by Metiria Turei
On Tuesday the Salvation Army released their submission to the Sale of Liquor Bill currently before the Justice and Electoral select committee, calling for the bill to be scrapped.
They said that the bill simply tinkered with the issues and didn’t deal with the almost complete cultural acceptance of the harm this highly dangerous and addictive drug causes.
The availability of liquor and the destructive patterns of alcohol consumption – that according to one recent study cost the nation $4.8 billion – are so widespread and deeply engrained in our communities that a comprehensive review and effective action are now needed.
They also identified that young people are being used by government and industry as a diversion from the real issues, like proliferation and under resourced enforcement:
Another flaw is that the Bill’s focus on youth drinking appears to be something of a distraction and a case of moral panic in that it ignores the problem drinking of older New Zealanders. While claiming to get tough on those retailers who sell liquor to under-age youth, the Bill’s “three-strikes” and the retailer loses his or her licence stance fails to address the reality that the present law is being widely flouted. The proposed three-strikes will not deter unscrupulous liquor retailers from continuing to sell to minors as the current enforcement regime means they have a low chance of being caught, says Major Roberts
This followed very closely on the heels of the Law Commission’s Geoffery Palmer, who said last week that :
Alcohol is no ordinary commodity. It is a drug… Alcohol would be classed as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 if it were treated on its merits, according to many experts.
He also said that:
It is the minimisation of this harm that has to be the prime object of any new law, balanced with the need for any regulatory controls to be efficient and effective.
I agree absolutely and so does our party policy. Rational, effective drug law that is focused solely on minimising harm to both individuals and communities is what this country completely lacks. And we desperately need.
Of course the media focused on the possible tax increase and the drinking age rather than the support for reducing proliferation and advertising. These last two directly impact on the alcohol industry and tend to be ignored by politicians. Instead young people are vilified and older people get away with excusing thier own poor alcohol behaviour.
We need alcohol advertising to be restricted in the same way as tobacco advertising. We need further constraints on proliferation and we need alcohol and tobacco to be classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Law Commission expects to produce its discussion paper in July and this will provide our community with the information it needs to lobby MP’s to implement rational drug policy that will minimise harm and keep our communities safer.
Published in Health & Wellbeing by Metiria Turei on Thu, April 30th, 2009
Tags: , alcohol, army, commission, drugs, Law, misuse drugs act, salvation, tobacco
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Met – do the greens support the restriction of hours/close outs that Labour do with regard to nightclubs?
I’m a club promoter and firmly belive that the labour/law commission suggestion will kill the club scene, with little if any public good, if anything it could have a negative effect on public safety, pushing drunken idiots out on the street at the same time (6 O’Clock swill anyone?).
Whats your thoughts? Keen to discuss @ J Day (even if I am a dirty ACT voter).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alcohol is just such a hard issue to budge, I don’t envy you this portfolio.
Even though I haven’t spoken to them since July 1986, good on the Sallies for remaining consistent and correct on this one. Given the amount of advertising revenue involved, I’m not surprised the media diverted attention away from workable solutions to reducing the damage caused by alcohol abuse. If only they were just a little less spontaneously venal they would realise that in the long term getting on side with harm reduction would increase their market, and benefit the economy generally.
I remember speaking to an old copper who reckoned that if alcohol were to suddenly appear now it would be Class A “before lunchtime”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All ‘Three Stikes’ legal notions are bunk.
Open to corruption like nothing else?
If our Judges are’nt free, who the hell is?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Worse than Heroin by quite a way on the psychotropic/physical damage charts.
It’s only the second most popular opiate, but not only is there insufficient will for reform – try running a platform of ‘Prohibition’.
The wineglasses would snap in shock from end to end of Our Great Notion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My experiences of continental Europe and their attitudes to alcohol are interesting. In continental Europe it is extremely easy to access alcohol, it is very cheap but yet there appear to be not nearly as many problems related to binge drinking and the like. People there generally don’t seem to “drink to get drunk” – which is the real problem here.
It makes me wonder whether past over-regulation of alcohol has had a peverse side-effect of making it something a bit naughty, something that you have to drink quick and get smashed before you’re found out about having it. Obviously the 6 O’clock swill still seems to affect how we view alcohol.
