• Full Story

Govt 'pathetically weak' on booze: expert

Email
Print

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 5:17a.m.

In 2010 the government rejected many Law Commission recommendations

In 2010 the government rejected many Law Commission recommendations

By Dave Williams

A leading public health researcher has accused the government of wasting parliamentary time by tinkering with alcohol laws and putting business interests ahead of the country's health.

Associate Professor Nick Wilson, a public health researcher at Otago University, has just released a study confirming smokers are more likely to be binge drinkers and his researchers have recommended tackling the two in combination, and increasing the price of booze and raising the drinking age.

However, in 2010 the government rejected many Law Commission recommendations on combating the damage caused by alcohol, including higher taxes and returning the drinking age to 20.

"The government batted it back immediately, the day after," Prof Wilson told NZ Newswire.

The National government picked up 126 of the commission's 153 recommendations, but changes have not yet been passed into law.

Prof Wilson said the commission's review of alcohol harm was state-of-the-art but some its recommendations had only been "slightly addressed, but in a very weak way".

"It's hardly worth bothering with the law if they are going to do it in such a pathetically weak fashion. Either do a proper law or don't waste Parliament's time."

Private economists' company BERL has put the social cost of alcohol harm at $4.8 billion but it has been estimated as high as $16.1bn.

Prof Wilson said one part of the government, the Ministry of Health, was trying to do something about the alcohol problem, but the another part was trying to be business friendly.

"The health sector picks up the cost of both smoking and hazardous drinking."

Health Minister Tony Ryall talked of quality control, Prof Wilson said.

"But what sort of quality control is it when emergency departments get overloaded and drunks punch up the staff?

"The downstream costs are landed with the taxpayer while the alcohol and tobacco industries are making money."

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

17 Mar 2012 04:07p.m.

boubaker wrote:

How can you expect from the laws maker in the White house to find a solution for this problem as abolish alcohol, when themselves are a drinker and intoxicated by alcohol lobby.

27 Jan 2012 12:25p.m.

Alex wrote:

@Chris. Teenagers having more disposable income? Perhaps if they from well off families they might. If that is the case then you have to look at the families that are supplying their children with liquor and understanding what values they are teaching their kids. (70% of underaged drinkers obtain booze from parents in a recent survey). I found that I drank a lot more as soon as I became a professional (despite the quality of drink certainly improving). The number of liquor outlets has nothing to do with it. The laws of owning a license hasn't changed much in the last ten years. There seems to be far more business in selling alcohol these days than ever before, and hence far more competition to sell and market booze at much lower prices to entice customers in their stores. Supermarkets do particularly well at this considering they also sell normal household commodities. Nevertheless it should be up to parents to educate their teenagers about alcohol consumption. There should also be penalties for misuse, for all ages. I don't think it's fair that good responsible drinkers have to suffer the effects of social controls put in place to curb misbehaviour. In my opinion, the good responsible folk will be affected the most (as to abide by the law) whilst the riff raff will be unphased and will find a way to circumvent any law change and consume alcohol in the same fashion that brought on this public disdain in the first place.

25 Jan 2012 11:48p.m.

Chris wrote:

@ Alex: If NZ has a drinking problem (and I agree, it does), then why on earth would you advocate making alcohol MORE available to society's youngest and most vulnerable? Besides being rather silly, teenagers tend to have more social time and more disposable income, making them the perfect target market for the alcohol industry. Is it any coincidence that since the drinking age was lowered, the number of liquor outlets and their opening hours have increased significantly?

Of course I liked a drink when I was in my teens, but I generally drank beer, assuming I could get hold of the stuff (and that was by no means guaranteed). Today, I look at my 18 year old cousin, who has been drinking heavily since he was 15. He no longer drinks beer, because he reckons it doesn't get him pissed. Instead he hits the bourbon, which he assures me he has been buying from liquor stores since well before he turned 18.

You may believe that giving young people easier access to alcohol hasn't made our drinking culture worse, but I doubt you could argue that its made it any better.

24 Jan 2012 07:21a.m.

Alex wrote:

@Chris. With the amount of alcohol abuse evident across all age demographics please explain how reverting the age might improve the situation. Underage drinkers know how to obtain booze one way or another, that has always been the case even when one had to be 20 to buy booze. Are you suggesting these people are going to behave better? If the adult drinkers cannot drink responsible themselves then what hope do we have in setting the example for young drinkers? It's equally a fail to raise it back. The age one can buy alcohol isn't the problem, it's the culture that has to change. (For the record I'm in my thirties and not affiliated to the alcohol industry)

23 Jan 2012 11:33p.m.

Chris wrote:

NZ coped just fine with the drinking age at 20...the only people who would disagree are the alcohol industry and a few insecure teenagers. Time to end this failed experiment and put the age back up. Sure, the govt will miss out on a fair chunk of revenue, but if they spent more time to listening to the people on the front line (police, health professionals, teachers, social workers), and less time listening to the alcohol lobby, they would know that its the right thing to do.

21 Jan 2012 06:43p.m.

Matty wrote:

The booze culture is no worse than its ever been in NZ. More population equals more incidents, its that simple. You don't have visit too many other countries to realise that most westernised countries have exactly the same behavior.. Australia and the UK are particularly bad also. Alcohol is NOT as harmful as cigarettes, as cigarettes cause cancer at almost any dosage, whereas alcohol requires serious abuse to result in significant consequences. Whats next? after we pick on booze? Are we going to stop people driving? Having recreational sex? Playing sports? Because they're dangerous if abused and have expensive, embarrassing consequences? You can't legislate against stupidity, you can only educate. Education is power. Better education and warnings on the topic and let people be human beings, live, and learn!

21 Jan 2012 03:28p.m.

Nita wrote:

This is bureaucracy gone mad. Where is the freedom of speech and our own rights as a human being in this country. No one is perfect. Alcohol does more damage to one's body, violence and breakups amongst families and crimes in this country. Most people who smoke like myself work hard, don't drink to get drunk, and are responsible citizens in this country and pay our fair share of taxes. I will not have someone dictating to me how I should live my life! Those of you that criticise should have a look at your own lives and your own bad vices in life. Maybe we should tax your pleasures in life and make you feel like a lepper. Most smokers are considerate. I say leave them alone!This is just goverment revenue collecting!Concentrate on getting plunket into the homes to every single household with a child from birth at least every month, until that child is a year old. And just maybe our children who do fall through the cracks may just get a chance in life. Some parents do not have the skills to care for their baby for what ever reason. They also need help. Spend more time and money in that area.

21 Jan 2012 12:26a.m.

Raymond wrote:

It is time we began treating the Liquor Industry and their cohorts the same way Cigarette Companies and smokers have been hammered. I am sick of the carnage on the roads with drunk drivers. I am sick of the carnage left by drunken revellers with vandalism and assaults. I am so totally sick of this country and it's booze barn mentality. Grow up New Zealand!!

20 Jan 2012 09:02p.m.

Sue Pierce wrote:

I hope that Nick Wilson continues to study this issue and also continues to publicise his work. It would be great if others do too. There is a problem with alcohol abuse in NZ and until we all face up to this and the massive costs to society nothing will change. No one is trying to abolish alcohol! However it needs to be remembered that the liquor industry is spending huge sums of money to put its case and this government is desperate not to offend by doing anything more than minimal tinkering.

20 Jan 2012 02:41p.m.

Alfred Rosenberg wrote:

Eric Crampton, nice analysis, but you forgot to include 'health costs attributed to smoking that should have been attributed to alcohol' Could you please conduct the same type of analysis for smoking?