Alcohol distraction

69 comments on “Alcohol distraction ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Carol 1

   30 August 2012 at 9:09 am

   Yes I heard someone on RNZ a week or 2 ago, speaking on behalf of the alcohol industry, arguing that it was the responsibility of drinkers not to drink in a way that was harmful to themselves.

   Yeah, right!

   Especially young teenage drinkers – I can remember not always being “responsible” at that age.
2. tc 2

   30 August 2012 at 9:15 am

   I’m expecting a few more controversial mumbles from Shonkey as a further distraction from their flogging off of public assets to enrich their mates.

   Doesn’t he have shares in alcohol interests, this is just another sham about caring when they don’t give a F about anything but their wallets.

   The RTD issue is alot more serious than folk realise, the alcohol content aside they are among some of the most nasty substances one can drink with the alcohol often not even coming from the alleged ‘spirit’.

   Fosters got done a few years back for using the brewing process to manufacture the alcohol they then ‘flavoured’ in RTD ‘spirit mixes’.
3. Julian 3

   30 August 2012 at 9:22 am

   They, they, they……. all their fault eh!
   Take ownership adults of NZ, you set the example for your young, not the alcohol companies and our government!
   Geez, lets raise the price of food to get those fat obese kiwis to slim down. Alcohol is not the issue. The issue is whether you can teach and lead by example the youth of our country. Enjoy a beverage with food, enjoy the company with you, enjoy the beverage, enjoy!
   When the adults of our society continue to get plastered i.e. Zac Guilford, yet we still receive them with open arms and praise them, turning the blind eye to their disgraceful excess consumption.
   Grow up and enjoy a ‘good’ wine.
   • Carol 3.1

     30 August 2012 at 9:30 am

     Mate, I don’t drink, but I don’t see many young people following my example. Not that I want others to give up drinking alcohol altogether.

     They are more influenced by the advertising, marketing, and their peers.

     Get a clue about how consumer behaviour is influence!. The (alcohol and other) corporates know this, which is why they spend so much on marketing and advertising, drawing on research that shows how behaviour can be manipulated….. hypocritical of them to then say that the subsequent behaviour is all the responsibility of the consumer.

     The culture that is most damaging, resulting in problem drinking, is consumer culture.
   • Tracey 3.2

     30 August 2012 at 12:56 pm

     alcohol doesn’t get drunk, people do… And who pays for all the back up services that are required? The alcohol companies with their offshore companies in tax havens or those of us who don’t drink or only drink responsibly, as adults?

     At 18 the young person’s brain is still developing, including the consequences part… still let’s put them and their long suffering parents up against

     cheap prices
     billions spent on advertising to surrepticiously move them to buy
     have it on every street corner

     I suppose you also think that advertising doesn’t “work”?
4. Lanthanide 4

   30 August 2012 at 9:53 am

   I’m in favour of the minimum price change, since I don’t buy the cheap stuff anyway…
   • Augustus 4.1

     30 August 2012 at 11:20 am

     Yeah, me too. I like the $1 bit per unit. That would bring us in line with Scotland, where it’s 50p. In Labour they have been talking about $ 2 per unit, twice as much as the Scots. “We”‘re not twice as bad as them, are we?
   • felix 4.2

     30 August 2012 at 12:06 pm

     Lanth, that makes sense as a reason to not be opposed, but in no way is it an argument in favour.

     It’s a bit like saying ‘I’m in favour of increasing speed limits on motorways to 200kph because I don’t drive on motorways.’
     • Lanthanide 4.2.1

       30 August 2012 at 12:35 pm

       If they’re going to make changes to the pricing of alcohol, then:
       1. I’m in favour of the minimum pricing change, since I don’t buy the cheap stuff.
       2. I’m against changing the excise tax, because it will affect what I do buy.

       So that’s an argument in favour, however venal and self-serving.
       • felix 4.2.1.1

         30 August 2012 at 1:58 pm

         Ah, so if it were a choice between those two options, you’d be expressing a preference for option one, which is not really the same thing as saying you support option one as opposed to the status quo.

         Why are we talking about it as if those are the only two possible options?
         • Lanthanide 4.2.1.1.1

           30 August 2012 at 3:03 pm

           I refer you to the original article:

           “Number one is price. A minimum price for alcohol ($1/unit?) would be best, but if not, then at least some increase in the excise.”
           • felix 4.2.1.1.1.1

             30 August 2012 at 3:14 pm

             Ah so. Apologies for my misreading of your point.
5. King Kong 5

   30 August 2012 at 10:11 am

   Anglo Saxons have been getting on the stitch for ever and in NZ the natives have shown quite an aptitude for it as well.

