DPF putting his readers in harm’s way

72 comments on “DPF putting his readers in harm’s way ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jimmie 1

   12 November 2011 at 9:06 am

   He didn’t say that Labour will make the price of drinks rise by $2 he said that Labour will require a minimum price of $2 per standard drink.

   I acutally think its a good idea as cheap alcohol in NZ is the cause of a lot of crime and weekend injuries – not to mention an aggravating factor behind a lot of domestic violence.

   I was once a street cop and from what I experienced if you took away all alcohol related offences we dealt with there wasn’t a lot left.

   TO be honest I don’t think this policy will change a lot as people who want to get pissed will get pissed – just pay more for it, however it is a step in the right direction.

   DPF has never been an impartial observer when it comes to matter of alcohol (remember his cork counting competitions) and probably never will
   • IrishBill 1.1

     12 November 2011 at 9:14 am

     Quite right – that “by two dollars” was supposed to be “to two dollars” fixed now. I’ve also seen the harm alcohol does and agree it needs some sort of control (whether that’s a price control or greater regulation is debatable). Of course two dollars per standard drink would still mean ten standard drinks (which is well into dangerous binge territory) would only be $20.

     Of course none of this changes the fact David is cynically trying push the responsibility for his dubious advertisements onto his readers.
2. Akldnut 2

   12 November 2011 at 9:16 am

   Does that stand for the Building a Brighter Future hoardings?
   • IrishBill 2.1

     12 November 2011 at 9:21 am

     I think it’s primarily designed to cover attack advertising that comes out too close to election day to provide for right of reply.
3. Psycho Milt 3

   12 November 2011 at 10:51 am

   Fair enough, the only basis for the “$2 per standard drink” claim is Lianne Dalziel running off at the mouth. However, the fact that Labour would arbitrarily raise the price of alcoholic drinks because they’re wowsers who think you need a Labour busybody to decide how much you should drink, well that fact is very much worth putting out there in front of the voters in very big letters. It’s a throwback to the worst aspects of the last Labour govt. Anyone drawing voters’ attention to it is doing them a favour.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1

     12 November 2011 at 11:03 am

     You mean like the wowsers who arbitrarily decided on how much people can smoke by increasing the price of tobacco ?
     Oops that was National who promoted Tariana Turias legislation ( as a Minister)

     Seemed to be a good idea and had wide support from a ‘whole parliament who know best’
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     12 November 2011 at 11:32 am

     who think you need a Labour busybody to decide how much you should drink,

     Didn’t see anybody say that. You’ll still be able to drink as much as you like – it’ll just cost you more. Of course, this may cause some people to drink less due to them rationally deciding that it’s just not worth the price.
   • Psycho Milt 3.3

     12 November 2011 at 3:48 pm

     You mean like the wowsers who arbitrarily decided on how much people can smoke by increasing the price of tobacco ?

     No, not like those wowsers – the ones mercilessly exploiting poverty-stricken drug addicts by whacking a shitload of taxes on the drug they’re addicted to. No, this plan from Labour isn’t about raising money for the govt, it’s about raising profits for liquor companies – a small difference, but a significantly aggravating one.

     You’ll still be able to drink as much as you like – it’ll just cost you more.

     Well, duh. On that basis, maybe we should apply it to food and water as well, the govt’s debt problems could be sorted in no time.
     • millsy 3.3.1

       12 November 2011 at 4:06 pm

       Dont you just love the crocodile tears that the right have about the tax increase on tobacco?

       The cry and cry about it being a ‘tax on the poor’ and then next day they complain about how the poor spend all their benefits on smokes and booze.