That said, it is difficult to imagine that loosening up the law would achieve anything good now. Yet I think we should focus on where the problems are. I think the problems are with people drinking far too much at home and then getting into violent situations (often with their own family), or people who are too young getting hold of a large amount of alcohol and drinking to excess.
Restricting bar opening hours will solve neither problem. If someone drinks in a bar it’s probably one of the safest places for them to do so. So perhaps driving up the cost a bit (so people can’t so easily afford to mass consume alcohol) would be a good idea. So would a bit more work on restricting the flow of alcohol from adults to younger people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jbury; A healthy mature human brain will not over-imbibe. That we do, is a good fix on where we’re at, together and alone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I feel that alcohol problems are a symptom of other issues. People have problems with drinking as a result of either basic psychological issues and/or due to their social situation. The former needs to be addressed through better support; the latter can only really be dealt with by making society better.
Trying to limit the supply of alcohol won’t really help while the fundamental problems are unaddressed, and will limit the rights of the non-problem drinker. Moreover, many of the measures the government proposes are likely tyo have unintended negative consequences (like putting small shopkeepers out of business).
My submission on the bill is here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a matter of course, any human rights based party must reject discriminatory options when making law.
Thus, it cannot single out voters of age 18 and 19 apart from those over 20.
As to whether corporations have rights … to advertise “legal” products etc, this is a more complicated matter.
The national economics are in favour of liberal opening hours for New Zealand as a host of tourists. The convenience of consumers is met by the availability of beer and wine in supermarkets.
What options does this leave
1. Defining “drunkeness” in the same way we do when criminalising drunk drivers. By an amount of alcohol in their blood.
Thus it becomes an offence to serve this “drunk” alcohol and the host can breath test the customer before serving them if they have any suspicion of their being drunk. This objective test would make this an easier thing for the host to do and the customer to accept.
The drunkeness being an offence, the drunk will presumably behave themselves rather than draw attention to their drunkenness.
2. Placing restraint on the sale of alcohol promotions.
Bars being unable to promote binge drinking by “specials” and supermarkets and liquor outlets also restrained from shop “specials” (unless these come from the supplier).
3. Taxation of alcohol content
There is no problem with advantaging lower alcohol beer, wine and alcopops by applying a lower rate than higher strength varieties.
4. Expanding the range of public health campaigns and treatment programmes funded by taxation on alcohol products to include proactive initiatives – such as alcohol free youth centres for those under 18 to socialise in (sports screen area, music video/DJ area/stage for bands etc, cafe lounge etc) so that their cultural behaviour does not mimic their elder “role models” when they become age 18 adults.
5. There are social advantages in either limiting direct product advertsing or instead making this conditional on community contribution (to community groups) perhaps by placing a tax on the advertising for this purpose (which would enable a declining reliance on pokies and reform in this area also).
Declaration – I am averse to simply making beer and wine unaffordable to those on lower incomes (already we have cable connection and sports on TV priced out of their homes). Price alone cannot be basis of an alcohol policy. The idea that those who can afford it have access and those who cannot do not is abhorent to me. What next, Americanised health care …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The concept of making drunkenness an offence is interesting and potentially has merit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Drunk & Disordery is the Offence you refer to and is enforceable anywhere within NZ (yes, including your own lounge room).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem is that it requires being drunk AND disorderly – the offence is being disorderly while drunk, not being drunk.
And being drunk is not defined.
It’s also based on the opinion of the arresting officer. Presumably because the disorderly behaviour was of itself not a crime in its own right, they decided that the behaviour of that sort while having alcohol on the breath was somehow a crime of itself.
This is of no assistance to hosts in licensed establishments who can invite trouble (disorderly behaviour) when trying to be a responsible host – a nuetral definition of drunk would allow a more measured and accepted standard of rule and who knows may eventually impact on drinking culture behaviour (getting drunk early on could ruin an evening out).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I like the proposals by SPC, kind of reminds me of the proposal ive never gotten around to writing
.
I would be in favour of making it illegal to be drunk when underage, likewise being under the influence of a legal substance not legal to that agegroup.
I would be in favour of having alcohol served on licened premeses to 18 year olds but only brought in stores by 20 year olds.
I thik it would be a good idea to allow 24-hour drinking mostly becasue here in palmy you often see people trying to drink as much as they can before the bars close at 3 but then the drinking is much more relaxed once they migrate to the red door (which sells alcohol much much latter). I think it would eliminate the rush.
Definatly agree with taxation by alcohol content
I also like the objective measures of drunkeness in pubs
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yea – it’s a great letter eh Sapient? SPC You are on track – the process is entirely and subjectively ‘uman – if ‘e says you drunk & disorderly – you are; try telling the judge they got you all wrong – I ‘ll still visit ya!
Our Government is heavily engaged in making money from this Drug, whilst denying any and all responsibility for the consequences – aqnd the repercussions are undoubtedly collossal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the amount of response’s on this, are tremendous !
At this time, there are 5 most common severe permenant health afflictions, solely caused from moderate alcohol consumption. What we all need to do, is somehow (?) convince our Government Officials for mandatory health warning labels on all liquor containers. Perhaps many of us old sod’s are aware of this, but what about our youth ?
They are & in no particular order:
-Grand Mal Seizures
-Rapidly Progressive Deafness
-Rapidly Progressive Blindness
-Rapidly Corroded Livers
& Heart Attacks
None with any forewarning signs, nor any cures at this time !
In addition, our Canadian Medical Resources releasing this past February, their firm declaration, that moderate drinking of STIFF drinks, should no longer be 1-2 per day, but rather 1-2 per week maximum, as this is 95% cause of these health problems.
If we don’t get the word out, how will we protect our youth ?
And if we don’t protect our youth from this, then who in all of creation, is going to assume our professions, when us old farts are in nursing homes ?
Somehow, someway isn’t this possible to have them approve health warning labels ? Or are they so wrapped up in the almighty dollar they receive in liquor sales, and/or their own consumption of this scourge ?
May God have mercy on us all !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let’s do it!
Let’s ban alcohol because it IS a drug, and all drugs, especially tobacco and alcohol, should be banned.
That way we can have another 100,000 on the dole, put income taxes up by 50% so the top rate (for rich-pricks) is up around 60%, and save ourselves the trouble of shipping a billion dollars worth of wine overseas! We can then be sure of not having to build any more electricity generating capability for at least a generation, have reduced air-pollution from cars by about 50% and, best of all, reduced the average house price to just twice the average income.
Mind you – it will feel a little lonely at first, when the population of Australia goes up by about 2 million and that of NZ goes down by the same number.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings; – I’ll be in it – and just think, we export the drunken mob! Think of the Paradise NZ could become! I’ll be staying.
ps where are we goin to find sober cops that tell the truth sometimes?
oh right! Won’t need ‘em…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>we export the drunken mob!
You’ll be exporting 99% of doctors, for starters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Somehow, someway isn’t this possible to have them approve health warning labels
After all, it did stop everyone smoking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good point BP, albeit somewhat exagerated. Since the first mandatory health warnings for tobacco products were introduced tobacco consumption has fallen by half whereas alcohol consumption has increased by 1/5th. Both products have had similar percentage increases in excise duties therefore the difference can only be due to the warning labels and advertising restrictions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the difference can only be due to the warning labels and advertising restrictions.
I think you need to think a little harder about causation.
Besides, drinking can be, and is, good for one’s health.
http://www.beekmanwine.com/prevtopab.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, and what cause would you suggest?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings Says:
May 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“Let’s ban alcohol because it IS a drug, and all drugs, especially tobacco and alcohol, should be banned…”
good thing nobody’s suggesting that, then
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“only”?
Don’t you think general trends in health awareness might have something to do with it?
In any case, health labeling is unlikely to work for alcohol, because alcohol has clear benefits and few dangers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark
gud on yer
BP
Don’t need old Doctors, and the new ones don’t drink anymore (I’m not sure they drink any less, but they do have access to medicinal ethanol!)
25% of New Zealanders still smoke – more if you count smoking dope and other inhalable drugs.
Let’s limit alcohol to red-wine only then. 2 glasses per adult per day issued at your local rations store
kahikatea
But I did suggest it. It’s only one more item on the banned list – not a big dear really!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the new ones don’t drink anymore
Tuis, anyone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)