Party Police want no new bars in Auckland for six years!

August 1st, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

I hate that the have become the wowsers of New Zealand. Well, not quite. They all enjoy a drink themselves, but advocate nanny state for everyone else.

Radio NZ reports:

The police are proposing a six-year ban on any new bars and bottle stores in central Auckland and other regional hot-spots.

Why not just go back to prohibition also.

As a minimum, police want a freeze on the number of liquor licences in some areas. But they would rather have a sinking lid policy, under which no new licences are given even if other bars or shops close down.

Which will probably just lead to more drinking in cars, parks and homes.

Tags: ,

57 Responses to “Party Police want no new bars in Auckland for six years!”

  1. burt (8,190 comments) says:

    Shut down bars – watch more tinny houses open up…. People like chemicals – that is all there is to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thePeoplesFlag (242 comments) says:

    Your get tough on crime mates in government wrote the new liquor laws, which amounted to a police wish list to boss everyone around, while big liquor and the supermarkets get off scot free (how much did they donate to the National party?).

    So no point whinging Mr. Farrar, you’ve got precisely what you deserve.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. EAD (943 comments) says:

    Let’s change the word “police” to “national party”, change the word “Drinking” to “100 mcg blood level” or “smoking packets” or “paddling pools” or “corner diaries” or “smacking” or……you get my drift.

    Now remind me, where do these police get the idea that they should be able to micro-manage every single aspect of our lives?

    Orwell vs. Huxley – who is going to win in NZ? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-30/aldous-huxley-vs-george-orwell

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. queenstfarmer (770 comments) says:

    Silly idea. Though existing bar owners might like this proposal – a ban on new competition for 6 years!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (8,309 comments) says:

    This is almost as bad as reducing the alcohol limit for driving to 50mg/100ml.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Welcome to National Party, Labour Party, Green Party police state NZ!
    The country is full of wowsers, emasculated do-gooders who abhor personal responsibility and its consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. KiwiGreg (3,247 comments) says:

    Police are the hardest drinkers around.

    They are there to enforce the law not make it.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (9,804 comments) says:

    hey police – fuck off!

    do the job youre paid for and not this crap.

    they are like the people who move next door to a stadium thats been there a hundred years, then complain there is a stadium next door.

    when ya signed up, you knew most of the job would be domestics and alcohol related shit.

    this suggested band aid wont do dick. if you want an easier shift, start campaigning that we shouldnt be so generous with our welfare and we shouldnt pay so many losers to breed. it will take 20 years but youll see a change.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Colville (2,249 comments) says:

    This can only be the result of lobbying by the existing bar owners, there would be no other winner.

    This would kill new resturants too…cant sell wine or get a BYO license your fucked trying to sell food….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    An unanticipated side-effect of the “risk averse” policies adopted over the past two years.

    Instead of telling the wowser mob to F’off, “iron lady” Collins (God, Maggie would have her guts for garters) et al blinked, and went with the soft nose mob.

    But unless someone summons some courage in 2014-15 …. the alcoholic beverage Nazis will continue unchecked.

    We have just a few to thank for this mess, which now includes a Police attack on the “Wellington Sevens”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Colville (2,249 comments) says:

    ‘baiter @ 9.13

    The 80mg rule was utterly stupid. I could legally drink a whole bottle of wine over dinner and drive home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. peterwn (3,239 comments) says:

    And the goodwill payments if any of these businesses change hands will skyrocket. Landlords to would be able to extract very high rentals too because most such businesses are in leased premises. Just like the days when it cost a fortune to purchase a taxi business as the authorities limited the number of licences.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. EAD (943 comments) says:

    Tis true manolo, my leftie friend asked if I was worried about national party falling in the polls. He thought I might be worried about Labour getting in power.

    I told him it doesn’t bother me either way.

    He said aren’t you worried though about the Labour party being pro Maori separatism, government borrowing, political correctness, Nanny statism, mass immigration, inflation and radical social changes?

    I stood there in silence and asked him to repeat himself slowly. After he spoke………………..crickets

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Harriet (4,776 comments) says:

    What – so 20 pubs open up in Auckland and the police can’t get a car there from time to time?

    Even though the pubs will be built on current police beats?

    Sounds more like police mismanagement.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. tom hunter (4,681 comments) says:

    … but advocate nanny state for everyone else.

