The Press FRIDAY. AUGUST 22, 1975. More liquor, but nothing more to stop its ills

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33928, 22 August 1975, Page 8

The Press FRIDAY. AUGUST 22, 1975. More liquor, but nothing more to stop its ills

Some of the recommendations made last year by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Liquor Industry have found their way into the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill introduced into Parliament this week If the bill is passed in its present form, alcoholic drinks will be more readily available in more places and to more people. Much of the sensible tidying up of the times ana terms on which restaurants, clubs, and theatres can supply liquor, or allow it to be consumed, should be welcomed. More flexibility in opening hours for hotels —in effect, later closing on Fridays and Saturdays — will be popular with many of those who spend their evenings in hotels. However, enforcement problems for police and traffic officers will be extended later each night and the community will have to bear the cost.

The Government seems determined to press ahead with its proposal to lower the drinking age from 20 to 18. On the evidence, drinking problems among young New Zealanders, already serious, are becoming worse. The number of alcoholics among under-age drinkers is increasing: drinkers under 20 are among the worst offenders as drivers and in other forms of anti-social behaviour. In other words, people under 20 appear to have widespread access to alcohol now and have demonstrated an inability to control their drinking. This is not likely to be improved by a lower legal drinking age. Those who are going to drink regularly usually begin about two years before they are legally entitled to buy liquor, and much more rigorous enforcement of the laws against under-age drinking would be needed to change this pattern significantly. Perhaps parents can be expected to exert more restraint over those who are aged 16 or 17 than they do over those who are 18 or 19. At least, it may be hoped that better drinking habits will be encouraged.

The Royal Commission recommended that an Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council be established to consider ways of combating the harmful effects of the abuse of alcohol. While paying lip-service to the recognition of problems with alcohol, the report did little to explain how the detection and treatment of those in need of help might be improved. These might have been matters for an advisory council to consider, but the Government so far has proposed to increase the risk of the abuse of alcohol, especially by young people, but has not acted to accept the community’s greater responsibilities towards the victims of a way of life in which drinking to near drunkenness is a national disease. Perhaps the Government has decided that little can be done to improve the drinking habits of New Zealanders, except to pursue further the myth that more ready access to alcohol improves the behaviour of drinkers. But that does not lessen — in fact, it increases — the community’s responsibility towards repairing the damage done by excessive drinking. Tinkering with the liquor laws will give a superficial impression that the quality of life in New Zealand has been improved or in some way made more liberal or reasonable. To persuade the community to treat drink sensibly and to deal with its effects is much more important — and much more difficult. On reflection. Parliament might well decide that better behaviour from those who drink, and more treatment for those who drink, but should not, deserves higher priority than greater access to liquor. Is anyone really deprived of alcohol by the law as it stands?