   The reality is that forever people have liked getting out of their box and there has always been those that tut tut and point to the social cost and there have always been those who say get fucked.

   Throughout the ages attempts have been made to put a lid on overt alcohol consumption and it has always failed. I do admire those who so stridently believe that their ideas will be succesful though.
   • mike e 5.1

     30 August 2012 at 10:26 am

     Primitive urges explained by primitive primate.
     • dave 5.1.1

       30 August 2012 at 11:42 am

       the original chestbeater
   • Lanthanide 5.2

     30 August 2012 at 12:37 pm

     And yet other countries don’t have the same sort of drinking culture as we do.

     The question is, how do we move our culture to be more like theirs. Minimum pricing is a great way to moderate the fringe behaviour, and curtailing advertisement goes a long way in fighting the glamorisation of drinking.
   • Tracey 5.3

     30 August 2012 at 12:58 pm

     Of course in the olden days it was because the water would kill you…
   • fnjckg 5.4

     30 August 2012 at 3:32 pm

     learning. adaptation. teachable.
6. belladonna 6

   30 August 2012 at 11:01 am

   Those who dont buy the cheap wine are more fortunate than those who have no choice but to buy the cheap version. Most people drink responsibly so why would you yet again hit the poor who enjoy a glass of wine at night. There are other ways to curb excess drinking, especially in the young. Raising the price of alcohol and a minimum price is just yet another tax.
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     30 August 2012 at 12:37 pm

     “than those who have no choice but to buy the cheap version”

     You can choose not to buy alcohol.
     • felix 6.1.1

       30 August 2012 at 1:55 pm

       Is there some other form of self-medication you’d recommend? Because essentially you’re advocating for plugging up the stress-relief valve of a whole sector of our community.
       • higherstandard 6.1.1.1

         30 August 2012 at 2:02 pm

         Kava.
         • felix 6.1.1.1.1

           30 August 2012 at 2:14 pm

           What about khat leaves?
           • higherstandard 6.1.1.1.1.1

             30 August 2012 at 2:26 pm

             Although it is fairly benign toxicologically there are still too many possible deleterious health effects for my liking in comparison to Kava.
       • Lanthanide 6.1.1.2

         30 August 2012 at 3:04 pm

         belladonna’s comment implies people are forced to buy alcohol. They’re not.
         • felix 6.1.1.2.1

           30 August 2012 at 3:18 pm

           Of course not, but people drink for a number of reasons. Let’s not ignore those reasons.

           Otherwise this entire effort is a massive waste of time at best.
     • vto 6.1.2

       30 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

       “You can choose not to buy alcohol.”

       Oh so you do endorse free grown up adult decision-making rather than do-gooder interference from on high. Could have fooled me ..
       • fnjckg 6.1.2.1

         30 August 2012 at 8:42 pm

         much is determined
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     30 August 2012 at 5:17 pm

     Those who dont buy the cheap wine are more fortunate than those who have no choice but to buy the cheap version.

     They still have a choice – buy or don’t buy.

     Most people drink responsibly so why would you yet again hit the poor who enjoy a glass of wine at night.

     I really doubt if it will hit responsible drinkers that hard – even the poor ones.

     There are other ways to curb excess drinking, especially in the young.

     No, there isn’t. The young are looking for most alcohol content at the cheapest price so that they can drink lots.
     • TheContrarian 6.2.1

       30 August 2012 at 5:20 pm

       Ironically enough the cheaper the booze the lower the alcohol content (spirits mainly)
7. Enough is Enough 7

   30 August 2012 at 11:04 am

   A minimum price will punish the poor and have no affect on the binge drinking rich.
   • Lanthanide 7.1

     30 August 2012 at 12:40 pm

     A minimum price means that the $6 wine that no one would buy if it actually cost $16, will stop being produced because they won’t be able to sell it at the minimum price. Similarly all of the other low-end grog will stop being produced as there’ll be no (legal) market for it.