       (of course right wingers rent their houses to poor people, and then have no worries about putting the rent up)
       • Psycho Milt 3.3.1.1

         12 November 2011 at 5:43 pm

         Have less of this “the right” if you don’t mind. Believe it or not, you can be left wing and not object to people enjoying a smoke.
       • Vicky32 3.3.1.2

         13 November 2011 at 4:41 pm

         The cry and cry about it being a ‘tax on the poor’

         By and large, it is though… There’s a tremendous amount of elitism is anti-smoking hysteria.. I have never met an ASH fanatic who didn’t (a) drink more alcohol in a week than I have in my entire life, and (b) come from a solid middle class background.
         “The lower classes smoke” and “we need to ‘help’ them stop”… they bray, but “don’t touch alcohol, it’s something we all need”. (Oh, you can increase the price of alcopops and DB bitter, but don’t touch our nice wine!) 🙁
     • Draco T Bastard 3.3.2

       12 November 2011 at 4:07 pm

       No, this plan from Labour…

       Except it’s not Labour’s plan.

       On that basis, maybe we should apply it to food and water as well,

       We already have that system (well, we do in Auckland) – it’s just not well implemented. Healthy food should have little or no taxes on it and unhealthy food should have major taxes on it. I’m pretty sure that alcohol comes under unhealthy food.
       • Psycho Milt 3.3.2.1

         12 November 2011 at 5:52 pm

         Labour don’t have it in their health policy to put a minimum price on alcohol? In that case Irish Bill’s right, anyone putting those posters up is in deep shit.

         …unhealthy food should have major taxes on it.

         Unhealthy food is food that will make you ill. I don’t think taxing it is really an appropriate replacement for proscribing its sale. But in all seriousness, there really is no end to the “inappropriate behaviour” that you lot would like to apply the power of the state to discouraging, is there? A difference does exist between being in govt over the citizenry and being the parent of a bunch of children, and Labour really, really needs to learn that difference.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.3.2.1.1

           12 November 2011 at 6:58 pm

           Not everybody knows everything and so regulation should be used so that everyone is using the best information available.

           Unhealthy food is food that will make you ill.

           Yes, and yet unhealthy food is what a lot of people eat because it’s cheaper or, at least, appears cheaper. 24 bottles of coloured sugar water ~ $10, half a litre of bottled water ~$2.50 (of course, bottled water shouldn’t even be on the shelves as tap water is just as good).
         • Andrew Geddis 3.3.2.1.2

           12 November 2011 at 8:47 pm

           Labour do have this in their health policy.

           “Labour will seek to implement those recommendations contained in the Law Commission report Alcohol: Curbing the Harm that have not been included in the Government‟s legislation. These include:
            Minimum pricing for alcohol
            Restricting alcohol advertising
            Lowering the drink-driving tolerance.”
           http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/media/files/Health_Policy_Document.pdf
           • Draco T Bastard 3.3.2.1.2.1

             12 November 2011 at 10:00 pm

             Ah, Ok, my bad. Although, the actual price isn’t mentioned.
           • Ianupnorth 3.3.2.1.2.2

             13 November 2011 at 10:25 pm

             The bottom line is that anything that is injurious to your well-being needs a degree of control. The research clearly shows that, for example with tobacco, increasing the price brings a reduction in overall consumption. Other activities (e.g. awareness campaigns, warning labels, restriction of sales) simply do NOT change anyone’s health behaviour in the same way as pricing.
              
             NZ has appalling alcohol issues – the drink driving stats are horrendous. Remember, against all the evidence, the Nats refused to have a drink driving level the same as most other OECD countries. NZ has almost twice the level of other countries.
              
             Yes, such a policy would be very unpopular; but it would also do a lot more than Tony Ryall has done for reducing waiting times in ED!
4. Albie Chase 4

   12 November 2011 at 11:01 am

   I have heard a number of Labour MPs say that alcohol pricing and availability are their major concerns in alcohol reform. So you can make of that what you will. It’s not unfair or outrageous to claim that therefore some Labour MPs support raising the liquor price. No more outrageous than saying, for example, that National intends selling more assets after the next election, which is what Labour is saying.
   • IrishBill 4.1

     12 November 2011 at 4:03 pm

     That’s not what the advertisements claim though. I suspect we’ll find out eventually though as it’s likely that someone will take these to the electoral commission anyway – I’m not certain David can really claim he is not a promoter and they are not election advertisements in this instance.
5. randal 5

   12 November 2011 at 11:14 am

   look farrar is just a sociopath who has used his job as a polling statistician to springboard into letting his dark unconscious loose on the world.
   because of his usefulness to ‘that’ party he has now become some sort of savant/talk show panellist when he is just a nasty piece of work and anybody with their wits about them should be able to see it.
6. Nick C 6

   12 November 2011 at 11:35 am

   Is the ad a lie/misleading though? It does say a the bottom where the claim is sourced from, voters are free to decide for themselves whether the claim matches the evidence (i.e. whether the statements by Labours spokesperson is the policy they are likely to impliment).

