Drinkers not stupid

June 25th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Dom Post editorial:

The eight Wellington city councillors who voted to ban off-licence sales after 9pm in the hope of curbing the harm from people guzzling booze before they hit the pubs have overlooked one very important point – their targets are not stupid.

Unlike the Councillors arguably!

The move will not stop the pre-loaders from getting a head start before they go out for the night. If anything, it is likely to see them start drinking excessively earlier in the evening, causing more problems than it will solve while penalising every responsible drinker from one end of the city to the other.

Yep, it will. Many don’t start drinking at home until 10 pm or so but if they have to go buy the alcohol before 9 pm, the parties will simply start earlier and last longer.

Councillors who support the proposal, adopted by eight votes to seven, say it will help prevent people pre-loading at home or side-loading – avoiding paying bar prices by ducking out of pubs to buy takeaway alcohol or to consume previously hidden caches.

The desire to tackle those problems is laudable. Pre- and side-loading are undeniably factors in the excessive levels of intoxication that are a blight on Wellington’s nightlife.

However, simply banning off-licence sales after 9pm will solve nothing. It is absurd to believe it will be beyond the wit of those who pre- and side-load to get organised enough to visit off-licences before they have to stop selling alcohol.

Yet, it will disadvantage someone doing their household shopping late at night, who can’t buy a bottle of wine with it.

Tags: , , ,

30 Responses to “Drinkers not stupid”

  1. kowtow (6,701 comments) says:

    The great Ronald Reagan comes to mind……The 9 most frightening words…..

    I’m from the govt and i’m here to help.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    :lol: LOL – what’s that supposed to accomplish?

    Every time I’ve had a big night out in Wellington, the BBQ/preloading always began well before 9pm.

    (Come to think of it, it frequently began well before 2pm… :oops: )

    DPF:
    Many don’t start drinking at home until 10 pm or so but if they have to go buy the alcohol before 9 pm, the parties will simply start earlier and last longer.

    Weaklings.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    Drug and alcohol dependency- yet another wonderful outcome of the Progressives’ cultural hegemony.

    The councillors are trying, but they’ve yet to latch on to the real problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Many don’t start drinking at home until 10 pm or so but if they have to go buy the alcohol before 9 pm, the parties will simply start earlier and last longer.

    So if they have the alcohol, they will drink it.

    Ok, I’m totally convinced they’re not stupid :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Redbaiter alcohol dependance goes back to pre civilization.
    Yet you blame it on progressives
    progressives would much rather have other safer options available such as pot and E both of with are banned by retards like you.
    So your claim that progressives are responsible for alcohol addiction is Bullshite conservatives are responsible for alcohol and all its negatives.
    The real problem is basing law on feelings not fact something conservatives like you insist on.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    Yet another reason why I don’t want my town to become part of a Wellington super city.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    What a ridiculous decision by our council. It really smacks of: “We must DO something about it. This is something. Therefore we have done something about it.”

    I think DPF has nailed it – people will just buy the same volume of alcohol, or likely more, earlier and be in an even worse state when they hit town.

    I despair of what passes for careful consideration among our current councillors.

    John Morrison and like minded council candidates should commit to bringing this to a vote again in the next term.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Drug and alcohol dependency- yet another wonderful outcome of the Progressives’ cultural hegemony.

    :mad: My name is Redbaiter… the last time I had a drink was August 24th 1997… and I’ve been sucking lemons ever since.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Prince (81 comments) says:

    Does anyone have a list of the eight councillors who voted for the ban ?
    Will come in handy come October.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Those damned progressives eh, that massive drinking problem is Russia, the one theyve had for the last couple of hundred years, since Anatoly found out that fermented spuds could get you high…

    oh, hang on…

    Anyway, with the rise and rise of online shopping, I cannot remember the last time I bought wine, beer or spirits from a liquor store or supermarket. Why would you bother? And its not like online as a channel is shrinking…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. WineOh (428 comments) says:

    Quick declaration of interest- I own a licensed liquor store, fine wine so bear in mind I have vested interests in this.
    From a basic level, its not hard to see that there’s an issue with binge drinking in NZ. This is nothing new, has been around pretty much since the creation of alcohol. The problem is, our well intentioned councillors are attacking the problem with the only means they have- restricting supply. They have no means to combat demand outside of public relations campaigns, and subsidy of alcohol free youth entertainment. They have a fringe control on supply in the issuing of alcohol licenses through administration of the District Licensing Agency.