     I don’t see this as ‘punishing’ the poor: I suspect ‘poor’ people wouldn’t really ‘enjoy’ drinking this sort of alcohol because by and large it isn’t actually nice. They drink it because it’s all they can afford.
     • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

       30 August 2012 at 5:20 pm

       No, that $6 bottle of wine will still sell – it’s just that it won’t be bought by the case load for binge drinking.
       • Lanthanide 7.1.1.1

         30 August 2012 at 5:34 pm

         Not entirely understanding your point here. Have you actually tried $6 wine? It’s not really wine. No one would voluntarily pay $16 for it (hence why it’s priced at $6).
         • mike e 7.1.1.1.1

           30 August 2012 at 5:52 pm

           Lanthe wine snob blind tastes have proved expensive wines can not be detinguished from cheap wines.Besides wine isn’t the problem its cheap RTD’s and beer thats the problem and the price hike your trying to put foreward is ridiculus.
           maybe you should try the dog whistle brand of whine and start moaning .
           Alcohol is $6billion a year problem user pays is the only way.
           So i don’t like subsidising alcoholism and our binge drinking to the tune of $6 billion a year You are obviously happy to have 75% of police time wasted on alcohol related crime!
           Have our under funded A&E depts ambulances mental health etc using up valuable resouces on Drunks!
           Work place loss of productivity and Accidents caused by alcohol.
           NZed has a major problem with alcohol and is in major denial as with any addictive substance time to do something about it as we are borrowing billions while subsidizing alcohol .
           Yes I drink ocasionally now I was a binge drinker and not proud of it.
           • Augustus 7.1.1.1.1.1

             30 August 2012 at 7:20 pm

             You do have a real thing about these $6b. Have you read this?
             • Carol …

               30 August 2012 at 8:45 pm

               I don’t have much faith in the way conventional economists measure (or don’t) social costs of anything – especially not after having attended some talks by Marilyn Waring.
           • Lanthanide 7.1.1.1.1.2

             30 August 2012 at 7:47 pm

             Yes, I know that expensive wines can’t be distinguished from cheap wines by wine experts.

             I repeat what I said: “It’s not really wine”. As in, it is not fermented grapes. It might be scum off the top of fermented grapes, made up with grape juice and some pure ethanol mixed in for the alcohol content.
     • Rich 7.1.2

       31 August 2012 at 1:57 pm

       Did you know that a lot of the wine that we pay $6 for gets foisted on ignorant foreigners (Brits, mostly) at maybe $16. There’s an “understanding” in the NZ wine industry that sets a floor on our export product.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.2

     30 August 2012 at 5:19 pm

     Binge drinking will be effected the most as the people who engage in it won’t be able to afford to do it any more.
8. captain hook 8

   30 August 2012 at 11:18 am

   hey we are a nation of sophisticates now.
   we can self regulate the amount of booze we drink.
   the tories have created a really civil society.
   haven’t they?
9. Roy 9

   30 August 2012 at 11:27 am

   A couple of things that seemed to work quite well when I lived in the US were (1) making public drunkenness illegal and (2) requiring recidivist DUIs to have orange number plates that marked them as recidivist DUIs.
   • Lanthanide 9.1

     30 August 2012 at 12:42 pm

     #2 sounds really good. A hell of a lot cheaper than the alcohol breath locks they’re talking about putting into cars. There was a ridiculous figure that they would charge people $100/month to have them fitted in their cars, and then talking about the government having to step in because most of the drink-drivers wouldn’t be able to afford that.
     • Roy 9.1.1

       30 August 2012 at 4:23 pm

       Problem here is that the number plate goes with the car rather than with the registration to a given driver. Still, maybe orange number-plate surrounds, clear orange number-plate covers, or something like that? There is something quite comforting about putting a large distance between your own car and a car with orange plates, and hopefully there is a shaming effect for recidivists who see people avoiding their vehicle. If they are capable of feeling shame, that is.
       • Lanthanide 9.1.1.1

         30 August 2012 at 7:51 pm

         Good point.

         We’d have to make sure OCR numberplate readers, more frequently being used for traffic and toll management, were compatible as well.
10. vto 10

    30 August 2012 at 11:29 am

    The whole minimum pricing thing can fu@k off.

    Bloody school teacher / nosybody / do-gooder approach.

    Why punish those who have nothing to do with the issue? Wankers
    • felix 10.1

      30 August 2012 at 12:15 pm

      Totally agree v.

      If they were really concerned about people getting fucked up all the time then they’d be trying to create a society where people didn’t feel like getting fucked up all the time.

      Instead it’s just more of the same, blaming the victim, attacking the symptom, and amputating the foot because they can’t figure out how to trim a toenail.
      • fatty 10.1.1

        30 August 2012 at 2:14 pm

        “If they were really concerned about people getting fucked up all the time then they’d be trying to create a society where people didn’t feel like getting fucked up all the time.”

        True…the binge drinkers I know are the people (of all ages) who are on minimum wage, and who have about $10-20 left per week after all bills are paid. So saving money, other entertainment, or investing in other interests are out stupid options. Come the weekend they make the most of their meagre spare change by getting munted, and trying to forget that they have to go back to their underpaid, dead-end, temporary job
        • felix 10.1.1.1

          30 August 2012 at 3:31 pm

          Yep, stress relief. Or maybe stress avoidance, but either way getting munted is a big safety valve for a lot of people in our increasingly stress-inducing society.