   And yeah, fuck the wowsers who want minimum alcohol prices. Its clearly discriminatory (If you’re wealthy enough to drink ‘good’ wine you wont be effected) and the high prices will go straight to the profits of liqour companies.

   Which begs the question: who is writing Labours alcohol policy..
   • rosy 6.1

     12 November 2011 at 11:40 am

     My understanding is the minimum price is it’s to stop supermarkets using alcohol as a loss-leader – counteracting a marketing ploy that is a major factor for binge-drinking young people. It’s not a tax that ups the price on all booze. I don’t have a problem with that reasoning at all.
     • Nick C 6.1.1

       12 November 2011 at 12:00 pm

       Well thats the stated aim. The effect will be to stop price competition between alcohol companies down the lower end of the market. Demand for alcohol is generally accepted to be price inelastic, so the drop in consumption will be relativly small compared to the increase in price

       And since it doesnt opperate like a tax the profit goes straight to the liqour companies.
       • rosy 6.1.1.1

         12 November 2011 at 12:25 pm

         Do you have any sources for that? As far as I’m aware people on low incomes spend less on alcohol than people on high incomes – suggesting that there is an elasticity in demand. Secondly if it’s the supermarket using alcohol as a loss-leader the how does that increase the profits of the liquor companies? It should increase the profit of the supermarket, because they’re not selling below cost – (maybe they could make something else the loss-leader – like, for example, apples?) and just as an aside… when did you start worrying about a company making a profit on sales?
         • Nick C 6.1.1.1.1

           12 November 2011 at 1:44 pm

           http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2009/07/and-further-on-price-elasticity.html

           My understanding is that supermarkets rarely use alcohol as a loss leader any more: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2387777/Supermarkets-drop-alcohol-loss-leading . The low prices are better explained by a high degree of competition. The competition leads to low prices which reduces profits. By implimenting a minimum price you effectivly ban price competition and allow the alcohol companies to sell their products at a much higher margin.

           “when did you start worrying about a company making a profit on sales?”

           When it comes as a result of rent seeking regulations which only benefit shareholders, as opposed to a company being successful in a competitive market which benefits society.
           • rosy 6.1.1.1.1.1

             12 November 2011 at 9:54 pm

             The first sentence in that blog you linked to… Brian Easton is quoted as saying

             “It is generally assumed that the demand for alcohol is largely price inelastic. However, it is believed that the main groups whose consumption is sensitive to changes in price are:
             the young;
             binge drinkers; and
             heavy drinkers.”

             The next 2 paragraphs read as if Easton has said the opposite.

             That looks like the minimum pricing target group to me and it looks like it’s a debatable position this elasticity – I’ll go with the “however” in Brian Easton’s, and WHOs’s views, for now.

             So we have the supermarkets admitting they have used alcohol as a loss-leader, but now, voluntarily do this rarely. So I’ve got to assume they still use it, on occasions, and they know it’s harmful to society. Excellent reason to ensure it can’t happen again.

             I have absolutely no problem with regulation that ensures competition does not do more harm than good. Particularly regulations n products that cause addiction. This is simply a re-run of the tobacco debates.
       • Eric Crampton 6.1.1.2

         12 November 2011 at 4:06 pm

         I’m not sure that profits from minimum pricing wind up going to the liquor companies; you need to assume some other market failure in the system to get there. See here. Not that I like minimum pricing; I’m just not sure that it can confer rents.
   • McFlock 6.2

     12 November 2011 at 6:50 pm

     Unfortunately the election ad doesn’t say where one can buy 16 cans of beer for $14. If it’s accurate, then I hope it’s a nation-wide chain. Otherwise it’s misleading from the start 🙂
     • Andrew Geddis 6.2.1

       12 November 2011 at 8:52 pm

       12 cans of 5% strength beer = 15.6 standard drinks x $2 per standard drink (Dalziel’s stated preference) = $31.20.

