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.

This is why the author talks of the nanny state.
Its OK to enjoy the effects of alcohol !
It does not make you weak or stupid to drink alcohol in moderation.
It does damage your body and that is a price you can choose to pay.
Our freedoms have a price and one of those freedoms is to make bad choices.

Vanna,

My Dad was a deputy principal at a high school> He's recently retired.

Here some some things you should look at.

http://web.me.com/stevebiddulph/Site_1/Home.html
http://www.boyslearning.com.au/
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/issues_in_boys%E2%80%99_education:_encouraging_broader_def,12017.html

And From the GOVT,

An inquiry into the education of boys in Australian schools was conducted in 2002 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training which resulted in two major initiatives.
As a response to the Inquiry’s findings the Boys' Education Lighthouse Schools (BELS) program was implemented in two stages over 2003–2005. The program provided funding to over 550 schools to help improve boys' educational outcomes. The Final Report of Boys' Education Lighthouse Schools (BELS) Stage Two provided a detailed analysis and discussion of the key findings and experiences of the 350 schools involved. The Compendium is an interactive CD of resources that has been developed for teachers based on the findings from the BELS initiative.
http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/BoysEducation/Pages/default.aspx

None of them take the same divisive attitutde you do.

There needs to be more men in education, without a doubt, but while we continue to underpay our teachers, and withhold their ability to deal with problems, that won't happen. And it won't just be men who won't sign up.

It took me 1 minute to find the above. Imagine what you could find if you opened your eyes and your ears.

PaulL
Where are you going with this? Why all the boys in education talk in a discussion about alcohol? Are you implying that under-age girls don't drink?

Dan I suspect that he has accidently cross posted, that looks like part of the cyberbullying discussion.

Vanna I've never been drunk but do buy and drink beer with alcohol in it, occasionally some port, or Bailys. Not everyone buying alcoholic drinks chooses to get drunk, not everyone who sometimes get's drunk gets drunk everytime they drink. There is much more diversity to it than that.

There is a world of difference between the light relaxant that can come from a small glass of port, or a single cold beer and drinking to the point of being drunk.

R0bert

PaulL
Alcohol is supply-sensitive - check out WHO surveys of what works in reducing alcohol-related harms. Supply is the main indicator of harm levels; price is also important. For groups dependent on welfare incomes, there isn't much elasticity.

Re Alice Springs: the grog wasn't "switched off": a majority chose to ban grog from their towns in the 80s. Some people travel to Alice to binge; the demographic explosion occurring in Aboriginal society has increased average visitations. High attrition of family heads combined with the population explosion to produce unmanageable levels of drinking and associated behaviour in Alice Springs. The process has speeded up in recent years since governments started providing police to remote communities, with less drinkers taking grog back to home communities.
Re "the tax on mixed drinks": it wasn’t "an utter failure". Many shifted to other products, but consumption of pure alcohol, measured in standard drinks, dropped in the process.

Gray is a harm minimisation advocate: reducing supply and increasing base prices to reduce harms are part of harm minimisation practice.

Of course there should be an onus on those who give in to substance abuse to take responsibility for their own actions, financially and medically as well. By the same token, the responsible majority, their elected reps, and their appointed regulators of alcohol should do their bits to ensure that the innocent victims of irresponsible drinkers have to endure minimal levels of foetal alcohol syndrome, brain damage, wrecked childhoods, injuries in traffic accidents, gobbling up of scarce public funds and many other harms perpetrated by irresponsibly inebriated people.

If the Japanese put heroin vending machines in their streets, would you advocate that we imitate them? In the highly disciplined japanese society such machines may not produce great harms, but we have a very different society, and Aboriginal people in remote areas are highly susceptible to binging behaviours, which lead to habitual dependencies. Here, it would surely lead to many more addicts, and many other problems assocated with severe addiction.

I really don't care what some people do to themselves with grog, or where they buy it. Those who want it will get it somewhere. What I do care about is the duopoly getting control of yet another product, & squeezing out yet another group of businesses from our communities.

