Hartwich’s emotively titled article ‘Getting the nanny state out of alcohol retail’ should be taken for what it is – simply an opinion. Alcohol is ‘no ordinary commodity'. The proponents of unregulated markets would have us believe that: alcohol consumption is simply a function of individual demand; producers and retailers are simply responding to that demand; and any harm is caused by the irresponsible behaviour of a minority of consumers. In fact, levels of consumption are a function of supply as well as demand, and alcohol-related health and social harms are positively correlated with the level of consumption.

The cost of alcohol-related harm exceeds $15 billion per year. This is borne by all Australians and systematic measures need to be taken to reduce it. This includes addressing supply-side as well as demand-side determinants.

Hartwich opines that that ‘Limiting social harm from excessive alcohol consumption may be an understandable objective, but limiting vending places for alcoholic drinks does not achieve it’. However, although there is not a simple one-to-one relationship between them, again the research evidence does not support Hartwich’s view. More importantly, as Hartwich concedes Aldi’s entry into the market ‘would drive down prices’. As price is a major determinant of consumption, driving it down will increase consumption and related harm and will counter efforts to reduce such harm.

Another of Hartwich’s assertions is that ‘Licensing laws in Victoria and the ACT are more liberal than in NSW. However, binge drinking or alcoholism appears no worse in Melbourne or Canberra than in Sydney.' Again, this is counter to the evidence. The liberalisation of licensing laws in Victoria has been accompanied by rapid increases in alcohol-attributable hospitalisations and violent crime. Similarly, largely as a result of the liberalisation of liquor laws ‘Over the past decade, the UK has overtaken France, Spain, and Italy in rates of chronic liver disease and cirrhosis'.

Alcohol is the cause of significant harms to the health and social well-being of Australians. How this is best addressed should be the subject of serious debate. However, such debate needs to be based on evidence not ideologically driven opinion.

"In other countries, even motorists are trusted not to immediately consume the beer and wine they may purchase at petrol stations. In the Australian nanny state, however, we would be content to get the meat and beer for our next barbecue from the same shop."

How many of said countires have the same binge drinking issues we have?

Alcohol, a recreational drug which leads to immense health problems in a significent minority or users, toxic to liver and brain cells in high concentrations, highly addictive to some, triggers personality change, aggression, lack of inhibition, impaired judgement and motor skills in moderate to heavy users.

It is directly responsible for a number of deaths each year through alcohol poisoning - a quick check of Statistics for 04 & 05 gave figures of 175 & 178 respectively. I'd expect more recent figures to be higher not lower. On top of this, factor in deaths caused by alcoholic organ failure, vehicle crashes caused by drunks, drunken assaults and accidents ... Having worked in A&E of two public hospitals I could write a book!

Alcohol should be more difficult to obtain - not easier. There is absolutely no public benefit to having more outlets selling alcoholic beverages and I am thankful that thus far Queensland residents must go to a licenced premises to purchase it.

No I'm not a tee-total wowser, I do have an occasional drink and enjoy it when I do. However I get no 'buzz' from booze and have only ever been a very light drinker. A brother has made up for my lack of brewery patronage and it has ruined his potential and caused much heartache. If I had my way it would be rationed.

I already buy beer from supermarkets. It is non-alcoholic beer, and doesn't taste too bad actually.

If people are buying alcoholic beer instead of non-alcoholic beer, it means that they want to be drunk.

The questions to be answered is "Why do they want to be drunk?"

Best for the Centre for Independent Studies to research that.

I can see two sides to this issue.

The first is that exposure to alcohol normalises alcohol: perhaps, if we didn't have a sense that alcohol is taboo, then teeny-boppers wouldn't be so keen to get their hands on it. Perhaps our national tendency towards excessive alcohol consumption is a product of our 'nanny state' laws.

On the other hand, it makes little sense to me that, while we are trying to put an end to alcohol-related problems in our society, we would make alcohol easier to access, simply because nobody has proven that ease of access increases consumption.

One thing I find absurd about the article is the notion that opening alcohol sales up to supermarkets would diminish the Woolies/Coles duopoly on liquor. If they were to allow Aldi to sell alcohol in their stores, they would surely have to allow Woolies and Coles to do the same. Woolies and Coles already have deals with suppliers, so moving their stocks out of the bottle shops and into the supermarkets would do little more than reduce their costs. Now, some people may be happy to drink Aldi's moonshine and home-branded grog, but I suspect many more will continue to buy recognised 'quality' brands from the names they know and trust.

I, for one, am happy to see things remain as they are. I've travelled overseas, I've bought alcohol from supermarkets and I haven't become a problem drinker as a result. But I'm one person, ill-inclined to be a problem drinker in the first place.

Dennis,

Isn’t it true that the amount of alcohol consumed (particularly by those who use alcohol regularly, is not at all price/supply sensitive. Isn’t this exactly what’s happened in Alice Springs, since the grog was switched off in the remote communities? Ie drinkers following the grog.

Another example was the tax on mixed drinks. Wasn’t this an utter failure, where the targeted group shifted to straight spirits or wine?

We have the harm minimisation school telling us (and I agree) that drugs should not be illegal, certainly not criminal offences anyway, and that addiction should be treated as a medical issue, Payable, of course, by the addict, who would suddenly have a lot more money to spend on healthcare.

But on the other hand, you want to limit the availability of alcohol and artificially inflate its price. Don’t you think we should put the onus back on those who give in to substance abuse to take responsibility for their own actions, financially and medically? Making alcohol more difficult to get just says to addicts, it isn’t their fault they drink too much, it’s the retailers.

The Japanese vend alcohol in street vending machines. Children are trusted not to abuse this process. Don’t we make alcohol more of a problem the more we hide it away.

I’ve no doubt price has an effect on your average, non addicted drinker. But I would love to see your statistics showing the effect of price on problem drinkers. Because knowing addicts, (as I do), the sort of price and supply measures you are talking about, wouldn’t affect their behaviour at all, except to reduce the amount of groceries they had for the week.