All posts in the topic Reforming liquor laws to combat crime (Short link)

From: Brendon Burns Date: May 12 09:57 UTC Short link

Kia ora Forumites, as Labour candidate for Christchurch Central I am, among
other things, promoting a review of our liquor laws as the way to reduce
violence and vandalism in our city.

Here's why...

Sarah, a 15 year old girl from Halswell lay sprawled on the pavement in Colombo
St last Saturday night. Traces of her vomit marked the pavement.

The police officer I was with managed to get her name and details before she
lapsed into oblivion. He rang her parents. Neither was able to drive and
collect their daughter. I hailed a taxi and police put her into it. Sarah’s six
mates were asked who was going to accompany her home. None would agree to go.

I am hoping this post will spark some debate on my view that we need to have a
comprehensive review of our liquor laws.

I acknowledge what the police are doing to reduce inner city violence and
vandalism, not to mention the harm and injuries that mount up every weekend.

But until we address the root cause, the improvements most of us want to see
will be very difficult to achieve.

We currently have 24 hour liquor availability, no constraint on pricing, little
restraint on liquor advertising and a push going on to sell even more alcohol,
more often to more people.

I want to bring about changes to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 to deal with these
issues. Twenty years on, there has been huge change in the availability and
promotion of alcohol. We now have three times more liquor outlets than  1990 –
and the push for even more. The Act’s is manifestly failing its main objective
- to reduce the harm associated with the sale and supply of liquor.

On our tour of the inner city on Saturday night I accompanied Associate Justice
Minister, Lianne Dalziel, who is responsible for the Sale of Liquor Act. She
has agreed to speak at a public forum I am organising on Tuesday June 3 at 7pm.
Canterbury police will also speak, as will health and other agencies who have
to deal with the mess that excess alcohol can create.

I am promoting consideration given to changes including:

+   Listening to community concerns when granting and renewing licences

At present, community concerns don’t carry any weight. Essentially, if you
aren’t a criminal and you provide enough car parks, you can get a licence to
sell liquor.

+   An end to the 24 hour availability of takeaway alcohol

Currently people can be turned away from bars on the Strip or Litchfield Street
for being intoxicated at 3am; they can then access alcohol at nearby
convenience stores.

+  A ban on supermarkets being able to sell spirits and spirit-mix drinks
within the confines of their stores or nearby

Countdown on Moorhouse Ave is leading the charge here, seeking to establish a
full liquor store alongside its supermarket. I made a submission to the Liquor
Licensing Authority against this application. This can only ultimately end with
vodka and cornflakes together in the same store.

+   Controls on loss-leading sales and similar promotions

Outlets including supermarkets sometimes sell alcohol at near cost or below to
encourage people into their stores. Alcohol is treated in exactly the same way
as bread and milk, when it is in fact our number one drug problem.

+ Ensure those who operate party buses taking people to licensed premises obey
the law and don’t deliver grossly intoxicated people.

There are 30 or more buses operating in Christchurch alone. They regularly
deliver people into the inner city late at night who are too intoxicated to
gain entry into licensed premises. Inevitably fights and other problems break
out.

+  Stricter controls on liquor advertising

While there are issues with alcohol, violence and vandalism in inner-city, it
is important these must be kept in perspective.

The police are doing a generally good job and their pro-active approach has
actually seen a seen a drop in violence offences the inner-city. Nonetheless,
there continue to be issues with violence and crime that are affecting our
city’s reputation and livelihood. Alcohol is the key driver. Most of us enjoy a
drink but as a community we are paying too high a price for having too little
control on alcohol sales.

My website - www.brendonburns.co.nz
carries more of my views
    

Brendon

From: 'Just Blair' Anderson Date: May 13 00:04 UTC Short link

Alcohol (and Tobacco) being viewed outside of the 2008 LAW COMMISSION review of
our 'illicit drug' laws is *contrary to the highly recommended integrated and
holistic approach advocated in the "Nation Drug Policy" formulation process and
reports. The 'separation' of legal and illegal drug policy was launched around
1996 with significant delays between the two.
No cost benefit analysis was ever done despite it being budgeted for. The
reason for the dropping of the 'evidential base for decisions' was reported
elsewhere as having 'legislative implications' - some might suspect that we
might have progressed to an inclusive and consistent "CLASS D" a lot sooner!.

Until we get our collective heads around that anomaly we will be in the
vernacular 'pithing in to the wind'. Perhaps someone should speak to this at
proposed public meeting on the 3rd. I'd be happy to put my hand up.