       There’s lots of places you can get a dozen beer for $14. But it will be shit.
       • felix 6.2.1.1

         12 November 2011 at 10:09 pm

         I seriously doubt you could find a dozen 5% beers for $14 anywhere in NZ.
       • McFlock 6.2.1.2

         12 November 2011 at 10:13 pm

         The cans in the ad look very much like they say 4% alc/vol, not 5. And that’s goes evenly into $32 price at $2/can.

         At the very least it’s typically weaselly to have one price rounded to the cent, but the other price rounded up to the next dollar.
       • Psycho Milt 6.2.1.3

         12 November 2011 at 10:42 pm

         Rheineck, Pak n Save Palmerston North. Not sure if it’s 5% but it is definitely shit.
         • felix 6.2.1.3.1

           12 November 2011 at 10:50 pm

           3.5%. And yes, shit.
           • McFlock 6.2.1.3.1.1

             14 November 2011 at 12:00 pm

             and at 3.5% the deal advertised is a little bit over 18 cans for $14. But then you’d have to drink it.
7. ropata 7

   12 November 2011 at 11:37 am

   do the nats deny that nz has a problem with irresponsible drinkers?
   johnkey’s alcohol problem is an embarrassment to the country.

   nobody seems to recall that the *labour* govt lowered the legal drinking age to 18, lowered the age of entry to bars, enabled the proliferation of neighbourhood bottle shops, and allowed supermarkets to stock alcohol.

   dpf is a nasty little propaganda gnome, and the comments on his blog have really declined since the notional party took power. in some ways dpf is worse than whaleoil because he cloaks his radical rightwing ideology behind a facade of plausible sounding banter.
   • Jilly Bee 7.1

     12 November 2011 at 11:46 am

     Hey Ropata – ‘nobody seems to recall that the *labour* govt lowered the legal drinking age to 18, lowered the age of entry to bars, enabled the proliferation of neighbourhood bottle shops, and allowed supermarkets to stock alcohol’. I’m absolutely sure that it was Jenny Shipley’s National led Government who brought in that legislation just prior to losing the 1999 general election.
     • Policy Parrot 7.1.1

       12 November 2011 at 11:58 am

       JB – ropata is just illustrating a myth that some on the right have invented to suit their own purposes. Anyone who actually takes the time to check knows that it was the Shipley regime – but then anyone who takes the time to check actually doesn’t generally vote for NACT either.

       Doesn’t help that the media constantly repeat National’s mistatements, outright lies, and innuendo as if they were Archer-proof, and mocks Labour’s exposure of Key’s actual lies.
     • ropata 7.1.2

       12 November 2011 at 12:24 pm

       @Jilly Bee, you are right, I didn’t do my homework… it was one of Shipley‘s last pieces of poor legislation before leaving parliament in disgrace.

       Doctors attack ‘stupid’ law of lower drinking age
       An Auckland emergency doctor has predicted the cost of lowering the drinking age will be many more alcoholics as the city’s hospital treats a soaring number of young drunks.

       Another doctor, this time in Christchurch, says the number of underage drinkers being treated for potentially fatal alcohol poisoning has doubled since the drinking age was lowered from 20 years to 18.

       The clinician’s warnings come as officials complete a new report for Justice Minister Phil Goff on the impact of youth drinking.

       The Herald understands the report has only just been completed, and it is not clear if the Government is actively rethinking the drinking age.

       In a conscience vote, MPs decided 59-54 to lower the legal drinking age in 1999.

       Mr Goff, Health Minister Annette King and Prime Minister Helen Clark were among those who voted against the change.

       Dr Peter Jones said it had been “crazy” for MPs to lower the drinking age because it had created more health and social costs when governments were telling hospitals they could not have more money.