          Now I’m not saying it’s the best way of dealing with stress, or even that it’s not creating more stress in the long run, but nonetheless it’s how people are dealing with their shit right now and it seems to me it would be really dumb to remove that option without some sort of plan to address the underlying problem. Cos it won’t just go away.
11. vto 11

    30 August 2012 at 11:31 am

    The pricing thing is a complete jip. It is well known in Chch that the “rich” schools and housegholds are the ones with the out of control drug and alcohol problems.

    So how will minimum pricing solve that, mr big brains?
    • Enough is Enough 11.1

      30 August 2012 at 11:57 am

      Not just a Christchurch problem.

      Look at the issues that repugnant breeding ground of elitism Kings College has had over the past 10 years with the booze. Or the recent Sacred Heart College Saint Kents rugby semi final.

      It is about leadership. Punishing the poor is not the answer.
    • mike e 11.2

      30 August 2012 at 12:18 pm

      A combination of measures such as raising the drinking age acessability reducing outlets what the alcohol advisory group recommendedafter years of research.
      We have a $6 billion dollar ayear problem here I’m not a wowser but Alcohol is a very Dangerous Drug.
      Doing nothing is not a solution.
      • vto 11.2.1

        30 August 2012 at 2:08 pm

        “A combination of measures such as raising the drinking age acessability reducing outlets what the alcohol advisory group recommendedafter years of research.”

        Well its a bit of research that has clearly not examined the issue of the acceptability of such stupid blunt instruments that discriminate so indiscriminately. And surely research into the effect of pricing shouldn’t have taken years to work out. Any goose knows that. The research sounds like it was looking in some wrong directions and a bit lacking.

        “Doing nothing is not a solution.”

        Neither is the minimum pricing component.

        And notwithstanding all of that, in most parts of NZ the youth drinking culture is concentrated around the upper income levels. How does this component become a solution to that?
12. Julian 12

    30 August 2012 at 11:40 am

    “it was the responsibility of drinkers not to drink in a way that was harmful to themselves”.

    So true. We must take responsibility for our actions in life. Stop the culture of blame and look in the mirror. What we need is strong leaders!

    “Especially young teenage drinkers – I can remember not always being ‘responsible’ at that age”.
    That is because teenagers brains are in the developmental stage of decision/risk taking assessment. It is us, society and families to reaffirm values and provide boundaries to keep safe.

    Raising taxes/prices does not solve the ‘real’ issue.
    • Lanthanide 12.1

      30 August 2012 at 12:44 pm

      “Raising taxes/prices does not solve the ‘real’ issue.”

      Alcohol is cheaper now (and in the last couple of decades) than it has been at any other point in human history.
13. captain hook 13

    30 August 2012 at 1:20 pm

    every addiction has as its primary goal to prevent the addict feeling their true thoughts and feelings.
    Ann Wilson Shaeff
    Alcholism is a defense against paranoia which is itself a defense against passsive unconscious homosexuality.
    Dictionary Of Psychoanalysis.
    chew on that.
    • weka 13.1

      30 August 2012 at 5:33 pm

      I’d rather not. Alcoholism and binge drinking are not the same thing.
14. BM 14

    30 August 2012 at 1:30 pm

    I’m enjoying all the cheap wine you get these days.
    Long may it continue.
15. captain hook 15

    30 August 2012 at 2:24 pm

    another cheap drunk.
16. Wychbych 16

    30 August 2012 at 2:26 pm

    As long as piss is the sacred cow of NZ, nothing will change. It’s the elephant in the room, shitting everywhere, yet nobody wants to talk about the elephant, just play in the crap… Three things need to happen, imo:

    Raising the drinking age to 20 right across the board, and educating people that drinking is an ‘adult’ flavour (as I do with my son, he can’t stand the taste of the sips I’ve let him have!) and a bit of a privilege. Not a rite of passage at 16, 17, 18.

    Education about alcohol, in that it’s not normal to ‘relax’ every night with a glass/bottle in front of you. It simply isn’t! Yet in NZ, that’s what happens. Thousands of kiwis ‘relax’ every night with it. And remember, kids don’t do what you SAY, they watch you very carefully, and do what you DO. The normalisation of piss as a daily occurrence is one of our biggest problems, and can tip regular drinkers over into booze hounds.

    Take it out of supermarkets, local stores, and place it back into bottle stores. Make it difficult to get a hold of, coupled with a slam on advertising it.

