

    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=oliver+cromwell&hl=en&sa=X&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgzoHsxCnfq6-gWFSekGBEgeIaZprkKHFF5BaVJyfF5yZklqeWFm8p_iDl9W11mebORpniWzY_fUH3-FcAHpYckNEAAAA&biw=1142&bih=598&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsuo&tbnid=NTgL38XP_qoEgM:&imgrefurl=http://atouchofknowledge.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/the-adventures-of-oliver-cromwells-head/&docid=OkQ-4lJVjvPZAM&imgurl=http://atouchofknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/cromwell-painting.jpeg&w=435&h=443&ei=6eGIUMKuEuuSiAfQx4GQDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=384&vpy=135&dur=913&hovh=227&hovw=222&tx=123&ty=103&sig=104124734316792355775&page=1&tbnh=139&tbnw=149&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:74

    Amazing the difference a pair of specs makes! :)

    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Andrew-little_5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andrew-little_5.jpg&h=349&w=300&sz=62&tbnid=7kRl8Z2qvaSquM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=89&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dandrew%2Blittle%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=andrew+little&usg=__AFeuvJR1b_t5uaBo4lZLwOhQvkc=&docid=pVlEaUulWg3xmM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eeKIUJ-DDcejiged4IGYDw&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQ9QEwCA&dur=4595

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    Can’t wait for the ad campaign.
    “Don’t drink and shop.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Michael (894 comments) says:

    Foolish idea with unintended consequences. If you want to limit some of the problems caused by drinking in ‘party districts’ like Courtenay Place you should allow bottle stores to open later.

    Has Andrew Little been talking to bar owners for ideas about alcohol control? They’re the ones who will profit from this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. pq (728 comments) says:

    In Thailand we are forbidden to buy alcohol in Government approved retail outlets
    except between the hours 11am till 1pm ; or 5pm till 7.00pm.
    and not if the King has a birthday, or some big monk has a birthday and electoral reasons,
    and all this is exempt if you are going to buy more than 10 litres and then you can buy it any time.

    And also if you go into any little trader in the town you can buy anything,
    you can look at the girl sideways with your eye, and say how much for you
    and this bottle of whisky, and you will get an answer,
    but if you say like do you have wine, they will just point to the dried up chicken and stuff on the table there,
    and the girl will go away, and say farang go tesco lotus, hours 1 till 1pm and 5pm till 7pm, see me later if you try.

    We are openly encouraging Military takeover

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. pq (728 comments) says:

    One is expecting of course that Eric Crampton will not be able to resist this absurd idea.
    that is Early closing, lets get the still ready now.
    google “Eric Crampton” Economist Canterbury about for the spurious arguments for wowser prohibition

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Paul Marsden (983 comments) says:

    Surely he jests..?? If not, he needs to up his meds. Twat

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. pq (728 comments) says:

    good on ya Marsden,
    twit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    The ongoing comparison to smoking strikes me as absurd. Smoking has no safe dose, no health benefits. It does provide pleasure to those who smoke, otherwise nobody would do it.

    Drinking, however, is demonstrated to have health benefits at moderate levels (1-2 drinks per day), and drinking 2-4 drinks per day is approximately as healthy as drinking no drinks per day. In short, only those with abuse problems are harming their health. Banning something that most people do safely because a few people do it unsafely seems to me ludicrous. If we follow that logic, we’d also have to legislate that everyone drink at least the 1-2 drinks per day – as that’s the maximum health benefit. We could have govt run pubs where people had to turn up for their daily dose. It makes as much sense as the regulation does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    New Zealanders are not big drinkers. We are constantly told we drink far more than other countries. It is a lie.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption

    Look at the countries on that list that drink more. Now look at those who drink less than we do. Ask your self which you would prefer to live in?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    How many of these drop kick MP’s that may actually decide this brag quitely to each other how they got pissed up big time at varsity, took part in chunder miles, only got fucked because the partner was too drunk to realize how ugly they were? Most I would imagine. Especially the really ugly ones

    Prohibition of any type does not work fucktards, Volstead proved that beyond any doubt.

    Its simple:
    Bars are open 7.00am until 2.00am . Bottle stores can make their own hours in that time period.

    You are either 18 – 20 years old – its really basic but these clowns in Wellington will once again make a huge deal out of this trying to give the impression they actually do something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Griff (6,694 comments) says:

    Another topic were opinion is paraded as fact to justify a pre constructed standpoint

    how many drinks are safe?
    Around 2 standard drinks per day is excepted as the maximum safe level over this your chances of developing a addiction or suffering harm as a result of alcohol consumption rise to significant levels. #

    Alcohol is a major cost on the new Zealand economy to have the standpoint that it lubricates the wheels of life is to ignore the death destruction crime and social costs it creates

    Prohibition does not work Our drug laws should be evaluated on a comparison of the harm each individual drug does not on the industry’s with the most money to lobby Or the drug taking pattern of the lawmakers.

    Prohibition has more downsides then benefit as with any readily grown or manufactured drug.

    Education in the real impact of alcohol consumption should be promoted so persons who drink actually understand the risks
    including daily safe dose and the health impacts on packaging.

    Taxing alcohol excessively creates a black market to use price rises as a tool to decrease use will create more harm than benefit

    Encouraging responsibleness use by careful structure of the related laws should be a goal of all drug legislation.
    For instance the blanket alcohol bans in some places do harm to responsible drinkers. I often go to the local beach to have a wine as the sun goes down. A responsible use of alcohol illegal at many beaches We already have laws around drunk and disorderly why do we need bans? Is the burden of proof for excessive intoxication in public or the level it sits at to high?

    #
    http://www.ahw.org.nz/resources/Law%20Commission%20review%202010/Fact%20Sheets/Fact%20Sheet%20Alcohol%20Harm%20in%20New%20Zealand%20final%202009.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol
    http://alcoholism.about.com/od/effect/a/risky_drinking.htm

    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.