       “Clearly, it seems to me a stupid move.”

       Since it took effect, in December 1999, the number of intoxicated young people being admitted to Auckland City Hospital’s emergency department has risen every year.

       I apologise for my earlier incorrect statement about Labour.
8. Dave Kennedy 8

   12 November 2011 at 12:15 pm

   You can see the panic in the posts of Farrar and others, especially in relation to the rise in support for the Greens. “Imagine what will happen if the Greens got into power” they say (as if the very fabric of our society is under threat). So I did… http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2011/11/green-threat.html
9. Insider 9

   12 November 2011 at 12:30 pm

   I think that some of these ‘commentators’ need to come clean about their affiliations and their involvement with campaigns. Yes, we know Farrar is a Nat but his infiltration with the mainstream is purely part of the Nat political strategy.

   Cameron Slater is a ‘former’ Nat who attacked everyone up until a few months ago. Now he only attacks Labour.

   Paul Holmes has been consistently undermining Labour on Q+A and in his Herald columns. Jenny Shipley and family (who headhunted John Key) marketed his Extra Virgin Olive Oil in China.

   Richard Long (Dom Post opinion leader) is a former Nat chief of staff.

   Claire Trevett (Herald politico journo) is a former Nat press sec.

   You wonder how much momentum their influence has generated in the coverage of this election.
   • Fred 9.1

     12 November 2011 at 3:23 pm

     Insider: Who headhunted John Key ?
     • Insider 9.1.1

       12 November 2011 at 4:29 pm

       Jeny Shipley convinced John Key to join National and the road was cleared for him in Helensville.
10. thejackal 10

    12 November 2011 at 1:06 pm

    The DF is just worried because he’s a piss-head. Maybe if he got himself to AA we wouldn’t have to put up with all the dross he blogs.
11. Uturn 11

    12 November 2011 at 2:03 pm

    I find it strange that we will discuss global warming/climate change globally, take it seriously enough to tax the bejeebers out of people in the hope that our great-grandchildren might have a better world. We’ll protest in the streets, screech hysterically at deniers. But we’ve known for thousands of years that alcohol is a more clear and present danger to anyone’s life, but are content to rehash the same mumbled tired old concerns without really doing anything.

    Tonight someone will die from an alcohol related incident. They’ll have no use for a cooler world and they won’t have any grandchildren either. I guess it’s ok then.
    • Psycho Milt 11.1

      12 November 2011 at 3:58 pm

      …we’ve known for thousands of years that alcohol is a more clear and present danger to anyone’s life…

      What we’ve known for thousands of years is that humans like drinking alcoholic beverages, and that if people try and stop us making and drinking them we’ll circumvent their restrictions. Like a lot of human activity, it has a down side – deal with that as it happens, because trying to stop the activity is doomed to failure.
      • Uturn 11.1.1

        12 November 2011 at 4:42 pm

        People traded slaves for thousands of years too. If we try to stop that, then we… oh wait a minute.

        The problem with the idea of dealing with it as it happens, is that no one deals with it, even when it does happen. Another alcohol related death? Oh dear, so sad, lets all go to the wake and get pissed. Even on the drink drive ads now, the survivors meet up at the pub the following week or month. How wierd is that?

        In the absence of people smartening up, I don’t see anything wrong with increased taxes on a known threat that no one takes seriously. It seems like a good way to officially condemn one of society’s delusions.

        If were a wealthy heavy drinker, I’d say it was a conspiracy to increase the chances of retarding my career, via self inflicted alcohol abuse, while poorer types were excluded from the darwinian experiment – thus increasing their chances of success. I wouldn’t be crying on behalf on poor people I’d honestly rather see dead. It’s an anti-rich conspiracy I tell you!
        • Psycho Milt 11.1.1.1

          12 November 2011 at 5:56 pm

          Well, see if you get the votes for it. But I suspect your comparison of drinking alcohol with slavery wouldn’t really attract voters, seeing as it’s completely deranged.
          • Uturn 11.1.1.1.1

            12 November 2011 at 6:08 pm

            If I thought your miscomprehension was genuine, I’d explain it, but instead I’ll just let you weep into your beer. Have another, you can afford it, you’ve earned it.
        • Jackal 11.1.1.2

          12 November 2011 at 6:08 pm

          You might be interested to know that there are more people being traded as slaves today than at any point in history.