    The effect of bringing forward a close time on off-license premises makes sense from a superficial level- restrict the supply of alcohol to reduce the consumption. Potentially impacts on viability of businesses selling alcohol, potentially reducing the numbers of outlets or at least reducing the rate of increase.

    The only people who it really impacts on are the spontaneous buyers. I believe we have steadily come to make alcohol a convenience purchase, pick up a bottle of wine here & there at the supermarket to have with dinner. 96% of wine in NZ is consumed within 48 hours of purchase. If people are determined to get pissed, they’ll plan to do it. The spontaneous “hey lets get a quart of vodka” at 11pm … are relatively few. 9pm does seem early, I’m often eating dinner around that time.

    Those who are going out on the town deliberately to get pissed are going to do it regardless.

    For my business personally, doesn’t really make a bit of difference as I close at 8pm. Every now and then we have an event (eg- private wine tasting) that runs later than that, but almost never past 9pm anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    The worst kind of curtain twitching proto fascists become local body politicians, only because they lack the….whatever…to become central government polticians.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. labrator (1,691 comments) says:

    So if you like to avoid the after work mad-rush at the supermarket and shop late, or you finish work at 8 and won’t finish your shop ’til after 9pm you can’t buy wine unless you plan too make another trip to the supermarket… What a dim idea. We need to encourage more moderate drinking from a younger age like the French have for centuries. Stop demonising the drink and making its appeal more illicit.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. MT_Tinman (2,790 comments) says:

    In days gone by you’d hit 9pm in the booze barn and shoot across to the bottlestore for a dozen and a half bottle of Bacardi (There might be sheilas at the party) before settling back into the lounge bar to await the 10pm closing, takeaway booze stored under the table (or, for the lucky ones) in the car.

    Sounds like the WCC miss those far more innocent and inconvenient days.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    “We must DO something about it. This is something. Therefore we have done something about it.”

    Read the full editorial, where the fuckwit editor, a prog himself no doubt, calls for an increase in policing and enforcement. Same old same old. Stupid prog social mores leading to an increase in government powers. All we need is a civil society, and less regulation and less police, but the tunnel visioned and self deluding progs long ago finished this as any kind of realistic ambition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    As you can see NZ does not have a drinking problem, unless you compare us with Saudi Arabia. We are lied to about our levels of drinking.

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

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. gump (1,228 comments) says:

    @Kea

    That table you linked shows the statistics for pure ethyl alcohol consumption per capita.

    9.62 litres of total consumption per year per capita is 192.4 litres of beer @ 5%, or 80.2 litres of wine @ 12%, or 24 litres of whiskey @ 40%.

    Per person per year!!

    That’s an extraordinary amount of alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. UglyTruth (3,042 comments) says:

    All we need is a civil society, and less regulation and less police

    Civil society is why the world is in such a mess. By civil society I mean society which is a part of the Roman civil system, i.e. humans who are dependent on the state for protection. The civil law has always been philosophically incompatible with the law of the land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. gravedodger (1,426 comments) says:

    With the pathetic and stupid ‘prohibition’ relics that manifested as “dry Areas” throughout NZ in the middle of last century, among the clear outcomes were;
    greater numbers of alcoholics within the ‘Dry Areas’ due to bulk buying and accompanying bulk drinking
    plus little pubs on the borders of the dry areas enjoying a trade level far beyond what the geographic location should have delivered.

    Unintended consequences.
    So preloaders will gravitate to storage with its increased temptation factors and mobility buying in adjacent areas with more liberal by laws and the accompanying drugged driving.

    Canute didn’t get it either.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    gump (691) Says:
    June 25th, 2013 at 5:29 pm
    @Kea

    That table you linked shows the statistics for pure ethyl alcohol consumption per capita.

    So what ? It is about the consumption of alcohol not water.

    That is an obvious point and you are smart enough to know that. I can therefore only assume that you “feel” that we are heavy drinkers, but you have no evidence to prove it. So you have resorted to attempting to discredit the actual evidence which clearly shows we are no where near a heavy drinking nation compared to the rest of the world.

