Graphic images of all-too-common consequences of binge drinking feature in a hard-hitting advertising campaign launched by ALAC this month. The commercials are part of an ongoing campaign to address New Zealanders’ propensity to binge drinkThe new campaign was launched by Associate Minister of Health Hon Damien O’Connor on 2 April.
The commercials show people making poor and dangerous choices after excessive drinking and illustrate realistic transformations – when good times turn bad. They continue the message It’s not the drinking, it’s how we’re drinking.
ALAC CEO Gerard Vaughan says he makes no excuses for the hard-hitting nature of the campaign, as it takes an honest approach to what is a serious problem for many people.
continue reading »
April 25 2008 | Binge Drinking and Commercials | 5 Comments »
Last year a bill went before the House seeking to return the minimum legal purchase age for alcohol to 20.
After extensive debate in the media, polls, lobbying and many arguments for and against, the die was cast when, on 8 November, 2007, politicians voted against the amendment.
It was the 56th time politicians had debated an issue relating to alcohol and voted as a matter of conscience.
Under our parliamentary system, most votes in Parliament are determined largely by the collective decisions of the parties.
However, on a range of moral or social legislation they are able to cast a personal vote, otherwise known as a “conscience” vote.
In recent times issues that have been the subject of conscience votes, other than the sale and consumption of alcohol, have included capital punishment, homosexual law reform, prostitution, gambling, adoption, abortion, pornography, and smoking in public places (see table).
continue reading »
April 23 2008 | Conscience Vote | 2 Comments »
The one-way door policy designed to reduce violence in inner-city Christchurch was not without its faults, but it worked well enough to be extended.
The Christchurch Central Business District Alcohol Accord was implemented from October 2006 to March 2007 in a bid to reduce alcohol-related violence and crime in the Christchurch CBD.
The initiative arose out of collaboration between representatives of the Police District Licensing Unit, Christchurch City Council, Hospitality Association, and the Canterbury District Health Board division Community and Public Health.
The aims of the policy were to:
• reduce the incidence of violence where the perpetrator and/or victim are affected by alcohol
• improve local-level responses to alcohol-related violence
• increase the safety of environments where alcohol consumption occurs
• reduce crime and violence in the CBD by 10 per cent
The key component of the accord was planned to be a 3am one-way door operating in licensed premises on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, meaning patrons couldn’t enter bars after that time.
continue reading »
April 23 2008 | violence and alcohol | Comment here »
Here ALAC’s senior policy analyst, Megan Larken, looks at one suggestion, a legal drinking age.
Colloquially, the minimum legal purchase age is often referred to as the “drinking age”. Those of us who work with alcohol policy know there’s a big difference between a “drinking age” and a “purchase age”. We will gladly point out that we have a purchase age in New Zealand so there is nothing illegal about anyone supplying any young person with alcohol, nor is it illegal for people of any age to drink. Except in a public place. This last provision is tucked away in the Summary Offences Act, whereas the Sale of Liquor Act is strictly about commercial sale and supply.
For a long time in New Zealand, and for very good reasons, the lowering and raising of the minimum legal purchase age has been a key focus of efforts to influence youth access to alcohol. However, Parliament’s decision last year not to pursue raising the purchase age, followed by the Government’s anti-climactic Review of the Sale and Supply of Liquor to Under-18s, has led to some of us taking a fresh look at alternative options.
continue reading »
December 15 2007 | Drinking Age | 3 Comments »
By Guest Columnist Christine Rogan, Health Promotion Advisor for Alcohol Healthwatch who has advocated for alcohol health advisory statements for pregnant women since 1996.
The other day I came across a premix vodka beverage with an alcohol content of 7% that was sporting a health advisory statement which said, “NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN, PREGNANT OR LACTATING WOMEN AND INDIVIDUALS SENSITIVE TO CAFFEINE. Caffeine? The message about the significant risk that alcohol posed to such consumers was simply absent.
How could such a situation come about? In 2001, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ mandated what it called “rigorous labelling” for caffeinated drinks. A FSANZ spokesperson interviewed at the time by the New Zealand Herald (01/08/01) said, “We are sure that this will protect the health and safety of people who drink these products”. There had at that point been three deaths linked internationally to the consumption of caffeinated drinks, two ironically where the caffeine had been mixed with alcohol.
Despite the fact no caffeine-associated deaths to my knowledge were reported in New Zealand and Australia, FSANZ moved quickly to regulate with this health warning. However, just one year prior, the food standards organisation, summarily dismissed such a move for alcohol, an altogether more significant and proven risk to human health. Why? Among the number of questionable arguments put forward at that time, was that a health warnings on alcohol containers would be ineffective at achieving desirable behaviour change and could even increase undesirable behaviour in some ‘at risk’ groups.
Why then would a health warning label be effective for caffeine one year hence? There is no rational explanation as to why a level of proof of effectiveness should be so different for alcohol.
continue reading »
December 15 2007 | Alcohol and Pregnancy | 1 Comment »
Earlier this year the New Zealand Herald reported the case of an Auckland bartender who questioned whether a mother-to-be should be drinking.
The woman who was not named said she was “accosted” and repeatedly questioned about her choice when she ordered a low-alcohol beer. She thought it “patronising and rude”.She is reported as saying “The barman asked me whether I was sure I wanted to have an alcoholic drink, then pointed at my stomach,” she said. “I was fuming.”The woman said she drank light beer and wine during her previous pregnancy, as her four sisters had during theirs. She said she had “glares from people in the past and it does seem that while you have this huge stomach and you are waddling around, everyone has something to say about it, but nothing like this. This was incredibly insulting.”
Was the bartender right to raise the issue?
This article was first published in the December 2007 edition of alcohol.org.nz.
December 15 2007 | Alcohol and Pregnancy | 8 Comments »
