Remember that old public service advertisement about domestic violence? "Break the cycle" it exhorted us. Quite apart from anything else it confirmed the problem was far from a new one; that whatever was happening in the present stemmed from generation upon generation of Kiwi blokes belting women in the past. That's right, we're talking about our own fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. Old habits, it seems, die hard.
It started me thinking about New Zealand's binge drinking debate, regularly in the news now the Alcohol Law Reform bill is in its final stages. Or to be more accurate, it was an interview last week on National Radio that raised the eyebrows. My friend Michael Donaldson, deputy editor of the Sunday Star-Times and author of the fascinating book Beer Nation, was discussing Kiwis' historical drinking habits with host Jim Mora.
Funny how you miss things during your childhood. I can distinctly remember preparing for the currency changeover in 1967 but at the time had no idea it was also the year the six-o'clock swill was abandoned. The most surprising bit, at least for these ears? When Donaldson reminded us the 6pm closing rule had been introduced as far back as 1917. Fifty years earlier. For half a century we'd trained ourselves to drink like men dying of thirst.
Most of us have heard the stories. Faced with a maximum of an hour's drinking between the knock-off hooter and 6pm, workers learnt to guzzle as much as possible before time ran out. What we now call binge-drinking was institutionalised, fuelled by the early-closing law. Grizzled old men would show fresh-faced 21-year-olds the ropes. Techniques were refined; habits were formed, all in the name of getting blind drunk in a matter of minutes.
As Donaldson noted, the irony was that the 6pm restriction was introduced to avoid precisely the behaviour it caused. You can just imagine how much fun it must have been for many of the "housewives" and children of those days, as dad arrived home at 6.30ish. Certainly, reports of carnage on the roads were common, despite the relatively few number of vehicles. But whatever the mode of transport, there was one regular outcome. Men arrived home plastered.
Which brings us to today's most prominent public service advertisement catchline: "It's not what we're drinking it's how we're drinking." Makes you wonder, doesn't it? I mean, it isn't so different to how we were drinking for most of the previous century. And while we might not have deliberately taught our kids to follow suit, there's nothing quite like a younger generation for sensing hypocrisy. "Do as I say, not as I do" has never really cut the ice.
Barring the wrong-headed prohibitionists, no-one's genuinely tried to break the cycle. Not really. Each generation has anguished over the levity of the next but has studiously avoided making changes that would impact on its own. As "oldies", our hearts aren't in it. Even now, as our politicians clamp down on the "synthetic high" industry, cannabis and tobacco, they busily seek to dilute almost any meaningful measure in the quest for alcohol reform.
Reading Donaldson's Beer Nation was a reminder that very little has changed. The second chapter, entitled Temperance & Swill, is required reading, especially for anyone under the delusion that prohibition or part thereof will achieve anything. Another chapter, exploring the old duopoly between Lion and Dominion Breweries hints at the real power-brokers in this debate. Until there's a government willing to take this lot on it's hard to imagine much improving.
Hence? The binge-drinking cycle is destined to continue.
» Read more of Richard Boock in the Sunday Star Times.
» Follow Richard on Twitter: @richardboock.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
@ Greig - isn't leading by example by drinking responsibly an example of 'we' attempting to influence the issue? Isn't catching someone doing something wrong and responding 'appropriately' another way 'we' do something? Isn't enforcing existing laws (which I'm not convinced are perfectly good in this instance) another example of 'we' trying to solve problems? Given 'we' suffer in myriad ways through the ongoing effects of these ills, who else should 'fix' it? Of course individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their actions, but individuals don't exist in a vacuum - it's the wider context of 'we' that firstly identifies that there is a problem, then responds accordingly. Or appropriately if you prefer. Law change can be a very powerful way to facilitate change, but it also takes brutally honest assessment of society's cultural and social norms. Personally, I don't think NZ is quite ready to peel the scab off this one yet!
@ Champers - Sure, and I agree, it's the right way of doing it. A voluntary "we" rather than a forced and legislated "we". That's what a true society or community does. Legislation is a blunt instrument, wielded by inept and vote-grabbing politicians. Even if they think they are helping (and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for once and assume they actually want to help, rather than just keep their jobs), they seldom do so.
Why aren't existing laws good enough? If you hurt someone, they remain hurt regardless of the reason for you hurting them. If you put yourself in a state where you were statistically more likely to hurt someone, then let the punishment reflect that fact, rather than attempt to prevent you putting yourself into that state to begin with, which has an unfair impact on people who DON'T hurt others.
#1 Greig: I think they've tried the "do nothing and hope everyone acts responsibly" theory. Didn't work. :)
@richardb - or it did, and the problem is being way overblown. Or it is currently, and not enough time was taken. Or. Or. Or. It doesn't change the moral principle my argument is based on, that the desires of the many shouldn't get to dictate the pleasures of the few in the name of some mythical "greater good". So long as I hurt nobody, it's not the government's business how I drink. If I hurt others, punish me. If I hurt myself, don't pay for my healthcare.
"As Donaldson noted, the irony was that the 6pm restriction was introduced to avoid precisely the behaviour it caused."
Much like the irony of high excise taxes leading to pre-loading and even more out of control drinking than if people started their night at a bar. Wowsers never learn with the policies they promote, sobriety addles their brain.
The more 'laws' any government introduces, the more problems they create. Laws are predominantly for the stupid minority, but the smart majority suffer through the policing of them.
Bring back stocks that people used to get thrown in in town centres - nothing like being judged by ones peers to make stupid people change their ways!
Both of you (contributors) have your heads screwed on right - the biggest problem we face as a society is getting all the other 'loose heads' screwed on as tightly!
Old friends a treasure trove of memories
Pistorius reaction not about handicap
High-vis not the solution for bikers
Pope was an ineffectual leader
Waitangi Day beats Australia Day
Ali's views must be more consistent
Affordable housing comes at a cost
Hey director, why the long movie?
Cats are essential to our ecology
Agent suspended over false mortgage docs
Second death follows Northland shootings
Hospital smoking ban labelled 'torture'
Pair 'bought fuel' before man burnt alive
Amiable cat meets horrific death
A million extra residents is likely
Future of beachfront still unclear
Why must a government do it? As you (and Michael) noted, perhaps accidentally, Governments tend to cause these problems. Only individuals can solve them. Drink well, drink responsibly, and lead by example. "Be the change you want to see in the world" and stop calling for regulation, which, however well meaning, only seems to cause more unintended side effects. Why do people think there's some magic combination of legislation we've just not found yet that will make everything OK?
I'm very tired of hearing that "we" have to fix alcoholism, child abuse, violence towards women, violence in general, drunk driving, butane huffing... the list goes on. I don't know about you, but I don't do these things, and if I catch anyone else doing them, I respond appropriately. "We" don't have to fix anything. Those causing the problems do. It starts with enforcing the perfectly good laws dating back to common law proscribing violence and disorderly conduct.