    If you want to oppose drinking then do so. But do not be silly by demanding water be included in alcohol consumption figures. Using your logic a pint of vodka is no worse than a pint of beer as it is still a pint, but you did not stop to think about that did you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Than (371 comments) says:

    @gump – work out those per year figures as per week.

    That 192.4 liters of beer for example works out to 583 cans of beer annually, or just under a dozen a week. That could be a single beer with dinner every night plus a couple extra over the weekend, or it could be six beers (so moderately intoxicated, but still easily able to be served at any bar) on Fridays and Saturday nights. Put in those terms it is not a huge amount.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    The anti booze brigade are not motivated by alcohol control but by people control. They are not concerned about people, they are concerned with forcing others to comply with their will.

    They knowingly misrepresent the facts and tell outright lies to promote their goals. This is totally unacceptable behaviour from government funded groups.

    This is a little closer to the truth. Compare it with the lies told by the anti booze brigade. You can independently check any of the claims made easily enough: http://www.hospitalitynz.org.nz/industry/liquor_realities.html

    Personally I regard the anti booze people with utter contempt. They are proven liars and lust for more and more power. We do have serious problems with the drink in NZ, but I do not think those liars and freaks are the ones to address the issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    put in the terms that kids dont drink in fact many dont drink and you per person consumption heads towards alcoholism.
    who drinks my can a day? any more than two drinks a day is considered a problem. These statistics mean we have a proportion of alcohol impaired that is quite significant
    Take the test Griff scored 6 safe as
    http://www.alcohol.org.nz/alcohol-you/your-drinking-okay

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    Drinkers not stupid?

    Tell that to the resident alcoholic who insists on making fool of himself in here. If he is not stupid, he’s a damn good actor and deserves an Oscar!

    There is nothing wrong with alcohol, it is the people who lack the ability to make sensible decisions about what and where they drink that is the problem. Those that can make sensible decisions should not pay the price for the rest of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    They knowingly misrepresent the facts and tell outright lies to promote their goals.
    :lol:
    and you of all people find this a problem

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Judith, yes and we have a resident stonner [Hi Griff] who frequently posts disjointed abusive rants. It is well documented that cannabis abusers [Hi Griff] are prone to paranoia and conspiracy theories. It is a known trigger for mental illness in vulnerable individuals [Hi Griff].

    I have seen the terrible effects of cannabis use on young people. The damage it does to young growing brains is particularly dramatic. In my work I encounter drug users and drinkers daily. The chronic stonners are the easiest to spot and the most outwardly disabled.[Hi Griff]

    However, if we allow booze then we should allow pot. In moderation they are no worse than each other. Stonners seldom get violent and some would be better off on that drug than drinking. I say give them that choice. [Thank me later Griff] :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Tell that to the resident alcoholic who insists on making fool of himself in here.

    At least you couldn’t say of him that he’d murder a drink.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Sadu (123 comments) says:

    I used to preload in my younger days. We would typically buy a box of beer each to keep in the car or bus, and maybe buy 1 or 2 pints at the pubs over the course of the evening. The sober driver would park near the pub, we would skull a bottle each then go into the pub and enjoy the music.

    We were organised about it, because the option of actually drinking in pubs was not available to us. Our McWages simply didn’t support that. Usually we would just drink at home, but otherwise preloading was simply a part of the going-into-town experience for us.

    We knew the exact times that every bottle store in West Auckland closed, which ones were more lenient on ID, and which ones had good specials on.

    Let’s say for arguments sake that bottle shops were forced to close at 9pm. I’d imagine that we would have worked around this by buying our beer before 9pm.

    Organised preloaders (like we used to be) would not be affected by this rule change – other than minor inconvenience. This rule will do nothing to change the pehaviour of the people it’s intended for. So one has to ask what is the point? Yet another restriction on non-problem drinkers, for what exactly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Left Right and Centre (2,393 comments) says:

    hmmokrightitis 2:17 pm hahahahahahaha…… a person claims to spend half their free time making their shorts smell and yet can’t be arsed going to the shop… too funny…

    I could understand someone shopping online so that they can have some more of their precious ‘solitude time’ though; that *would* make some sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Left Right and Centre (2,393 comments) says:

    WineOh 2:48 pm I hope you’re better at running a piss shop than you are at spelling…. hahaha…

    Just so you know… I’m forever learning to spell…. I aint no perfect grammar nazi…

    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.