The anti-booze lobby strikes
Cheers! Drink up but make it quick. The anti-alcohol lobby is winding up for a king hit on the nation's drinkers.
Over the years much has been made of the evil liquor industry and the brewery lobbyists who cunningly manipulate politicians into sponsoring laws that allow the demon drink to pollute our fair country.
In fact, these days, it's arguable that the anti-booze lobby is far bigger and better funded than their enemy and wields much more clout.
The Law Commission's report, Alcohol in Our Lives, is just one of several planned nails in the coffin of New Zealand's drinking culture.
As well as what the commission recommends (raising the off-licence purchasing age to 20, closing bars at 2am, tougher police powers over bars, higher taxes on alcohol, and the government getting powers to ban some liquor on health grounds), the push from the wider anti-booze campaign is much bigger.
They are demanding that the drinking age go back to 20, making access to alcohol much harder, higher taxes still, plus banning liquor advertising sponsorship and marketing.
A coordinated media campaign is well under way to try to achieve this.
But when you see and hear the scare stories about the dire effects of alcohol, think about some of those demands the lobbyists are making.
Giving government the power to ban some liquor on health grounds? How long will it be before the lobbyists start arguing spirits are injurious to your health. Ban them. Hell, ban alcohol altogether.
Yet bans don't work. Anyone notice a decline in P usage since it became illegal?
Higher taxes on booze will simply mean heavy drinkers will simply take more out of their household income to pay for it, and families will suffer more.
Banning advertising and marketing sounds fair enough except that means, eventually, you may find even the display of alcohol on a shelf constitutes "marketing" and suddenly we're back in the good old sly-grogging days, buying under the counter beer.
The National Addiction Centre's Professor Doug Sellman says, "Liquor isn't an ordinary commodity, it's a recreational drug."
In fact, from his past pronouncements you could get the feeling Prof Sellman thinks alcohol is a far greater danger than methamphetamine or other Class A drugs.
In 2007 he was quoted as saying alcohol was more dangerous than the Class B drug Fantasy or GBH.
Last year he was arguing it was time a more "rational" approach was taken to drug legislation by "thinking about all drugs in general", including tobacco and alcohol.
He wanted to see drugs graded from Class A through to E and F.
Presumably, if we follow Sellman's argument, liquor might start out a legal F and work its way though to an illegal B, while Fantasy could be downgraded to C or even one of his new Ds.
By the way, ever seen anyone on GBH? It's a complete munter's drug and the effects on the user certainly appear far worse than a night on the turps.
From now through to the end of the year the anti-liquor lobby will step up its campaign. Prof Sellman has taken six months' sabbatical to set up a pressure group to be launched this week and gain more steam at a big conference in Wellington in a couple of months.
It's not that we don't need to be vigilant on controlling the abuse of alcohol - it's just that we need to be aware that we are being manipulated by a well coordinated media campaign which is backed by some people who, in my opinion, harbour some fairly way-out views.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Why aren't the penalties for alcohol related crime more serious. the penalties for drink driving are a deterrent, though possibly could go farther. why not, if people commit an offence under the influence of alcohol, double the minimum sentence? why not make drunks pay for their own injuries and force collection through the justice department. why should all the responsible drinkers be punished for the actions of those who don't show self-control. for Sir Geoffrey Palmer to say this isn't a return to wowserism, and then display a strong puritanical streak, makes a farce of the issue. Instead of taking the tough option, The blanket option is chosen, and all must suffer.
Yet another sensible commentary on drugs in The Times today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6733950.ece
When will informed sanity prevail?
But I thought it was good for you in moderation, less heart attacks and longer happier life?
One problem I have with the report is where the judges say that booze or drugs is a problem for 80 per cent of offenders. I am sure they are being sincere, but as a former court reporter, I also know that defence lawyers invariably say that their client has a booze/drug problem and that they are seeking treatment for it. This is a ruse to get a more lenient sentence and also why the judges believe there is such a problem. If the abuse of booze/drugs were seen as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one in most crimes and sentences became automatically harsher as a result of the offender being drunk/stoned, then personal responsibility might start coming into the equation again and people would be less willing to blame it all on the demon drink. I know for a fact that no bottle of Edradour 10 year old ever made me smash a window or smack a stranger and any violence/disorder I ever got involved in as a younger man was entirely down to me and not to the grog.
Geoffrey delicately climbs out of his limo to observe the hoi polloi at play and is horrified at what he sees, poor chap. He will return to his fine vintages which he can well afford and make booze as expensive as possible for us the rabble. Remember Jim Anderton stamping out the huge problem of teenage sherry drinking? Where do these wowsers come from? And why do we have have to pay through the nose for the few pleasures left to us? We drink politely at home and appreciate the bargains we can still find but I suppose we will be lumped in with the abusers and Lord Geoffrey will do all he can to make us behave ourselves the way he thinks we should. God save us from these Labour sticky beaks and do-gooders.
There is a great tendency in this country to legislate any problem and I don't see the recommendations achieving the desired result. The problem is a social one, not a legal one. Ten years from now we will be revisiting the laws again and again tinkering with them. The problem is that young people have four major changes in their life arriving at the same time. 1. Sexual expression. 2. Greater freedom from parental control. 3. Driver's licence. 4. Alcohol. It is a cocktail for disaster. You can't stop puberty or sexual exploration. Freedom from parental control is a normal progression. You could try and restrict freedom of movement by increasing the driving age but that would have its own social consequences. But take the desire to over-indulge in a alcohol - binge-drinking - out of the mix and the others become manageable. Instead of legislation, I would suggest we look at cultures where teenage drinking is not a problem and find out what we can learn from them. In France and Italy, for instance, there is no laws preventing anyone of any age drinking. In fact by the time young people reach their teenage years alcohol is not a rite of passage to adulthood. it is accepted and managed in a mature way. I manage a sports club and I take particular interest to those young men who return to the club after they have finished their secondary schooling and their drinking. And why they drink. I can ssure you, those whose parents are not involved in their sport or the club are those that for the first year and a half want to get "hammered". (After 18 months they slowly wean themselves away). Those who have grown up in the club, have watched from a kiddie their parents socialise with others and being allowed to be part of that social group are never over-indulge. In fact, those that have grown up with alcohol around and been allowed to experience a mature drinking culture grow up to be less than "moderate drinkers". Don't legislate, educate.
Bloody wowsers. Legalise all drugs and regain some control of the situation. Taxing marijuana would certainly help the government's books.
Lets be honest, NZ does have a problem with it's attitude to alcohol. Anything that can help is a good thing. Where ever there is trouble in NZ society you will find a problem with alcohol, it's a fact.
Most of the mainstream beer here is so awful that I am amazed anyone could want to drink enough of it that they have a problem!
Even Speights seem to have missed the irony that producing a "natural" brew only leads intelligent consumers to wonder what on earth is in the one that is not "natural"!
I actually think that the social costs of alcohol are so high (in health terms, car accidents and so on) that some sort of better control is necessary. I would like to see the drink drive limit brought down so close to zero that anything more than a slice of Xmas pud would put you over it. There is NO excuse for getting behind the wheel of a car when your judgement is less than 100%.
Anger at Holmes' Waitangi remarks
Lawyer faces impropriety allegations
Oliver's army set to roll into NZ
North-South split on where to rebuild Christchurch
Daily trivia quiz: February 19
Women prisoners cost much more to lock up
Clock ticking for Transmission Gully process
Fear of dangerous rift from wealth gap
Brothel scares and stresses neighbourhood
Bid to scrap race relations office
Restorative justice goes to school
Mallard case raises questions of behaviour
One year on too soon to shake raw feelings
"Banning things" is certainly a recreational drug for some people.
Let's ban it.