    True, but has this stance led to a more sceptical attitude towards Police proposals for hands-free cell phone calls, not to mention the latest blood alcohol level changes? As in, did anybody ask them to demonstrate what the reduction in the road toll would be – especially compared to other factors?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Yogibear (360 comments) says:

    The NZX secondary market guys must be rubbing their hands together in glee

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Other_Andy (2,565 comments) says:

    First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a smoker.

    Then they came for the…….

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. burt (8,190 comments) says:

    Nanny state – just wait till we have a 3rd term government – the “The business of government is whatever government define it to be” comment is just a few months away !

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. fernglas (140 comments) says:

    Could they send a few of them up this way? It’s hard to find a decent bar that doesn’t want your first born as security for a bar tab.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    I drink very little so this means nothing to me personally, but this move is NOT going to stop the social problems we have.

    People with a shitty outlook before they start drinking are always going to be a problem – even if they are drinking at home, so the number of bars will make no difference to anything but police workload (more places to keep an eye on).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. shoreboy57 (137 comments) says:

    Police ob is to police the law not create policy

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    I live in Central – REALLY Central – Auckland, and I say good on the Cops for trying to inject a bit of reason into Akl so-called Night-Life (!!)

    (Hah!! For ‘Night-life” read ‘Get p-ssed, spew in public – insult any female within half a mile with lewd unfunny coarse remarks liberally sprinkled with expletives and spew in the cab on the way home to the sticks).

    And, yes, I chose to live in the City Centre. Why shouldn’t I? Are you critics saying ‘Give up of the Central City. Its a piss-artist bear-garden after six o’clock?

    Is that what you’re saying? because if it is it says more about you than it does about Central Auckland night-life.

    And why shouldn’t I expect so-called adult ‘revellers (!), or ‘party-goers’ (!) and the slobbering reeling like to maintain a bit of decorum when they’re out in public. It just highlights the deficiencies in their up-bringing if they can’t have a social and enjoyable night out without getting offensive to others.

    No wonder some people look on so many partying-in-public Kiwis both here and abroad with suspicion and apprehension!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Ashley Schaeffer (457 comments) says:

    Akaroa, nobody is arguing that public drunks shouldn’t be dealt with. It’s the mechanism at issue here. Deal with the public nuisances harshly. Leave the rest of us alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Harriet (4,776 comments) says:

    Akaroa.

    There are already laws on the books for the drinking related mattters that you speak of. It’s the job of the Police and Courts to enforce them. Instead, the Police, the Courts, the hospitals ect want to irradicate any chance of them happening at all.

    While over two million responsable people pay huge amounts in alcohol tax and obey the drink driving laws. Only to be told – “You can go without!”

    pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. burt (8,190 comments) says:

    Akaroa

    I feel for you, having chosen to live right in the center of the city and not liking what goes on – lets change the city for you because it’s not fair that you have to put up with the consequences of your choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (8,309 comments) says:

    “The 80mg rule was utterly stupid. I could legally drink a whole bottle of wine over dinner and drive home.”

    Well, lucky for you they lowered the limit then. As its regulated, you won’t feel compelled to do that any more.

    Useless communist a hole.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Yogibear (360 comments) says:

    The problem I have with this is the police failing to understand the basic economics of the hospitality trade.

    If you restrict supply of premises, you will force those left into the type of business where you can maximise demand and margins – booze barns as opposed to people who go for quality over quantity.

    So you basically don’t fix the problem of public drunkeness. You concentrate it and intesify it, and remove the moderating competition.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. burt (8,190 comments) says:

    We could probably do with about 30% of the police we have, 30% of the A&E facilities and 30% of the courts if we just banned alcohol completely. (Ignoring prohibition never works for just a moment)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nukuleka (295 comments) says:

    What is it with you boozers and druggies that you can’t enjoy life without your alcohol and drugs? If anyone can provide evidence that alcohol and drugs have added one bit of positive enhancement to our culture then I will revisit my opinions. Until then, try giving real life a go and find out that it is possible to enjoy being alive and a fully functioning, sociable human being without being propped up by booze and drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Hamish_NZ (46 comments) says:

    It all started with the Police request for new anti boy racer laws, when the existing laws were enough. But the existing laws required the Police to ensure their officers had a brain and could use a measuring tape and a noise meter. Apparently this was too hard, so they got Judith to change the law for them.

    Same thing is happening with alcohol. It’s entirely due to laziness on the behalf of Police. Who it seems don’t really want to have to leave the station anymore.