    Like any of THAT’s going to happen with Shonkey Johnkey in charge. The piss lobby has deep pockets, and vehement lobbyists.
    • Draco T Bastard 16.1

      30 August 2012 at 5:29 pm

      Education about alcohol, in that it’s not normal to ‘relax’ every night with a glass/bottle in front of you.

      Actually, the societies that do have this as a norm don’t have the same binge drinking culture that we have. In other words, the children grow up with responsible drinking as the example rather than the going out and getting drunk once or twice a week example that we have in NZ.
      • SHG 16.1.1

        31 August 2012 at 2:31 am

        “Actually, the societies that do have this as a norm don’t have the same binge drinking culture that we have.”

        Bingo.
        • wychbych 16.1.1.1

          31 August 2012 at 9:04 am

          Yes, yes, French, Italian society has the normalisation of piss as a way of life. It doesn’t mean they don’t have a drinking problem.

          It’s simply a different type of alcoholism to our binge culture! 😉
17. RedLogix 17

    30 August 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Sure we know that binge and abusive drinking results in an absurd amount of harm. And we also know that wowser-ism and prohibitions are not very useful responses either. We all know this, so lets quit rehashing the obvious. We won’t have an intelligent conversation about this until we openly face the question of WHY people use these drugs.

    The ONLY useful way to address this is for us to clearly understand the root causes, because once you have a rational grasp of why you have the emotional need to get smashed, it then becomes possible to direct the conscious self-discipline to avoid the harm.

    It is also true that most adolescents have yet to develop this ability to self-regulate their behaviour and need protecting from booze baron predators who profit from this.
    • weka 17.1

      30 August 2012 at 5:44 pm

      What are the reasons exactly?

      I think getting out of it is a fairly normal human activity, whatever the substance used. It is fun after all.  It’s the degree to which we do it in NZ, and how we do it, that is the problem.

      I agree with your last sentence, and lowering the age from 20 to 18 was adults who should have known better abandoning young people instead of protecting them.
      • SHG 17.1.1

        31 August 2012 at 2:35 am

        The only human society not known to have a cultural history of “getting out of it” from time to time is that of the Inuit (Eskimo) people. It’s hard to grow hops and grapes to ferment when you live above the Arctic Circle.
18. xtasy 18

    30 August 2012 at 10:18 pm

    Well the best friend is at the top, aye? I wish more responsibility, but until this country grows up and gets some really needed checking up to do with cultural, social and other improvements, and instead all being run like a PC right-wing, controlling dictatorship, I see NO hope to improve things.

    You may “control” alcohol, but other substances and drugs will replace it, as they already are. NZ is not a cultivated, educated society, that only applies to an “elite” few, many fall down and through the net, so this is the problem. You are NOT adressing the bloody problems, only trying to address the bloody “symptoms”. That makes for a bloody poor doctor, aye.

    No hope no trust and f off is my answer to this discussion!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QP-ihu9xis
19. xtasy 19

    30 August 2012 at 10:31 pm

    LET us NOT forget, according to Bennett’s top Principal Health Advisor, many of us are also BENEFIT ADDICTS, as benefit dependency is the same as “drug dependency”. So while alcohol is a legal drug, we must be aware of the whole, complex picture of “addiction”. Many that may feel they have no issue with, nor ever “met” addiction, they will now learn, that they themselves are highly “addicted”, simply due to depend on “a benefit”. Dr David Bratt, Principal Health Advisor to MSD and Bennett proves this:

    http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/2012/Fri_DaVinci_1400_Bratt_Medical Certificates are Clinical Instruments too – June 2012.pdf or

    http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/2012/Fri_DaVinci_1400_Bratt_Medical%20Certificates%20are%20Clinical%20Instruments%20too%20-%20June%202012.pdf

    See page 3, 16 and 33 for enlightenment about “addiction” and “drug addiction” that benes have!

    http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Dr+David+Bratt+ppt&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CE0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rgpn.org.nz%2FNetwork%2Fmedia%2Fdocuments%2FConference2011%2FD-Bratt.ppt&ei=pOMqUNyqF–QiQee4oGgBQ&usg=AFQjCNFEdYN_dDW9BAZvZo_cQpC2rFyelg&cad=rja

    So you may try to be so bloody smart to judge about alcohol and related issues, maybe you yourself are a bloody addict (in hiding)?

    But who cares? I am still waiting on feedback from Labour and the Greens on this kind of propaganda. Maybe the public words we get from them are just to get votes, but in secret, they go along with this crap? Let us know, please, I am thus far not convinced.

Links to post

1. The drinking age « The Standard: posted on 30 August 2012 at 12:31 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS