Does the level of alcohol-related harm justify a new approach to the law?

We have licenses to sell alcohol but no licence to purchase. So here is a way out there idea that is likely to be too radical but I wonder what would happen if one had to have a licence to purchase alcohol? If we had this then if a person abused alcohol or committed alcohol related offences then the licence to purchase could be revoked/suspended. I realise this sounds way out there and would create some administrative issues but we have to have licenses for dogs, driving, marriage etc (which arguably cause less harm) so why not for the purchase of alcohol. The rules, taxes etc being proposed create a blanket hit over all consumers and penalise the sensible drinker as much as those who abuse alcohol. It seems to me that we need to target the abusers and in that way encourage responsible behavior. But as I said, the idea is too far out there but most of what is being proposed is more of the same which hasn't worked in teh past.

The current level of alcohol consumption is causing too many problems and using up too many valuable resources (police/hospitals).

I say this only because I am surrounded by the negative effects of alcohol on a daily basis:

* A manager in my previous job was fond of telling us stories how he would get so drunk he could not recall how he got home (he drove home, he just could not recall it). He happily expounded to everyone how he never got caught by the police. The staff around him use to jeer him on - sick.

* One of my colleagues is away today because she got so drunk last night that she is too sick to come to work today. She is a certified alcoholic (and proud of it). She often does not come to work after drinking too much the night before. She has x2 kids and is married. People support her habit because she has a 'likeable' personality - loads of character.

* A few weeks ago a drunk person crashed through the fence of our house. It was 2.30pm (yes, in the daytime). We were luck enough to be at the other end of the garden. I have a 6 month old baby, and do not want to begin and imagine what might have been if we were in the front yard. the driver fled the scene, luckily the police found him - x2.5 times over the alcohol limit. 9 months suspended license. $1000. I'm sure he will drink to excess to quench the pain of losing all that money.

* Not too long ago my friend's brother assaulted their mother. He was too intoxicated to know any better - he was completely out of it. He apologised the next day, but he lost the respect of his whole family - probably for life.

....I could go on, but you get the idea...

So, does the level of alcohol-related harm justify a new approach to the law? It sure does.

I'm an economist at the University of Canterbury who's done a bit of work looking at the social costs of alcohol. I've found that they have been grossly overstated. If policy really should worry about the harms that drinkers impose on other people - whether through crime or costs on the health system - those costs roughly approximate what drinkers pay in alcohol excise taxes. If your interested, my report is <a href="http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/RePEc/cbt/econwp/0910.pdf">here</a> but should be read in conjunction with an addendum/erratum located <a href="http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/personal_pages/eric_crampton/Reply.pdf">here</a>.

I'm also more than a little worried about how the Law Commission has handled some of the relevant literature in its report. I've started blogging on it <a href="http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com">here</a> and will continue doing so as I work my way through the report. Look for posts with the tags "Law Commission", alcohol, and BERL.

Having looked at the literature on the costs, I have a hard time seeing that there's much basis for increased tax if the point of the tax is to reduce the harm that drinkers impose on others: as real as those harms are, the current tax rate seems about right for matching them.

If a tax increase or other regulatory measure is meant to prevent the harms that heavy drinkers impose upon themselves, we'd really need to have some proper economic analysis looking at the costs to moderate drinkers of such a move. Moderate drinkers are roughly twice as sensitive to price as are heavy drinkers, so any tax increase will induce moderate drinkers to cut their drinking by more than will heavy drinkers. So we have to be very careful with any tax increase: the costs to moderate drinkers can easily outweigh the benefits to harmful drinkers. Nobody has conducted an analysis to date comparing the harms that would be imposed on moderate drinkers with the benefits to harmful drinkers; there's no way we can tell that a tax increase wouldn't do more harm than good without such an analysis.

"Does the level of alcohol-related harm justify a new approach to the law?"

Yes, absolutely. I believe there is a social problem that needs to be dealt with. But not by raising the purchase age.

This comes from a document I have been preparing and hoping to get support for. You thoughts would be appreciated.