    I will vote for any politican or party that promises to make the breath alcohol level for Police officers zero at all times. I think it’s only fair that the Police feel the affects of similar laws that they keep wanting to “suggest” for others.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Unity (483 comments) says:

    I would rather see the bars shut earlier and the one door policy at, say, midnight. Why on earth do people need to drink so late, especially when they often have work the next day? Why don’t they start earlier if they want several hours of ‘whatever’? I’m also at a total loss why people abuse their bodies with chemicals but then I suppose that’s because I’m a ‘different’ generation!!

    When I was young I managed to have heaps of fun without getting right off my head, which leads to all sorts of trouble/problems. A good dance band was all that was requuired for me. What a wowzer, do I hear you say? Well, I loved it and am at a total loss as to why the young today can’t do the same thing. Is life so bad/boring for them that they need ‘supplements’ of one kind or another just to have what they think is a good time. Very sad really.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    @Unity: who are you to decide what are the “right” hours to drink?
    Live and let live as long as you do not trample or infringe on the rights of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. burt (8,190 comments) says:

    Nukuleka

    Ban exercise too – it makes the body create endorphin’s which create a euphoric effect. Bloody junkies out running in the morning – ban it I say !

    It’s great if you don’t like chemicals, good for you – but other people do – get over it. Live and let live !

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ezekial (5 comments) says:

    So we let the established process work. The council makes a proposal and asks for submissions. Interested parties, groups and individuals make submissions. The police are one party to the process, their advice is based on their experience and what they feel is best for themselves and their stakeholders. The council weighs all the advice in the balance and comes to a decision which they feel gives the best result for all stakeholders. If you have strong feelings about this make a submission.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. MT_Tinman (3,093 comments) says:

    If anyone can provide evidence that alcohol and drugs have added one bit of positive enhancement to our culture then I will revisit my opinions.

    Have you ever considered a world without some form of relaxant?

    Have you ever wondered why damned near every (if not every) society has found some means of introducing the effects of alcohol?

    Have you ever had an honest look at the current societies who don’t allow alcohol or similar? Considered how each and every one is a superstition-addled shithole?

    For a kick off half the world’s population would not now exist, alcohol (or similar) has allowed shy young couples to relax and mix in social situations they would otherwise avoid.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. RmW (18 comments) says:

    @Unity… “I would rather see the bars shut earlier and the one door policy at, say, midnight.”

    So you are pro rape and pro violence? Because those things were the result of one way door policies in overseas trials (read the KPMG report on the Melbourne lockout trials for a start). Without a whole host of complimentary measures one way doors create more problems than they aim to solve, that is well established. The fact you have just parroted the opinions of the police says a lot here. The council rightly have not recommended the one way door policy – because only a moron would promote it in the manner that was being suggested here.

    Re: “Why on earth do people need to drink so late, especially when they often have work the next day? Why don’t they start earlier if they want several hours of ‘whatever’? … I suppose that’s because I’m a ‘different’ generation!!”

    Oh… this line of argument *again*, the grumpy geeza argument (you’re not Cr George Wood are you?). Please tell us what the 99% of drinkers who manage to do it entirely responsibly should be doing for their weekly entertainment? Reading their bible?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Mr_Blobby (163 comments) says:

    This is more about Police not wanting to do a particular job.

    Like responding to minor crimes etc.

    or it could be to do with the dumbing down of Police over the last few years.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RmW (18 comments) says:

    @Ezekial. That is how the process works in theory. In practice however many councillors have longstanding affinity for the views of the establishment. They are easily persuaded and then will not budge from those views (similar to MPs) however little the research supports them. The policy advisers themselves are directed to take a slant – putting more focus into evidence that supports the desired results. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being a bit naive.

    The council’s draft local alcohol policy is full of ideas which are carbon copied from outside parties who have major ulterior motives in what they ask for – many of which have no relationship to harm reduction at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Mr_Blobby (163 comments) says:

    @RmW

    I work doors in the city.

    There is not enough time here to go into to much detail. Personally my personal view is for 24 hour licensing, better still no licensing, it is blatantly obvious that it has not worked and just gives power and no accountability to liquor licensing gestapo. but that is not going to happen so

    1. Fixed closing hours for all bars. at 3 or 4am, not this nonsense being proposed of city bars 4am and suburbs 1am. All it will do is create a migration of pissed idiots heading into the city.