*(anyone want evidence of this can obtain it simply by asking the MINISTRY OF
HEALTH!)
    

From: Brendon Burns Date: May 13 10:07 UTC Short link

Hi Andrew, Blair and Christine, the circumstances were that the parents had
been drinking themselves; that's no crime - and the mother was very grateful
when Sarah arrived home safely, courtesy of the taxi organised. Sarah was
supposed to be staying the night with a friend. Whether this was one of the six
who refused to accompany their comatose friend is difficult to determine. It
was very sad to observe her being abandoned.

What was clear was that she had been drinking. One of the male friends, a boy
of 17, had a knapsack with beers and RTDs which he said had been obtained by an
18 year old friend (and on supplied...)

The 17 year old was given an on the spot $200 fine...

Many of us have been through similar rites of passage; one big difference is
alcohol is becoming more and more available at lower prices. From 300+ outlets
in Christchurch 20 years ago
to nearly 1200. And now supermarkets are pushing to gain the right to get full
liquor licences for adjunct facilities, meaning more capacity to heavily
discount and loss-lead.

Yes, there is a lot of societal change and a whole range of causes for today's
problems. And while young people are a particular issue, problems with excess
alcohol stretch across all ages. It is our number one drug problem. Let's
attempt to deal with the one factor that police, ambulance officers, A+E staff
and others at the frontline say is the cause of 75%+ of weekend
crime and injuries. As a society do we really want or need such rights as the
capacity to buy booze at 3 am or 7am from a dairy, or from a never
ending increase in outlets? Where
is the effort to minimise harm, which is the basis of our liquor legislation?

The forum to discuss the liquor laws
is now confirmed for St Michaels and
All Angels Church, Oxford Tce, 7pm
Tuesday June 3. All welcome

Brendon Burns
    

From: brenda dew Date: May 13 18:47 UTC Short link

I have seen young people, standing outside the city 24 hour shops, waiting for
gullible older people to buy them alcohol  and then wandering off with their
product tucked under their jacket.It looks innocent as the shops sell all
products, so it is not as obvious as if it were a solely liquor outlet!
    

From: Brendon Burns Date: May 17 20:36 UTC Short link

Hi Kerry, many kids will experiment with other ways to get high; but alcohol is
our number one drug problem and we don't really treat it like a drug.

The controls on sale of alcohol are less than those on tobacco,which certainly
does harm but it doesn't feed violence, vandalism or put A and E under stress
at weekends.

I am not saying reform of the liquor laws is the answer to everything but with
so much focus on crime in our inner city, it  seems to me that we need to be
targeting the primary cause.

Hope you and readers can make the 7pm June 3 Forum at St Michaels Church,
Oxford Tce to allow more discussion.
    

Brendon Burns

From: Brian Sandle Date: May 18 01:32 UTC Short link

Brendon Burns wrote:
> Hi Kerry, many kids will experiment with other ways to get high; but alcohol
is our number one drug problem and we don't really treat it like a drug.
>
> The controls on sale of alcohol are less than those on tobacco,which
certainly does harm but it doesn't feed violence, vandalism or put A and E
under stress at weekends.
>
> I am not saying reform of the liquor laws is the answer to everything but
with so much focus on crime in our inner city, it  seems to me that we need to
be targeting the primary cause.
>
> Hope you and readers can make the 7pm June 3 Forum at St Michaels Church,
Oxford Tce to allow more discussion.
>
>
I forgot to write about legislation.

Sorry about some bothersome brainstorming.

Whatever forces and for whatever reason has the idea of urban
intensification been developed, the idea that prohibition of alcohol
increased trouble overall has also been developed.

There was crime amongst the bootleggers, but were fathers at home more,
so that things were better for families? Was the work force more able?


http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1920/consumption.htm


U.S. Alcohol Epidemiologic Data Reference Manual


gives at year 1910 average consumption 2.6 gallons. At 1910 the States
started to progresively introduce prohibition, it was not all at once.
Then at the end of
prohibition, year 1933 consumption was 1.0 gallon, not rising back to
2.6 gallons until 1973, at the peak of the horrific Vietnam war.

How well would have America fought in WWII if alcohol consumption had
stayed at the level it returned to by the Vietnam War end?

Will the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs in Islamic countries
mean they retain a clearer head in some fashion and start to  dominate
the world?