You can also view the whole (tidier) document here:

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dhhtgzwh_238cbk36cs&hl=en

----

2. Why raising the purchase age is unfair

2.1 Indirect targeting - Penalising one group for another group's problems

As proponents have stated, the main purpose of raising the purchase age is to try and change the ‘de facto’ drinking age; it is 12-17 year olds who are the main targets of the bill and not 18 and 19 year olds. This is, in our opinion, morally reprehensible. If the problem is that under 18 year olds are drinking irresponsibly then the solution should target and effect this group without punishing and impinging upon the rights, of another group. Should we stop giving pain medication to sick patients because another group of people are stealing and abusing the drugs?

2.2 Blanket punishment - Penalising a majority for the problems of a minority

Obviously and statistically, there are a majority of 18 and 19 year olds, and indeed under-age drinkers, who do drink responsibly[1]; the problem is within a minority. To unfairly punish and restrict the majority for the misdemeanours of the minority is wrong. Should we stop all tourists from travelling internationally because some people abuse travel and traffic drugs?

2.3 Age discrimination - Punishing some and leaving others unpunished

Statistically, under-age drinkers, and indeed even under 20 year olds, are not the sole cause of alcohol harm; in fact over 18 years are binge drinking slightly more (and that's with adding two standard drinks to what constitutes binge drinking)[1]. Raising the purchase age is therefore blatant and unfair age discrimination. Should we ban everyone over the age of 60 from driving, just beacuse as with all age groups, they have some problems with drinking responsibly?

2.4 Conclusion

While restricting the rights groups is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 so long as "...such reasonable limits prescribed by law... can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."[2], we do not see how attacking one group for another groups problems, how attacking a majority for the problems of a minority, and how not punishing other age groups causing similar harms, is either demonstrably justifiable or ethical. We find the idea of unnecessary use of indirect targeting, blanket punishment, and age discrimination morally reprehensible.

3. Why raising the drinking age won’t work

3.1 Parents supply most of the alcohol

Most (62%) under 18 year olds get their alcohol from parents[1]. This number is likely to increase with an increase in the purchase age. As ALAC (the Alcohol and Liquor Advisory Council of New Zealand) pointed out in their submission on the 2005 attempt to raise the purchase age, "It is more likely that increasing the minimum legal purchase age and not tightening the approach to the sale and supply of alcohol will have a negative influence by... encouraging more adults/parents to start supplying or continue to supply because they view the age restriction as onerous or unfair".[3] Furthermore, as Hon. Simon Power pointed out "... when the police came before that committee they said that in 51% of cases [of under-age drinking] the last drink had been taken at home.".[4]

3.2 Current age laws are not even being properly enforced

9% of under-age drinkers have (illegally) purchased alcohol for themselves.[1] If current liquor laws, which have been around for many years, are not being enforced and are ineffective, then how likely is it that new liquor laws will be? If we are serious about reducing access for under 18 year olds, how about tightening up the enforcement and effectiveness of current laws instead of punishing other groups?

3.3 It will be hard to enforce

The last suggestion to raise the alcohol purchase age preserved the the parental supervision exemption and introduced a new one; drinking with your marriage or civil union partner if they were over 20 was allowed. A similar exemption could introduce a whole raft of problems. How will it be checked? Moreover, it is possible that some 18 and 19 year olds will marry simply to be able to drink alcohol. Furthermore, the first exemption of parental supervision (ie. raising the purchase age and not making a true 'drinking age') is likely to result in more under 18 years olds being able to legally drink than 18 and 19 year olds. This is because technically over 18 year olds no longer have a legal guardian and moreover a lot have moved away from their parents and started a job or tertiary education. Do we really want under 18 year olds who are drinking responsibly with their parents to suddenly find, as they grow up and become independent, that for the next two years they can no longer legally drink? These two exemptions will make the law very hard to enforce.

3.4 Conclusion

The whole purpose of raising the alcohol purchase age is to make it harder for under 18 year olds (and 18 and 19 years) to access alcohol. But considering current under-age trends, with 62% of alcohol coming from parents, 51% of police cases having the last drink at home, and 9% of teenagers illegally purchasing alcohol, how is simply raising the alcohol purchase age, a law that will be even harder to enforce, going to actually get at the root causes and have any positive effect? Access is already poorly enforced and is not the core problem.

4. Why raising the drinking age is counter productive

4.1 Problem drinking will become the norm

Raising the alcohol purchase age will make problem drinking the norm for two reasons. One, those who are already acting in a disorderly and illegal fashion are the most likely to be breaking the new law; it will be those who drink irresponsibly who will be left. Secondly, the very nature of raising the purchase age will encourage more drinkers to drink in a ever more irresponsible and uncontrollable manner. As Parliament's own ALAC pointed out in their submission "It is more likely that increasing the minimum legal purchase age and not tightening the approach to the sale and supply of alcohol will have a negative influence by...causing young drinkers to go "underground"... [and] encouraging more rapid binge drinking for "fear of being caught" reasons".[3] By reducing the number of responsible drinkers and by increasing the number of irresponsible drinkers, raising the alcohol purchase age will make problem drinking the norm.

4.2 It will bring the law into disrepute

A raised alcohol purchase age will not be taken seriously by many and will bring the law into disrepute for four main reasons. One, many will consider it far too excessive. Two, as already mentioned, the law is targeting a different group from the one it affects which seems woefully unfair and inconsistent the natural rule of law. Thirdly, the fact that the drinking age is being raised to get at the 'de facto' drinking age, shows that the current laws are not being sufficiently enforced; it is admitting a failure of enforcement of law and not dealing with it. Fourthly, and most notably, it is downright absurd for 18 year olds to be able to get married, to vote, to smoke, to enter into a binding contract, to die for their country, and even to legally engage in and to offer prostitution. To in short, be mature and responsible enough to make any decision and be considered a full adult, save when it comes to the purchase and consumption of alcohol (without parental supervision). By bringing the law into disrepute in all these ways, and by separating a group from society, raising the purchase age goes against its very principals of reducing harm and keeping law and order, as members of society become more isolated, bitter, and disrespectful of the law, and the law itself loses creditability.

4.3 Even if 'successful' it will simply divert the problem

Even if raising the purchase age somehow worked and under 18 and under 20 year olds were somehow unable to access alcohol, it will simply divert the problem. We have a social problem and not access problem, and unless something is done to change attitudes then the problem will still be present at 20, 21, and even at 30. The statistics clearly show this is not a problem unique to, or even dominate, in teenagers. Fundamentally, it’s not the drinking, it’s how we are drinking!

4.4 Conclusion

Raising the alcohol purchase age is not merely ineffective, it is counter productive; it will not only fail to solve the problems, it will perpetuate them. By making problem drinking the norm, by bringing the law into disrepute, and by diverting a serious social problem that needs to be thoroughly dealt with at its roots, raising the purchase age would be a major step backwards.

---

[1] Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand, 'ALAC Alcohol Monitor - Adults & Youth 2007-08 Drinking Behaviours Report', published 5 March 2009, http://www.alac.org.nz/DBTextworks/PDF/ALACMonitor2007-08.pdf (accessed August 2009).

[2] New Zealand Legislation, 'New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Public Act 1990 No 109', http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/096be8ed8009cd79.pdf (accessed August 2009).

[3] Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand, 'SUBMISSION TO THE LAW AND ORDER SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SALE OF LIQUOR (YOUTH HARM REDUCTION) AMENDMENT BILL', http://www.alac.org.nz/InpowerFiles/Policies/Document.Document.7614.59a910ed-e082-4543-a0a5-4519bca2cfa3.pdf (accessed August 2009).

[4] The New Zealand Herald, 'Drinking age back on MPs' agenda', http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10550917 (accessed August 2009).

A number of interesting points have been made here, backed by comprehensive and convincing arguments. In all honesty, the NZ Government needs to modify the existing approach to minimising alcohol-related harm. The reality is such that our liquor licensing laws are far too liberal. Furthermore, due to a lack of resources, too many on-site licensees are getting away with breaches of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.

Supply controls, demand reduction and harm minimisation strategies need to continue, but if we really want to reduce alcohol-related harm in NZ, we need to change the drinking CULTURE and the way to do this is through EDUCATION.

Making it compulsory for people to have a liquor purchasing license is not a viable option. The Police are already stretched as it is in NZ.