    2. One way door at 1am, if you have not decided were you want to be by 1am then it is home time, people will wander off in time and you reduce the closing time rush, when the real problems kick off.

    Has any of these over educated, over paid, bureaucratic muppets actually asked anybody at the front line what they think. I think not. But they are good at producing massive tombs of reduction strategies and other crap, never accepting responsibility for the fact that non of it has never worked.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. thePeoplesFlag (242 comments) says:

    The real story here is the total policy capture by the police of the legislative process. Combine that with poor oversight (increasingly we seem to have a minister for the police, not a minister of the police) and you’ve got an organisation that at the top is growing arrogant and lazy. The police need parliament to give their chain a sharp pull and a reminder about who sets public policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    Ezekial, while I agree entirely that we should let established processes work, I’d point out, apropos of:

    The police are one party to the process, their advice is based on their experience and what they feel is best for themselves and their stakeholders

    The Police have only one stakeholder: us. They’re not an NGO or a business they are public servants.

    I would suggest that the dashboard of every police car and the wall of every police station be emblazoned with the reminder “The person you are about to speak to is, indirectly, your employer. Treat them as such”. But that would do nothing to mitigate the contempt in which many of them hold us, as evidenced by this latest bit of blatant lobbying for their preferences over our rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    ” The police need parliament to give their chain a sharp pull and a reminder about who sets public policy.”

    Don’t worry, if the Left ever get back in they will reign in the police and start putting violent criminals back on the streets as soon as they can.

    Yeah, that’s a plan “the people” will support. Hard on the cops, soft on rapists and thugs.

    Pillock.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    Look at how hard it was to get three strikes into law. Most of parliament, and certainly the entire Left, does not have a clue. They are not experts. A large number of them were voted in by people too stupid to breath.

    The police are the experts. They know where the problems are because they are the ones at the coal face. We need the police to speak up more, not less, and if liberals on the Right and Left want to whine about that and dribble on about their adolescent notions of freedom, and who only seemed concerned about their “right” to binge drink at 4 in the morning, bugger them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Albert_Ross (270 comments) says:

    Shawn, of course the advice of the police should be taken into account in developing public policy to do with matters of law and order. But that does not mean their advice should be followed, or that theirs should be the only advice taken. Other people have rights and interests too. If policemen want to have the final say in whose interests take priority, let them put in the hard yards necessary to get into Parliament and be appointed Minister of Justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RmW (18 comments) says:

    @Mr_Blobby. Where: Viaduct, Brittomart, K-Rd, central, Ponsonby?

    The one way door does not work in the way being proposed in Auckland. One significant side-effect demonstrated overseas was an increase on assaults on venue security and an increase in the severity of assaults (google “Quick political fix Ross Homel”). This happens because more people are annoyed when they just miss the cut off time and are separated from friends. This also resulted in MORE people being in the same areas at the same time (and with nowhere left to go) which is a proven cause of alcohol-fueled violence.

    Every single piece of credible overseas evidence points to the one way door being a knee-jerk response which merely sounds plausible but has no net positive effect on violence. Worse yet, experience shows it focuses violence closer to venues including on security staff and taxis.

    Similarly, one way doors increased migration in the only comprehensive study done. Migration also happened in a shorter space of time as loads of people timed their departures to make the deadline, creating a second peak density time – yet another major risk factor for violence.

    Australia’s scant successes with it were with violence inside venues – an issue which Auckland does not have to anywhere near the level of Australia (larger venues, far more cultural/racial tension and rates of drug use). None of them showed improvements outside on the streets which weren’t actually attributable to other measures they brought in alongside the one way door – none of which are being proposed in Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RmW (18 comments) says:

    @ShawnLH “The police are the experts. They know where the problems are because they are the ones at the coal face.”

    You are sorely misled on that point in this instance. Their proximity to issues they deal with generally makes them the least capable of forming an objective view. If we accepted that because they are at the coal face (as are doctors) that they have the right policy answers then we would all be in gulags within a couple of decades.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. jonar (19 comments) says:

    Seems to me that right wingers have a conflict here that’s a bit tricky. Correct me if I’m wrong but
    1. We should cut government costs – this includes the salary and numbers of police.
    on the other hand
    2. We should have as many bars as want to open.

    But 2. means we need more police to mop up the mess from our binge drinking culture, right?
    Have I got this wrong or is there a way to reconcile the two issues?

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

    jonar “Have I got this wrong or is there a way to reconcile the two issues?”