          Prohibition doesn’t always work… education does. Unfortunately much of good work done has been usurped through mass media advertising campaigns and the fact that a lot of alcohol is heavily discounted. The best move would be to stop all advertisements and discounts.

          If you factor in the social cost of alcohol, $2 per standard drink isn’t all that much to pay. The other dynamic is that people who don’t have much money usually have more time so can still have a drink by brewing their own… those who are rich can pay the extra taxes.

          New Zealand research echoes overseas studies (eg. Room and Rossow 2001) in finding that alcohol is a key factor in many assaults (Young et. al. 1997), and a common trigger for family violence (Morris 1997). New Zealand statistics also bear out the long-recognised link between alcohol and road traffic accidents. In the 2000 calendar year, for instance, drink-driving was a factor in 26 % of all fatal crashes and 14 % of all injury crashes (Land Transport Safety Authority 2001).

          Not surprisingly, a significant amount of energy is directed by agencies like the police, ambulance service, and others, towards dealing with alcohol-related problems. In fact, it is estimated that around NZ$100 million is spent annually by the New Zealand Police responding to alcohol-related incidents, out of a total budget of c.NZ$790 million (2000/01 financial year).

          People don’t usually lose their jobs when they become wealthy enough to afford large amounts of alcohol and pickle their brains through overconsumption. You only have to look at some media types and politicians to see that.

          The legal aspect of the posters aside… they’re god damn awful! I would determine that anybody who bothers to print them off would have to be highly inebriated. It makes me feel like drinking just looking at them… heavily to erase the memory.
          • Psycho Milt 11.1.1.2.1

            12 November 2011 at 6:45 pm

            The best move would be to stop all advertisements and discounts.

            Actually, the best move would be to treat the citizenry as adult citizens of their country, and not recalcitrant children whose behaviour you need to correct. And if you want a “user pays” approach to the health system, I’m sure ACT would agree with you but bugger all else would .
            • Jackal 11.1.1.2.1.1

              12 November 2011 at 8:09 pm

              A user pays health system wasn’t what I was getting at Psycho Milt. I’m the last person to promote Act policies. In fact it’s Nact that has allowed alcohol to continue to be subsidized at the counter and advertised while the taxpayer picks up the bill.

              Not advertising to people isn’t treating them like children… it’s just ensuring that people who are easily influenced are not coerced. It reduces any association that alcohol is somehow required to function socially when in reality it creates social dysfunction on a large scale.

              I’m not the fun police either… but there are a few people ruining it for everyone.

              Clearly many people cannot act like adults while consuming and that’s why we have so many drunk drivers and violence associated with alcohol. Head off to an A&E tonight if you don’t believe me.

              We can either have limitations and additional costs at the counter or we can pay the hospital bill through taxing wages etc. It’s more fair to tax responsible drinkers and problem drinkers more than to tax those who remain sober.

              The other aspect is that it costs bugger all to produce alcohol and companies like Lion Breweries are raking it in. Alcohol is also a drug… according to statistics it causes the most social destruction.
              • Psycho Milt …

                12 November 2011 at 9:43 pm

                So, you don’t want a user pays health system but you want people who are more likely to burden the system to pay more than those less likely to burden it. I suppose we could call it “statistically-more-likely-to-be-a-user pays,” but it’s not as catchy as “user pays.” It opens up a lot of new territory though – a tax on playing sports, a tax on climbing ladders, a tax on swimming, a tax on tramping, a tax on being poor, a tax on growing old, the possibilities are endless.
                • Jackal …

                  12 November 2011 at 10:01 pm

                  Amusing! However if the cops are spending around 15% of their budget on alcohol related incidents… shouldn’t those benefiting from creating that dysfunction pay instead of the taxpayer?

                  You’re also confusing the fact that getting drunk is premeditated while all the costs to the things you list are purely accidental. There’s a huge difference between getting pissed and driving drunk to falling off a swing sober.

                  You might also note that there are auxiliary benefits to most of your examples… care to weigh up the pros and cons of alcohol?
                  • Psycho Milt …

                    12 November 2011 at 10:29 pm

                    …if the cops are spending around 15% of their budget on alcohol related incidents… shouldn’t those benefiting from creating that dysfunction pay instead of the taxpayer?

                    Two problems with this approach:
                    1. The cops spend a huge proportion of their budget on crimes committed by men, and a significant amount on crimes by Maori – perhaps we should find a way to bill them for it? It’s only fair, apparently.
                    2. The good people who provide us with tasty and pleasantly mind-altering alcoholic beverages for a reasonable price aren’t “benefiting from creating dysfunction,” they’re fulfilling a commercial demand, the same as people who sell vegetables or any other stuff you might eat or drink. There’s no more reason they should be made to pay for the mayhem some particular user of the product causes than Subaru should have to fork out when Petrolhead Loser uses one of their vehicles to take out two other cars in an insane display of bad driving.

                    You might also note that there are auxiliary benefits to most of your examples… care to weigh up the pros and cons of alcohol?

                    This sounds more like ACT by the minute. What are the benefits of any pleasurable recreational activity you enjoy? If you want to try and put a dollar value on it, go ahead, but some of us aren’t keen on making society about who costs more than whom. If we made this stuff a matter of cost/benefit ratios, recreational drugs and sports would both be banned outright.
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      13 November 2011 at 1:49 am

                      The good people who provide us with tasty and pleasantly mind-altering alcoholic beverages for a reasonable price aren’t “benefiting from creating dysfunction,” they’re fulfilling a commercial demand, the same as people who sell vegetables or any other stuff you might eat or drink.

                      And yet it’s not the same. Vegetables are a necessary part of life and eating them doesn’t cause social damage the way that alcohol does. As a community we really do have to consider the overall effects of products on society.

                      There’s no more reason they should be made to pay for the mayhem some particular user of the product causes than Subaru should have to fork out when Petrolhead Loser uses one of their vehicles to take out two other cars in an insane display of bad driving.

                      And yet that is exactly what this government did when it went and put the registration fee up on motor cycles. Yes, motorcyclists are over-represented in accidents but the accidents are mostly caused by car drivers.

                      If we made this stuff a matter of cost/benefit ratios, recreational drugs and sports would both be banned outright.

                      Nope as both have social benefits that can’t be weighed but we do have to consider ways to minimise any damage that they cause as well.
                    • Psycho Milt …

                      13 November 2011 at 7:05 am

                      Vegetables are a necessary part of life…

                      Which is why the Inuit and the Masai died out in a generation… oh, wait. Anway, if Labour really are starting some kind of programme to price food and drink according to how good or bad for you some do-gooder social scientists claim it is (their messing with GST is another step down that path), let them come out and say so – it’s a crap idea and voters would most likely punish them for it.

                      As a community we really do have to consider the overall effects of products on society.

                      Absolutely. And in the past we’ve done that sensibly by making various actions like drink driving, vandalism and assault criminal offences. The proposal to do things stupidly by telling companies how much they have to charge for a drink is a new one.

                      And yet that is exactly what this government did when it went and put the registration fee up on motor cycles.

                      A National govt attempting to undermine ACC? It’s no surprise, and it doesn’t make what Labour’s proposing a good idea.
          • Ianupnorth 11.1.1.2.2

            13 November 2011 at 10:30 pm

            The education doesn’t work, see my post above – it is a waste of money; only pricing works.
        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.3

          12 November 2011 at 7:06 pm

          People traded slaves for thousands of years too. If we try to stop that, then we… oh wait a minute.

          Slavery is alive and well with an estimated 1.4m of them being sex slaves.
12. pollywog 12

    12 November 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Thank fuck prostitution is legal.

    Let’s face it, judging by appearance only, a bottle of leg opener and some hush money was the only other way he was ever gonna get his leg over.

    Then again maybe he’s got loads of personality ?
    • felix 12.1

      12 November 2011 at 4:33 pm

      Yeah he’s got loads of personality but unfortunately it’s all horrible.
13. Tom Gould 13

    12 November 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Regarding S99A, this morning I was handed an official authorised National Party pamphlet that says “Labour’s Debt Trap … $15,600,000,000 Extra Debt”. How can this be an authentic statement when Labour has specifically said in writing that the sum claimed is incorrect, making the claim “a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular”? On the face of it, this must surely be a corrupt practice, right?
    • Draco T Bastard 13.1

      12 November 2011 at 4:20 pm

      You would think so. If I was Labour I’d certainly be laying a complaint.
    • infused 13.2

      12 November 2011 at 7:00 pm

      Not when it’s correct, no.
    • Andrew Geddis 13.3

      12 November 2011 at 8:56 pm

      Are we 2 days out from the election? No? Then it isn’t … go back and read s.199A again.
14. randal 14

    12 November 2011 at 4:06 pm

    nick c stop trying to sound intelligent.
    there is a complete difference between raising a question and begging the question.
    the question that needs to be raised is who gets the states assets when kweewee and his mates complete the sale documents?
    I bet kweewee’s retirement fund gets a large parcel.
15. Gareth 15

    12 November 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Any minimum price would have to be carefully considered, the are heaps of brew beer and spirit kits available which are cost effective now, too bigger rise and you may create a massive black market.. Let alone bigger issues with dodgy grog
16. Carol 16

    13 November 2011 at 9:03 am

    Psycho Milt@7.05AM

    On the comparison between the price of veges v’s that of alcohol… see also Rosy @9.54pm last night. It seems that supermarkets in the past, and continue to sometimes, price alcohol low as a loss leader. This is what I object to.

    I don’t drink or buy alcohol (except maybe on rare occasions as presents. Every week I buy veges, usually at fruit and vege shops, though this is more difficult to do while I can’t drive. I understand the pricing of veges by supermarkets impacts on the price at fruit and veg shops.

    I do strongly object that the price I pay for necessities is subsidising other people’s purchasing of alcohol.
    • Psycho Milt 16.1

      13 November 2011 at 11:11 am

      On the other hand, we shoppers who buy lots of alcohol but not much fruit and veg really enjoyed supermarkets loss-leading on alcohol while it was happening.

      Here’s the thing: if you have a problem with supermarkets’ pricing policies, the best answer isn’t really to get the govt to force supermarkets to charge me more for stuff I want to buy, it’s to shop elsewhere. And if shopping elsewhere is difficult because previous govts have helped a supermarket duopoly to develop, well that right there is actually the problem you need to look at, not alcohol prices.
      • Carol 16.1.1

        13 November 2011 at 11:16 am

        PM, everyone must buy some food, but no-one needs alcohol…. so I see that as a false equivalence. And I was indeed focusing on the pricing and behaviour of supermarkets and said nothing about policies on alcohol pricing.
        • Psycho Milt 16.1.1.1

          13 November 2011 at 11:48 am

          I can see that it would be a false equivalence if the matter of whether you need a particular product or simply want it were relevant to the question of whether the govt should arbitrarily require increased prices for that product. But I don’t see that it’s relevant.
          • Carol 16.1.1.1.1

            13 November 2011 at 3:20 pm

            Is it arbitrary? Certainly, re (non)equivalence, the supermarkets must assume that vegetables are more of a need, and alcohol more of a luxury – that must surely be the assumption behind pricing alcohol low as a loss leader. So, the government/party probably is trying to combat such pricing by advocating a minimum price for alcohol. Whether that’s the best way to combat using alcohol as a loss leader, I don’t know.

            But my objection is that they aren’t equivalent, and I object to subsidising people’s alcohol habits – would prefer less mark-up on the essentials for a healthy life.
17. Ianupnorth 17

    14 November 2011 at 9:48 am

    Interesting to note the ownership of NZ breweries
     
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10765846 – not one Kiwi owned!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS