ALAC's policy positions

Call me old fashioned if you like but in my opinion I think now is a very good time to put the onus onto Alcohol related products in NZ pretty much in the same manner that the onus has been placed on the tobacco industry in terms of labelling.

As we speak there are many people being affected by these products. Over the years, I have lost many family members and friends to these alcohol products. The poor families who are experiencing sometimes a fate worse than death, the endless children being caught in the crossfire of alcohol related issues; violence, vehicular accidents, domestic violence, sexual abuse, just to name a few. I think it is absolutely fantastic what has finally happened to the tobacco industry after all these years, at long last we can feel somewhat more confident that the ball has started to roll down-hill in terms of advertising, labelling, and smoking bans.

As I said earlier, call me old fashioned, but do you not agree that to implement the same approach toward the alcohol industry would surely bring our country a great deal of goodness and more healthy living standards (not to mention greater people interaction) nation-wide?

I find it so ironic that the alcohol industries have recently mentioned their concern for the public by only now deciding to put safety messages onto their products? The irony being after all these years … nothing, then suddenly the tobacco industry gets the pressure placed firmly upon them in terms of labels and advertising including smoke-free zones, that the alcohol industry attempts to portray a message of caring by printing little safety messages on their products. To me it appears that they are just buying time because they can see the impact on tobacco will be detrimental to their profits, and now fear this could also be applied to their industry.

Does ALAC believe this will happen in the near future, if; at all? How difficult can it be to use a similar model and place the onus onto the alcohol related industry as soon as practicable? I know Rome was not built in a day, but what has finally occurred in the tobacco industry is indicative of “not giving up” after many years of proactive input, clearly, there will be no more going backwards in the tobacco industry from this point onward, therefore surely this next horrible drug on the to-do-list cannot be far away from a giant leap forward?

Hi
I have read the brief of ALAC's submission to the Law Commission. I note there is a lot of emphasis on the responsibilities of the licensed vendor. I have long since wondered why there is not a licensing system in place for the purchaser and/or drinkerA drinker is a person who self-reports they currently consume alcohol. . Just as losing one's driver's license has been shown to be the single most effective way of modifying behaviour on the road I am convinced that losing one's legal right to purchase or consume alcohol would be a most effective way of improving drinking behaviour. I know people will say those that are alcoholics would still get their booze and people will find ways around a loss of license but the inconvenience, the humiliation and feeling of being disappointed with one's self would have a significant impact on most people at a much earlier stage BEFORE they become alcoholics. Indeed losing their driver's license for DIC is a wake up call for many. I have witnessed this being the case and seen people's behaviour change. Why not build on the driver's licence experience with an alcohol license?
The license could be used to back up most of the drinking laws we already have by introducing license penalties for offences and additional laws could be added, for example, making it an offence to supply people who have lost their license.
Of course I can see many reasons people would argue against such a system claiming, for example, it would be a draconion attack on the freedom of individuals to which I would counter that (a) Young people already have to use ID to obtain access to licensed premises or buy liquor so it would have little effect on their freedom so long as they did not infringe. (b) That we really have to acknowledge we have a serious and growing problem with alcohol so we have to take a serious approach. (c) Having to produce ID at the time of purchasing alcohol is no more an attack on individual's rights than putting up prices to the point that people who have no history of abusing alcohol cannot afford the luxury they clearly desire (to have a drink).
People will also claim that it would lead to an illegal trade and folks will find a way around the law. I would counter that no matter what measures you introduce (including price hikes) people will do this. At least the license would be an effective tool for enforcing all the laws we have now and which we may have in the future.
And I know, what about overseas vistors, etc? Well the aclohol license would be similar to the driving license and could be linked. People are already checked for the likes of drug offences. I am not aware of any such system overseas but I believe binge drinking is becoming more of a problem in many parts of the world previously thought to have more sophisticated drinking habits. Perhaps other countries would follow us, in which case the license would be transferable. Also, as I say below this is not a silver bullet and I am sure there is none. If a few tourists misbehave that would be a much lesser problem than we now have.
I believe the suggestion deserves seious thought and robust discussion even though I am sure many people would reject it out of hand (before thinking it through). I hope ALAC has the wisdom to consider ALL ideas because although the specific idea may not be a chosen solution it may lead to others which do lead to improvements. I am not so naive as to think this is a silver bullet but I am hopeful that it may help. I feel that we are at a position where new ideas are badly needed. I haven't seen this one discussed anywhere so I assume it is new or at least its new to the current discussion.
Yours faithfully