Unfortunately the Islamic peoples may not do too well when the emigrate
to couhjtries which do not have prohibition.

In Holland children are taught to relate to alcohol.

Brian Sandle
    

From: Paula Lambert Date: May 22 04:27 UTC Short link

I* dont know the solutions exactly, but its about how these kids feel
about themselves and stuff. This is a fairly destroyed planet / future
we are handing them and goodness knows what 15year olds are going
through these days.
Thank you - Kerry McKenna.
*
Kevin made a point.
Kerry has hit the nerve nicely too.
The double standards surrounding the planet and the plant . . .  and the
respect that most adults absolutely demand from young people, while all
these double standards fly around . . .  and I'm sure there are probably one
or two other issues young people would mention if given the chance.

We treat them as though they are stupid, when all they are is naive.  A lot
of us (parents)  are full of fear or crap, while they are merely full of
idealism.     Alcohol widely available is easy to blame, but its time for
the mirror folks.   The blanket approach of  'Do as I say, not as I do'
just may not cut it any more.   I will try to get to the public meeting but
expect to be shouted down.   The ignorance and blind prejudice that
surrounds this issue is appalling.

Last year at the Chch venue for the international Million Marijuana March
(230+ cities worldwide on Mayday each year) there were 300+ youngish and
older people sitting in the sun in groups having a great afternoon.  Young
(and quite a few older) people using pot.   Peaceful, friendly, thoughtful .
. .  That night was the Edgeware Road party where two young girls were
killed and many other young people injured.  Young people drinking, no
adults around.    What a huge difference between the two groups.

Cannabis users  are called the most pejorative terms, but the fact remains
double standards that surround alcohol use, including that it is only very
rarely described as a *drug* though that is plainly what it is . . . the
fact that media reports of other drug use are only for scaring people and
selling newspapers . . . that where drugs are involved factual analysis and
rational thought usually disappear down the toilet . . .  Alcohol is a
loss-leader for supermarkets (what lunacy is that ?) . . .   Do we have the
society we deserve  . . .  are our communities all built on hypocrisy ?
Quick, wheres that carpet !  Lift it, shove all these double standards under
it, slam your heel as hard as you can into it to squash it flat.
    

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM, kevin oconnell <kevvoc@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi team:
>
> alcohol needs to seen in the context of everyday
> 'other drug' use in NZ, and surrounding attitudes and
> problems.
>
> It is really simplistic to try and fix the alcohol
> problem without recognising the possiblilty that there
> is a bigger thing under the water.
>
> which is what blair was getting at, as the National
> drug policy started out attempting to minimise drugs
> harms including alchol realates to other social
> problems cannabis problem, the tobacco problem, the
> methamphetamine problem, and other social problems
> where 'non compliance' with good health is normal.
>
> all nzs social problems have 'non-compliance' in
> common. not doing what told is institional in NZ. it
> is part of our spirit (or at least a massive sub
> culture)
>
> That is so often the way of life for many in NZ- part
> of our culture is all things in moderation, including
> moderation.
>
> I suggest you look at the doublestandards with popular
> intoxicant #2, Brendon. And whats the latest update on
> Labours cannabis-related health promotion given the
> prevalence is something like 14 - 16% (likelihood of
> under-reporting noted research team)
>
> Much higher prevalence of course AMONGST YOUNG PEOPLE.
>
>
> most people i know love alchol to a greater or lesser
> extent. Quite a lot also love pot and not in a
> detrimental way. So why the double standard? a select
> committee in 1998 found double standards to impair
> drug-related health promotion.
>
> started to join any dots yet?
>
> regards
> Kevin O'Connell
> --- Brendon Burns <bb@brendonburns.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kerry, many kids will experiment with other ways
> > to get high; but alcohol is our number one drug
> > problem and we don't really treat it like a drug.
> >
> > The controls on sale of alcohol are less than those
> > on tobacco,which certainly does harm but it doesn't
> > feed violence, vandalism or put A and E under stress
> > at weekends.
> >
> > I am not saying reform of the liquor laws is the
> > answer to everything but with so much focus on crime
> > in our inner city, it  seems to me that we need to
> > be targeting the primary cause.
> >
> > Hope you and readers can make the 7pm June 3 Forum
> > at St Michaels Church, Oxford Tce to allow more
> > discussion.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brendon Burns
> >
> >
> > Brendon  Burns
> > Richmond, Christchurch
> > Info about Brendon Burns:
> >
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/5327sUyPUvOiDy1nF4Htfv
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> >
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4qnnfcVupIgktcy1Eu8bLe
> > -----------------------------------------
> >   To post, send your message to:
> > <email obscured>
> >   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe"
> > or "digest on,"
> >   in subject line and send to:
> > <email obscured>
> >
> >   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> >
> >
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> >
> >   E-Democracy.Org rules:
> > http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
> > http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin O'Connell
>
> Info about Kevin O'Connell: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/kevinoconnell
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5MriIE1YRrxtG9iSe5kiiW
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>

From: Kerry McK Date: May 22 21:05 UTC Short link

Thanks Paula, although it's interesting how marijuana keeps getting
pulled into this discussion, or did i miss some correspondence in the
beginning.

Thought we should keep it going in case we stumble upon a solution:)

I know Brendon that Alcohol causes more problems than ghanja but I
don't think either of them should be made more illegal.

I like the point that Holland - probably much of Europe - teaches kids
to drink properly (?) less binge culture perhaps, so how could this be
achieved here? Free  and available breathalising? Teaching them to tell
when they should stop drinking? More booze free places like the old
days- swimming pools, theatre, fairs for low cost?

My 13 year old  says things to me like  "the world is  ****ed" and I
worry about all the pain and sadness young people feel these days. If
they are not popular and successful at either sport or academics, what
are we giving them? Can anyone below middle class afford to go on a
holiday if they don't have access to a bach these days? They don't have
dances and other community socials like in days of old - our society
seems to be gradually getting worse while they see that overseas things
are really hitting the skids and maybe they expect that level of loss
of human rights and environmental disaster to happen over here
eventually.

It seems to me that unfortunately young people have soooo many issues,
and whether or not they get drunk and they or someone else  is injured
is very low on their radar of priorities. Contrast this to our average
60 
year old view in ChCh, Property Damage and Boy Racing is wayyyyyyyy up
their
priority list.  Total conflict of interests.

What do others think, is putting the feelings of these kids first more
important than keeping them away from omnipresent dangers like drugs
and alcohol, and will this inadvertently fix many problems at once.

Kerry McKenna

Paula Lambert wrote:


*
Kevin made a point.
Kerry has hit the nerve nicely too.
The double standards surrounding the planet and the plant . . .  and the
respect that most adults absolutely demand from young people, while all
these double standards fly around . . .  and I'm sure there are probably one
or two other issues young people would mention if given the chance.

We treat them as though they are stupid, when all they are is naive.  A lot
of us (parents)  are full of fear or crap, while they are merely full of
idealism.     Alcohol widely available is easy to blame, but its time for
the mirror folks.   The blanket approach of  'Do as I say, not as I do'
just may not cut it any more.   I will try to get to the public meeting but
expect to be shouted down.   The ignorance and blind prejudice that
surrounds this issue is appalling.

Last year at the Chch venue for the international Million Marijuana March
(230+ cities worldwide on Mayday each year) there were 300+ youngish and
older people sitting in the sun in groups having a great afternoon.  Young
(and quite a few older) people using pot.   Peaceful, friendly, thoughtful .
. .  That night was the Edgeware Road party where two young girls were
killed and many other young people injured.  Young people drinking, no
adults around.    What a huge difference between the two groups.

Cannabis users  are called the most pejorative terms, but the fact remains
double standards that surround alcohol use, including that it is only very
rarely described as a *drug* though that is plainly what it is . . . the
fact that media reports of other drug use are only for scaring people and
selling newspapers . . . that where drugs are involved factual analysis and
rational thought usually disappear down the toilet . . .  Alcohol is a
loss-leader for supermarkets (what lunacy is that ?) . . .   Do we have the
society we deserve  . . .  are our communities all built on hypocrisy ?
Quick, wheres that carpet !  Lift it, shove all these double standards under
it, slam your heel as hard as you can into it to squash it flat.


    Hi team:

alcohol needs to seen in the context of everyday
'other drug' use in NZ, and surrounding attitudes and
problems.

It is really simplistic to try and fix the alcohol
problem without recognising the possiblilty that there
is a bigger thing under the water.

which is what blair was getting at, as the National
drug policy started out attempting to minimise drugs
harms including alchol realates to other social
problems cannabis problem, the tobacco problem, the
methamphetamine problem, and other social problems
where 'non compliance' with good health is normal.

all nzs social problems have 'non-compliance' in
common. not doing what told is institional in NZ. it
is part of our spirit (or at least a massive sub
culture)

That is so often the way of life for many in NZ- part
of our culture is all things in moderation, including
moderation.

I suggest you look at the doublestandards with popular
intoxicant #2, Brendon. And whats the latest update on
Labours cannabis-related health promotion given the
prevalence is something like 14 - 16% (likelihood of
under-reporting noted research team)

Much higher prevalence of course AMONGST YOUNG PEOPLE.


most people i know love alchol to a greater or lesser
extent. Quite a lot also love pot and not in a
detrimental way. So why the double standard? a select
committee in 1998 found double standards to impair
drug-related health promotion.

started to join any dots yet?

regards
Kevin O'Connell
    

--- Brendon Burns <bb@brendonburns.co.nz> wrote:



      Hi Kerry, many kids will experiment with other ways
to get high; but alcohol is our number one drug
problem and we don't really treat it like a drug.

The controls on sale of alcohol are less than those
on tobacco,which certainly does harm but it doesn't
feed violence, vandalism or put A and E under stress
at weekends.

I am not saying reform of the liquor laws is the
answer to everything but with so much focus on crime
in our inner city, it  seems to me that we need to
be targeting the primary cause.

Hope you and readers can make the 7pm June 3 Forum
at St Michaels Church, Oxford Tce to allow more
discussion.





Brendon Burns


Brendon  Burns
Richmond, Christchurch
Info about Brendon Burns:






Paula Lambert

From: Matt Hanson Date: May 28 04:34 UTC Short link

Hi everyone,

As a youth in Christchurch, I think the solution is not to spend time trying to
stop people gaining access to alcohol, but to actually teach them to drink it
responsibly.

Give your teenager a beer from time to time, drink with them, and learn to
negotiate with them about things like curfews. Just saying "NO" when they ask
you if they can go out for the night will not help. You may need to make some
sort of agreement that you are both happy with.

I can tell you now forcing them to stay home when their friends are out having
a good time WILL eventually lead to them leaving the house quite possibly
without you knowing, and I think this is where the binge drinking culture
evolves from. It might be some of your alcohol they have taken to drink, but
most often it will be someone's older sibling who is willing to buy it for
them.

My parents gave me a lot of freedom like that, and I believe it has made me
more responsible. I know a bunch of girls who like to "sneak out" and drink at
the park at all hours of the night. My mother would let me go down to the park
with them, and at first I wouldn't drink. I was merely there to make sure
everything was all right. Once a level of trust had been developed she would
buy me a six pack of beers to take down there and I would drink socially with
them. I always told my mum I would call her if we needed help, but there has
never been a problem.
I have no desire to get stupidly drunk because I have learned to drink
responsibly - something which is rubbing off on my friends.

However, I understand that other people do feel the need to get as drunk as
they possibly can. For that reason, a first response group called WE-Care has
been set up. It is part of the White Elephant Trust (www.we.org.nz), and
operates at all-ages events supported by the Trust. The overall role of WE-Care
is to act as role models at the events they attend and show other party-goers
that you can be sober and have a good time, and look after the general
wellbeing of everyone there. Many of us have been trained in first aid too, and
we also offer a taxi service for anyone that is near comatose and needs to be
taken home. There is a checklist (which I am in charge of ticking off) which
ensures the venue has everything we could possibly need to deal with any
situation.
It is a service not a lot of adults know about as it is not promoted heavily,
but any all-ages party supported by White Elephant Trust will have members from
the WE-Care team there showing others how to have a great time and stay sober.
    

From: Andrew Groom Date: May 29 03:42 UTC Short link

On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:29 -0700, kevin oconnell wrote:
> Ignore the state of affairs with the double standard,
> Brendon, and you will never solve the problem(s)

I don't have any experience in this area (only with small kids and
trying to educate them as to the dangers of sugar-abuse :-), but my
feeling is that youth substance abuse per se and in general is only a
symptom of an underlying cause - lack of good parenting. As Matt said,
if kids are (most importantly) loved and educated as to the dangers of
substance abuse, they're probably a lot less likely to use it as a
crutch.

Nathan mentioned re boy racers that most of them will be unaffected by
high petrol prices because *they live at home and pay little or no
rent* !!!

Hello !?!?!?!? Lack of good parenting the root cause in both cases,
anyone !?!?!
    

From: Matt Hanson Date: May 29 11:08 UTC Short link

Hi Brendon,
I would like to attend whatever it is happening on Tuesday, but I am afraid I
do not know what you are talking about. Do you think you could send more
information to <email obscured>? And I will look into bringing a few more
Elephants with me to help represent the youth of Christchurch.
Matt
    

From: N. Perzylo Date: May 30 00:21 UTC Short link

I have recently went to Melbourne, Australia... the land of LIGHT and BAD
beer.

They only seem to serve light beer (low alcohol content) in pubs because of
the drink-driving low alcohol tolerance. They call a glass a beer, a pot. So
you see advertising FREE POT with an asterisk beside the *pot to tell the
holiday makers that it's actually a glass and not grass.

The beer is so bad that I refused to buy it. Is that an answer for
Canterbury? I think not. Our history of Speights goes a long way--phew

*Separate alcohol and food shopping*

They sell beer in supermarkets but it's on a separate side of the
supermarket, and you have to buy your beer/wine at the counter, then go in
the supermarket to buy the rest of the expensive food. That might be a way
of going for Christchurch (separate alcohol and food shopping) as it takes
the pressure off the check out counters staff to 'okay' the purchase, and
you can shut down the sell of alcohol before the supermarket closes. And
those trying to curve their alcohol intake don't have to be tempted each
time they visit a supermarket.
/Natalie
    

From: Paula Lambert Date: May 30 04:01 UTC Short link

To keep it in a Canterbury context, I am pointing out here that I'd like
Christchurch/Canterbury to have the same debate that sister city Seattle has
had about marijuana over the last several years.

As a result of their factual rational evidence-based debate they have
downgraded it in term of policing priorities to the lowest.  They recognised
criminalising and otherwise sanctioning people over marijuana use produces
the worst possible social results.
    

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:29 PM, kevin oconnell <kevvoc@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- Brendon Burns <bb@brendonburns.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > I understand that some people with
> > passionate views want to widen the debate into
> > cannabis but hey, tackling the liquor laws is a big
> > enough number on it's own!
>
> thats being a bit patronising Brendon - get some
> advice there from head office did you?
>
> there is an impediment to health promotion
> (alienation)creating a dangerous situation in NZ where
> people just wont behave responsibly - basically its
> because we refuse to be told what to do (and
> patronised...) BUT LABOUR HAVE PRETENDED THERE IS NO
> DEPRESSION IN NZ.
>
> You have got a bigger thing under the water and any
> science based (evidence based) assessment of the
> alcohol problem will acknowledge basic cause and
> effect mechanism of it being a larger 'non compliance'
> problem.
>
> want to fix the real unresolved problem or tinkle with
> some rules which wont make bugger all difference to
> people NOT DOING AS THEY ARE TOLD BY PC HEALTH
> PROMOTION INDUSTRY.
>
> if our smoke free rules were truely effective, smoking
> would not just be at a 'record low' as announced by
> Helen clark today.
>
> to the 'record low' I say so what! of course its
> trending down, but is the anti-smoking lobby industry
> $$$workforce doing that or are PEOPLE MAKING THEIR OWN
> SENSIBLE INFORMED DECISIONS?
>
> REGARDS
> Kevin
> There are huge and
> > powerful interests who will challenge any
> > attempt to curb their ability to make
> > money from alcohol. The supermarket chains are
> > lining up the applications store by store to sell
> > hard liquor and RTDs. Matt, I do wish to make clear
> > that while there is clear focus on youth drinking,
> > excess alcohol consumption driven by ever-increasing
> > availability is a community problem, affecting all
> > age groups. We all have to own it. Matt, I do hope
> > you are able to come next Tuesday to help provide a
> > youth perspective - I have been trying to invite a
> > White Elephant Trust representative.
> > Brendon
> >
> >
> > Brendon  Burns
> > Richmond, Christchurch
> > Info about Brendon Burns:
> >
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/5327sUyPUvOiDy1nF4Htfv
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> >
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6HoQhZIzxKQLqBI0xUFEYz
> > -----------------------------------------
> >   To post, send your message to:
> > <email obscured>
> >   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe"
> > or "digest on,"
> >   in subject line and send to:
> > <email obscured>
> >
> >   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> >
> >
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> >
> >   E-Democracy.Org rules:
> > http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
> > http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin O'Connell
>
> Info about Kevin O'Connell: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/kevinoconnell
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3vEvLYI3hObkMUiRQUs9Qd
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>

From: Matt Hanson Date: May 30 10:45 UTC Short link

Putting nasty pictures on the bottles would definitely be a good way of making
people thinking about the problems that can arise from drinking, but how could
you get to those drikning at bars, pubs, and clubs?
    

From: 'Just Blair' Anderson Date: May 31 13:17 UTC Short link

There has been various suggestions made in the context of this debate by
various participants. I would like to approach each of these from the
perspective of a long term reader and observer of the debate surrounding
substance use, misuse and abuse, the legislative models that have been tried
elsewhere and so forth in anticipation of some robust debate surrounding the
issue. We should not contrain the required debate in anyway - all the
participants contributing here at least seem to have 'our environment/place' in
mind even though other jurisdictions and/or a national context is considered.

Natalie raised her recent experience in Victoria where quite frankly the
question of how alcohol is consumed both a complex social issue (everywhere we
went Wine was lauded in every which way... including 'state approved'
road-signage to every vineyard, and there are more restaurants than
rubbish-bins.) She hints at the environment in which Alcohol is sold in
supermarkets and that beer is also weak and expensive - a small glass in a bar
being about $5.00NZ, and a takeaway 'slab' the equivalent of about $65NZ.
Considering this is sugar and water, and the price seems independent of the
distance travelled, there must be a hell of a tax regime... that suits the
'homegrown' vintners and restaurateurs all the way to the bank). But lets not
forget... Victoria was welcoming home from Greece, the logical equivalent of Al
Capone the very week we were there. It dominated the news media.

Travelling to St Kilda on tram 16 we just missed being in the middle of a major
shoot out by Police (one of whom was shot in the leg) over a 'drug suspect' who
ran and was shot and left to bleed out. The salient details are less important
than to note that an unaccounted number of bullets were flying in all
directions - only two resulted in ballistic invasion. The rest went gawd knows
where. Such is the consequence of mismanaged drug policy, nether the policeman
injured (a rookie) or the dead 'criminal' died of substance misuse... they were
injured by the policy base that surrounds such substances. So too, and just as
easily could it have been either one of us. And that's the problem when we make
rules that have unintended consequences. What was the state police response...
a call for bigger and semi automatic guns. The actually WANT bigger bullets and
more of them in all directions.

Victoria is facing down some serious problems surrounding police and related
corruption, but it cannot be said they are soft on alcohol. The drink driving
limits are .05 compared to our .08, they test for cannabis at the road side,
and ANY person who provides alcohol to a minor is subject to a $6000 fine. Has
it changed anything... not according to a brief review of the front-pages of
the Melbourne AGE. This is a perverse kind of civil war conducted in vacuum
mediated by the forth estate. The Melbourne AGE doesnt want to print ANYTHING
that points to an alternative approach.

There is a corollary in the CHCH PRESS and CHCH STAR.

Which brings me to my point that the solution is in the environment in which
alcohol is sold and consumed.

It is easy to suggest that alcohol labels include health warnings but how
bloody stupid is it to have a fine bottle of Pinotage (rich in antioxidants)
adjacent to my fillet of sole (arrgh sacrilege) accompanied by grotesque and
stomach churning imagery that I can only say we have descended into the
insanity of treating adults like children while expecting young people to
behave like adults.

I do not expect that we can cover the required bases on the 3rd and I certainly
cannot expect those attending to arrive a consensus but I can say that Kevin,
Paula and others that have holisticaly linked ALL drug policy to alcohol are at
least on the right track. There is nothing they are saying that hasnt been
thoroughly explored by NZ Health Promotion/Prevention specialists and isnt part
of the record. It should not be dismissed lightly becasue it present
challenges. (BTW Brendon, the Labour Party passed a remit that called for a
review of cannabis policy back about 1998, ask TimB)

I have written and spoken elsewhere about an ENVIRONMENTAL approach and would
be happy to address this at the meeting, given the opportunity. Lets us not
forget - it took a long time for us 'collectively' to get into the position we
are in, it will probably take just as long for us to get out of this position
too. There are powerful forces at work to obsfucate, polarise, marginalise and
disparage ideas. The history of tobacco provides us with a picture of how bad
it can get.

See you all on the 3rd.
    

From: Tim Kerr Date: Jun 03 07:41 UTC Short link

Smoking - among males - began declining in the 1960's. I suspect this was
because many males associated smoking (quite rightly) with lower sporting
performance - and sport was still important during the 1960's. However, it
began increasing with females.