    Yes. What changed that saw our drinking issues leap up a notch? The lowering of the drinking age and allowing supermarkets to sell alcohol until 11pm. Bars were able to open until dawn for more than a decade prior to that. Closing the tiny group of bars that operate late a few hours earlier will do nothing to address drinking culture at all. It is impossible that you can work backward like that. Addressing the culture can’t be done at bar level just like you can’t improve education by focusing efforts on the final year of high school. Changing culture takes time and effort – two things the councils have not been offered in their local alcohol policies.

    Lastly, our binge drinking culture is partially a myth. NZer drinks less than they used to and the acute alcohol-related harm statistics have been declining for well over a decade. The story has just been ramped out of whack by various organisations and people who were aware the local alcohol policy was coming up and it suited them perfectly to promote this faux hype and frenzy surrounding alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. jonar (19 comments) says:

    What exactly is “acute alcohol-related harm” – does it include all the work Police have to do on weekend nights when people are out drinking?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RmW (18 comments) says:

    @jonar What exactly is “acute alcohol-related harm” – does it include all the work Police have to do on weekend nights when people are out drinking?

    Acute hare is crime and injury (as opposed to chronic stuff which takes years to eventuate). In terms of crime this means assaults and disorder – which are the easiest to measure – and also domestic assaults. Hospital admission statistics relating to acute alcohol-harm (fights, self-injury etc) are actually very poor in NZ so very unreliable measures when it comes to apportioning blame with specific sources of alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Ashley Schaeffer (457 comments) says:

    Seems to me that right wingers have a conflict here that’s a bit tricky. Correct me if I’m wrong but
    1. We should cut government costs – this includes the salary and numbers of police. …

    Maintaining law and order is a core function of government. Cost cutting can and should be directed first and foremost at activites that aren’t core function. I support small government but not no government. The Police should be well-staffed and well-funded in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    The Police should be well-staffed and well-funded in my opinion.

    “The key to freedom is lots of police”.

    That was a popular notion in Romania, East Germany and the rest of the Soviet bloc. Didn’t really work out for them though, did it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    Just checked my 1039 AM post and I see I got only three anti-posts plus a poor seven down-ticks.

    I expected more!

    I guess my read-out on Central Auckland boorish night-life must be pretty near the mark then, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Hair Removal Specialist (80 comments) says:

    Dime “hey police – fuck off.

    exactly right

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Unity (483 comments) says:

    No-one here is mentioning the brain damage done to many of the very young. Their brains aren’t properly wired until they are in their early 20’s – another good reason to raise the drinking age back to 20. We are breeding a generation of loonies. Also, perhaps some of you should pay a visit to A & E Friday through to Sunday. You would then see how ridiculous our current laws are and the harm they are not curtailing.

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

    @Unity. It’s probably not deliberate but I see you’re sticking with the “ignore what the evidence shows” line.

    “…perhaps some of you should pay a visit to A & E Friday through to Sunday. You would then see how ridiculous our current laws are and the harm they are not curtailing.”

    Laws do not curtail culture. Changing culture changes cultures. Closing bars earlier wont actually achieve anything other than relocating the issue – the misuse of alcohol amongst a small percentage of predominantly young drinkers – to suburbs which are more difficult for police to attend, have no-one responsible for the responsible service of alcohol and no security.

    Research shows that people who start their night at non-licensed locations (i.e. houses) drink much more alcohol on average than those who start in bars. The location of assaults, disorder and injury associated with alcohol leans vastly towards domestic settings and public places, not late night bars. If supply of alcohol leads to these issues then the most productive avenue for success is to remove alcohol from supermarkets – not least because it is also the cheapest source of alcohol.

    I suspect your thinking will go: I want to be able to buy a wine and I drink responsibly, why should I be inconvenienced? If everyone has to do their part, as has been the narrative here, then supermarkets are ground zero for facilitating alcohol harm in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Unity (483 comments) says:

    Well all I can say is that it is a very sad, not to say shocking, state of affairs if young people these days have to get bombed out of their brains (literally) to have a good time. How has it come to this? Is life so humdrum and boring that they have to blot it all out, so to speak and get themselves into disgusting states. I tell you, it is not a pretty sight.

    However, whatever I think does not change the fact that these young people are permanently damaging their brains. Come to think of it, perhaps this is why they behave this way – their brains have actually become affected from binge drinking at a very young age!!???? So there you are – that must be the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.