I would like st see a range of other products removed from their shelves. Oz is the only modern country that has let 2 companies so dominate the food scene, much to our detriment, it's time to put these octopuses in a box.

Dan,

You are making exactly the same argument as those who insist that drugs must be banned and criminalised. Ie Access to drugs and alcohol, creates addicts, and more access creates more addicts.

But its not true. Look at the effect on heroin. Do you think that the fact that it is highly expensive and inconvenient to obtain, has reduced its usage and the harm it causes.

On the contrary, I'd say its increased the harm and probably increased the usage as well.

While heroin is not exactly hard to obtain it is a lot less accessable than alcohol and much more expensive. This undoubtedly DOES regulate usage. Its illegal status may dissuade some but for many users the 'forbidden fruit' factor increases desirability. Although I no longer work in the Health sector, the last time I took an interest in opiate abuse, usage and addiction figures were down. The trend was toward stimulants with methamphetamine being the biggest concern.

I tend to believe that all 'recreational' drugs should be legal and regulated. It would remove the vicarious thrill many users get from the process of procuring their preferred poison if one merely had to visit the 'drug store', show ID, complete paperwork or oral questionaire and purchase a certified quality controlled product. Not to mention harm minimisation.

Even if usage did increase, the benefits would vastly outweigh the drawbacks. The health issues would be milder, trackable and more predictable. Criminals would be largely out of the multi-billion dollar illegal drug industry and Government would pick up many millions in taxes. Law enforcement would be freed up and prison space as well. As with tobacco, education starting at early age would discourage drug use.

That's how it would be if I ruled the world ... LOL. Plus you would need to do exactly the same if purchasing alcohol.

Manufacturers and retailers would hate it but that approach would definately cut back consumption.

Well.. this is and will be, a deep-thinkers findings to a watchfulnesssss problems, that only exists in the minds of those that need that understandings which only vampires of the minds would understand in the larger scales of things:) Now! what is that big word for human-studies?

Answer! Undo what greed has supplied us with the means of, or all of gods plants are here for why he put them here in the first place:)( Love to hear the religious views on this one.

"Buddha says....all the worlds are for you....only your judgments are for you, and yours alone."

Sorry....Who am I to reorganize the human race righteously, and not thinking to do, when we all know the peoples, in its masses makes money, but brings the planet down with its ban-aid-solutions.

Let humans go.....and more money will follow. How good does it feel, the sence of freedom:)

3 weeks until 7 billion............I cant wait to see the next five years of commonsense:)

Two choices. Play it strait or play it bent. I don't think it needs any more thought than that.

LEAP

Assuming all legal profits are good, then by extension, ruining lives with alcohol and drugs is good. Clearly untrue. There is no clear line between selling something for profit and whether this is good or bad for all of us in society.

Yet all advertising is a tax deduction. Therefore we all support the selling of largely negative products like alcohol.
It may be time for a 'Social Benefit' rating for all products. Alcohol should I think, receive a Social Benefit rating not far above cigaretts.

I am off the point of the article but extending the reach of alcohol sales is as bad as increasing the reach of any other drug. Lets put a value on the product.

Do I believe that using mind and or personality altering substances is a good thing? No, unless for the treatment of serious mental illness.

Do I believe that the significent portion of mankind who do indulge in such activities will suddenly lose all interest in and cease using mind bending substances? Well maybe .... when Hell freezes over!

In other words prohibition doesn't work, will never work and to pretend that we have any chance of eradicating illicit drugs and the harmful legal drugs is utter foolishness.

The only solution is to exercise as much control as possible without driving the problem underground and creating a whole extra set of problems - as currently exists.

Alcohol of course is different - legally, cheaply and widely available as well as highly accepted. Therein lies much of the problem. There have been shifts in alcohol use in recent decades - all detrimental. Apart from attitudinal change, the other obvious contributors are easy, cheap access.

I don't have a crystal ball but one thing I know - greater access to alcoholic drinks and price 'competition' between the big outlets is not going to be part of any solution.

What constitutes a 21-century drug-dealer? Then ask yourselves....why do they breed us, and what for:)
Go and ask them!...:)

LEAP