Now, with respect to the costs of alcohol related harm to NZ Society both the BERL (2009) report and Crampton & Burgess (2009) report raise some valid points. However, the critical point here is that only a small percentage of the money collected through alcohol excise taxes is put towards the costs of alcohol related harm. This has to change.

Yes, the damage done under the influence of alcohol is so bad the law must be changed.

One problem is that people with drinking problems have an addiction / dependence on a LEGAL substance you can buy CHEAPLY, 24/ 7. I suggest that reducing the availability of alcohol, and controlling the prices will help to REDUCE DAMAGE done by drunk individuals.

However, TREATMENT of people who have alcohol abuse issues and/or offences is necessary to bring about any real changes. It's not the alcohol alone, it's how some people drink. Unfortunately, heavy drinkers and alcoholics are reluctant to stop drinking (understandably) and can be in denial about their drinking - until something tragic happens and they hit rock-bottom. Even then they may relapse many times before stopping drinking. A greater government emphasis on treatment / intervention is what is required. Currently people get put in police cells to sober up - and then what? After the hangover wears off they start drinking again. People need to be taught about addiction, and how to recover, and their fellow addicts are the best people to do this, in treatment facilities. They need support from others in recovery. Treatment facilities are currently being reduced! While alcohol related damage is rising. There is a lot of shame associated with alcohol abuse, but slowly this is reducing. For example a number of celebrities, sports stars and other public figures are open about their battles with addiction. If there were more treatment / reduction options, and people who committed alcohol related offences were 'sentenced' to attend them, then many more people, esp more young people would be doing alcohol treatment and this would become more accepted and respected in society. Those in treatment programs would be able to have a positive influence on others in the community.

I think there are a number of other ways to tackle this. In my local area, all of the cafes are shut in the evening and it's only restaurants or bars that are open. However, if you go to European countries where drinking isn't a problem, there will be cafes and icecream parlours open until late at night where the majority of people who are out aren't drinking alcohol. We should be trying to encourage this kind of activity more.

In the UK, Councils can introduce areas which I think are called cumulative impact zones. This means that the Council can restrict the number of licences - particularly for bars, and will instead encourage more places that serve food. This aims to encourage less of a drinking to get drunk attitude.

I don't think that lowering the age that people can drink is the key issue - if 16 year olds are getting booze anyway, the current age limit obviously isn't working as parents or other adults are either buying them booze or selling it to them. We need more education aimed at parents/adults to stop them doing this.

The truth about alcohol and drugs in NZ a My view as a 20yr old in this country and an occasional binge drinker myself is that the DARE program is unsuccessful and a waste of money. even though they do it at early age 11 there is already a culture of its ok 2 get drunk (not helped by older siblings/slash cousins). This AntiAdvertising for a risk adolescent promotes them to try the drugs and get drunk. We need to look at parenting as a whole in this country and really invest in good parenting. i also read the comment about teens and early cannabis use. Well parents your kids are more likely to try cannabis before getting drunk from my own experience i admit i tried it first in Form 2, from another 12yr old even though i though i was mature at the time i wasn't doing it for curiosity and making friends. I moved away from that town that year and again cannabis (light user) helped find a group of friends.

Thats when i started binge drinking which is also seen as popular in young teens and i binge drinked once a week from then on. I maintain that parenting is the ultimate solution for most future problems.

If anyone was serious about teenage drinking i think we need to address the sporting community. Its a joke when they hammer league rugby and cricket players for there drinking at the top level. When anyone who has played these sports tell you they started real young. I currently have a friend who is awesome at rugby plays 3 yrs above his grade and regularly gets player of the day. Not even 16 and his club is serving up handles left right and center FREE (shouts) for him. Its this hipocrisy in our laws and culture that are causing issues among teens.

Also i'll add my two cents on BZP and the jim anderton failure to protect his people. Me and approximately 15 others i know never touched ecstasy, we never had the inclination because we had party pills. Now we have all done "E" im not frequenting it but a hell of alot of others are.

Cannabis prohibition is the United Nations biggest failure and i'd rather have high citizens that are harmless than harmful drunks.