The decline continued and maybe - just maybe - tobacco smoking declined with
the take-up off dope smoking. Many Hippies for example smoked dope - but
condemned tobacco.

Today, smoking is at an all-time low. Banning fags in the workplace was a
major contributor - most heavy smokers smoked a lot during work hours.
Banning fags in the pubs has probably reduced smoking a bit - but not much
and there is a reason for that.

Today, many young people smoke ONLY WHEN THEY ARE GOING OUT - like when they
are drinking or socialising with friends. They smoke about half to a packet
a week.

And today, many people get by on 200 grams of rolly tobacco a week. Cripes!
That is what people used to smoke in a day!!!

Now, if people are getting by on a packet a week - or 200 grams a week -
tell me where the obsessive addiction is? Yeah, I know there are people who
smoke much, much more per week. They are tobacco addicts - and they are a
dying breed (figuratively and literally).

Heavy smoking was more common among WW I and WW II veterans,
Amongst the women, most smokers were "professional" women - nurses and
artists. And, of course the Bohemians.

Why? I am not sure - but, back then tobacco was used as a stress reliever.
And maybe it worked.

Today - despite what we are told - we live in a less stressful society - and
frankly, just do not need tobacco. (There are alternatives such as dope and
prescription drugs.)

Most young cigarette smokers give up.... Some don't. They become addicts.

But my point is, smoking was declining BEFORE anti-smoking lobbyists began
receiving Govt funding - and the decline has been fairly consistent with tax
and price increases only causing blips in the gradual decline rate. (I
haven't seen data for work-place and pub bans but they would have caused a
major decline - with maybe an increase in prescription drugs and other
stuff.)
    

----- Original Message -----
From: "kevin oconnell" <kevvoc@yahoo.com>
To: <canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Reforming liquor laws to combat crime


> --- Brendon Burns <bb@brendonburns.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I understand that some people with
>> passionate views want to widen the debate into
>> cannabis but hey, tackling the liquor laws is a big
>> enough number on it's own!
>
> thats being a bit patronising Brendon - get some
> advice there from head office did you?
>
> there is an impediment to health promotion
> (alienation)creating a dangerous situation in NZ where
> people just wont behave responsibly - basically its
> because we refuse to be told what to do (and
> patronised...) BUT LABOUR HAVE PRETENDED THERE IS NO
> DEPRESSION IN NZ.
>
> You have got a bigger thing under the water and any
> science based (evidence based) assessment of the
> alcohol problem will acknowledge basic cause and
> effect mechanism of it being a larger 'non compliance'
> problem.
>
> want to fix the real unresolved problem or tinkle with
> some rules which wont make bugger all difference to
> people NOT DOING AS THEY ARE TOLD BY PC HEALTH
> PROMOTION INDUSTRY.
>
> if our smoke free rules were truely effective, smoking
> would not just be at a 'record low' as announced by
> Helen clark today.
>
> to the 'record low' I say so what! of course its
> trending down, but is the anti-smoking lobby industry
> $$$workforce doing that or are PEOPLE MAKING THEIR OWN
> SENSIBLE INFORMED DECISIONS?
>
> REGARDS
> Kevin
> There are huge and
>> powerful interests who will challenge any
>> attempt to curb their ability to make
>> money from alcohol. The supermarket chains are
>> lining up the applications store by store to sell
>> hard liquor and RTDs. Matt, I do wish to make clear
>> that while there is clear focus on youth drinking,
>> excess alcohol consumption driven by ever-increasing
>> availability is a community problem, affecting all
>> age groups. We all have to own it. Matt, I do hope
>> you are able to come next Tuesday to help provide a
>> youth perspective - I have been trying to invite a
>> White Elephant Trust representative.
>> Brendon
>>
>>
>> Brendon  Burns
>> Richmond, Christchurch
>> Info about Brendon Burns:
>>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/5327sUyPUvOiDy1nF4Htfv
>>
>> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
>>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6HoQhZIzxKQLqBI0xUFEYz
>> -----------------------------------------
>>   To post, send your message to:
>> <email obscured>
>>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe"
>> or "digest on,"
>>   in subject line and send to:
>> <email obscured>
>>
>>   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>>
>>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>>
>>   E-Democracy.Org rules:
>> http://e-democracy.org/rules
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
>> http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin O'Connell
>
> Info about Kevin O'Connell: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/kevinoconnell
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3vEvLYI3hObkMUiRQUs9Qd
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: