Owen Jennings

My liver failed two springs ago, when I was a senior in high school. I don’t know the cause of my liver disease — a genetic mutation, an environmental trigger or just plain bad luck. But one of the many rules of my long recovery has been no alcohol. Not one drink. Not even a sip.

It was with this compulsory sobriety that I entered Dartmouth College two years ago. During my sophomore year, I pledged Alpha Delta, the fraternity that served as the model for the movie “Animal House.” (The film’s chief writer was an alumnus.) It was the same fraternity my brother pledged, and the same fraternity all of my friends would join. I was known as a “dry” pledge — everybody from the president to all the brothers made it clear to me that the fact that I didn’t drink wasn’t an issue at all.

Even though no one cares that I don’t drink, they still see it as bizarre. But being alcohol-free has given me a unique vantage point from which to observe college life and culture. It seems to me that alcohol might be the only drug that everyone is expected to use.

If I refuse a drag of a cigarette or marijuana, there are never any follow-up questions. The same is true for other drugs common on college campuses, whether it’s Adderall, cocaine or Ecstasy. But alcohol is different. Turning down a drink, for some reason, requires justification. When I decline alcohol, the response is almost always, “Why not?”

That’s because in college, drinking is the default. It is assumed that I drink, for no other reason than that I am an average 19-year-old American male. Not drinking is seen as weird.

At Dartmouth, and at every other college campus I have been to, the consumption of alcoholic beverages is common. But the word “consumption” is an understatement. I’m not talking about the casual sipping of a few beers. Here, alcohol consumption means the rapid and repeated gulping and guzzling of beer after beer after beer. Often, students will drink upwards of 15 or 20 beers. On any given night, a frat brother or a sorority sister will spend hours vomiting. Sometimes a classmate will wind up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. And often, these people wake up unable to remember anything that happened the night before.

This way of living — of partying — is a culture of excess from which I will always be excluded. There are obvious benefits for me — no hangovers, for instance. But the fact that I am surrounded by alcohol is also a constant reminder of my illness and the underlying restraint I must maintain. Because I am not a part of the drinking culture, I don’t forget that alcohol is a drug, and that in large enough doses it’s a poison that causes brain damage and liver disease.

I am always tempted to have a drink. But it’s just not worth the risk. When you have doctors telling you that you almost died and that your liver function is directly affected by your alcohol consumption, it just doesn’t make sense. I am sure there are people with liver disease who do drink, but I am doing everything possible to stay out of the hospital right now.

I have trouble explaining the mindset of my schoolmates to my parents and my grandparents, who don’t understand why a girl would swill half a dozen shots in her dorm room before going out. My generation has adopted drinking as a social cure-all. It’s a way to celebrate winning that big game, and a way to sorrow over a lost girlfriend or a bad grade. It’s a way to fit in, and — if you can drink enough — it’s a way to stand out.

The fraternity is so much more than just a place to drink. I go to the house and we hang out, get dinner, listen to music and go to concerts. We have sports teams, literary contests and community service projects. We send school supplies to Kenya, we work on the Special Olympics, and A.D. recently helped fund gay pride week. So there is a lot more going on than just crazy drinking. It’s just that the drinking overshadows everything.

My sobriety has shown me how mindless my friends’ drinking has become. The question shouldn’t be, “Why aren’t you drunk?” Rather, we need to start asking, “Why are you drunk?”

If I hadn’t been diagnosed with liver disease, I would probably be a part of this insane and inane drinking lifestyle. But I’ve come to realize that while I might feel left out at a party or a bar today, maybe I’m lucky. I will graduate from college without ever having woken up on a bathroom floor, wondering how I got there; without ever having to play hide-and-go-seek with the police. Though I regularly feel frustrated and excluded because I can’t drink, I think I’ll feel differently in a few years, when extravagant keg parties are a distant memory.

I realize that drinking is a way to rebel and revel in the newfound freedom that college brings. But it’s also a veil, a way to manipulate, distort and enhance who we really are.

If anything, being sober at the Animal House has taught me just to be myself.

Owen Jennings is a sophomore studying philosophy and English at Dartmouth College. This article is reprinted from the New York Times.

ALAC’s Early Intervention Manager, Sue Paton

To drink or not to drink? Is it a choice or are we programmed to conform?

When I first read ‘Sober in the Animal House’ I was struck by the parallels in Owen’s story and my own experience. While my experience is different in that I’m older and not part of a university drinking culture, it is similar in the sense that when I’ve chosen to not drink, I’ve felt like a fish swimming in the wrong direction. Yes, I too have felt my choice has made me a bit weird.  Certainly like Owen I’ve been asked ‘why not?’ There have been raised eyebrows, odd looks and at times, I’ve felt compelled to offer an explanation. But, why this pressure?

Here’s what I think. Drinking is so much part of our culture, it is the norm. If you don’t drink you must have a very good reason, either you’re a pregnant, a recovering alcoholic or don’t drink for religious reasons. Otherwise you’re just freaky.

Prior to my role as the Early Intervention Manager at ALAC, I was a counsellor for many years working in the alcohol and other drug treatment field. It has always been of great interest to me that even in this enlightened field ‘abstinence’ from alcohol sometimes gets a bad rap from within the field. Why is choosing not to drink seen as an odd decision by those who understand the harm it can cause?

In New Zealand, 85 percent of people drink. Alcohol is so much part of our kiwi culture that we don’t see it as a drug. We have blinkers on protecting us from the harsh realities so we can pursue our drug of choice (including drinking to get drunk), without any compunction. Alcohol does have a part to play in our society, but we need to accept that it is a drug which can be dangerous if consumed above recommended doses. When we accept that drinking is a ‘choice’ and not an ‘expectation’ or measure of ‘normality’, then we will develop a more respectful relationship with both our favourite drug and our fellow citizens’ right to choose.

Quick Facts

• Every year approximately 1,000 New Zealanders die from alcohol related causes
• A third of all police apprehensions involve alcohol
• Half of serious violent crimes are related to alcohol
• There are over 300 alcohol-related offences every day
• Alcohol is a factor in more than half of physical and sexual assaults
• Every year approximately 130 people die in a crash caused by a drunk driver and a further 2,000 will be injured
• At least 600 children are born each year with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
• 60 different medical conditions are caused by heavy drinking
• Up to 75 percent of adult presentations at Emergency Departments on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights are alcohol-related.
• Approximately 44 percent of fire fatalities involve alcohol

Back row: (from left to right) Davina Cooper, Thomas Humphreys, Andrea Cameron, Tariki Manawaiti, Kaylib Heke, Kane Rudolph Middle row: Robert Diamond, Summer Hamilton, Sheridan Ashby, Bernie Hetaraka, Shirleyanne Brown, Mika Nathan, Rachel Woodworth Front row: Harrison Tanenui-waara.

A successful student-led open forum, focussing on the “Is It Worth It?” campaign which addresses youth access to alcohol, was held in Whangarei earlier this year.

Students from Tikipunga and Whangarei Boys High Schools were involved in the planning, content and timetable of the open forum day.  Students and staff from seven of the nine high schools in the Whangarei area attended the open forum day.

The day of presentations and discussion was MC-ed by two extremely confident and entertaining students.  Students from the participating high schools facilitated presentations and workshops looking at five themes from a youth perspective.

Presentations and discussions covered:

• How are we drinking?
• Influences
• Consequences of drinking
• Impact on friends and whanau
• Benefits of not drinking alcohol – a balanced perspective

 Activities during day encouraged thinking, questioning, participation, brain storming, role play, writing poetry, acting and above all, honesty, from students and teachers alike.

The students shared their experiences of activities they had done in their schools, including awareness days and results of a survey asking where young people got their alcohol.  The survey showed that a majority of young people get their alcohol from their parents.

“There is not enough education (not just for young people, but for parents as well) about how much alcohol is in some drinks,” said one of the students.  “My friend’s mum gave him a box of 12 RTDs for the night.  That is a lot of alcohol!”

“This forum, as part of the Is It Worth It? project, has helped to increase the skills, knowledge and choices of young people by providing information, advice for the growth of youth leaders,” said Shirleyanne Brown from ALAC.  “Young people get to use their ideas and creativity to spread the message around their choices regarding alcohol and its consumption.”

Ms Brown said young people are well aware that success will limit their access to alcohol, and they are okay with that.  “Young people in our community have been rocked and affected by effects of alcohol, including seeing their friends dying as a result of alcohol-related harm.  They want to do something about it.”

“We are seeing a real commitment to addressing alcohol issues in our schools,” said Bernie Hetaraka, from Manaia PHO.  “Students and teachers have taken away a number of ideas from this forum to help them plan a variety of initiatives to implement in their own schools.”

“Senior students are going back to their schools and planning activities like orientation days, report nights, and displays for next year.  In some schools we are seeing the awareness for alcohol issues being integrated into the curriculum.” 

This day was made possible by the Steering Group, consisting of students and teachers from Tikipunga High and Whangarei Boys High school, with the support from Bernie Hetaraka (Manaia PHO), Rachel Woodworth (ACC) and Shirleyanne Brown (ALAC), and funding provided through the Community Alcohol Action Fund (CAAF) from ALAC.

The “Is It Worth It?” Project

 Whangarei high schools, working alongside Bernie Hetaraka (Youth Health Co-ordinator – Manaia PHO Ltd), identified alcohol as one of the issues young people are facing both within the family and friends social settings.

 As a result, Is It Worth It? began.  It has been running in Whangarei High Schools for the past two years.

 The main objective is for Whangarei young people to have heightened awareness and responsibility regarding the supply of alcohol to minors, the choices they have, the decisions they make and to ultimately keep young people safe from the adverse effects of alcohol.  It also reinforces the responsibility of parents and caregivers regarding the supply of alcohol to minors.

The first two schools to roll out the project were Te Kura Kaupapa Maori O Te Rawhiti Roa and Tikipunga High School.  These schools undertook a survey that asked the question “Who supplies your alcohol?” in an effort to highlight a local picture concerning youth access to alcohol.

Since then the remaining seven high schools, through their health teams, have been offered the opportunity to also conduct this survey.

 The findings from the above survey have reflected those of The University of Auckland, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences document “Te Ara Whakapiki Youth 07 – The Health and Wellbeing of Secondary School Students In New Zealand”.  It states that the most common sources of alcohol for students were their parents (54%) and friends (53%).

Everyone participating in the Awareness Day was invited to share in a ‘Minute of Reflection’ at 9:09 am as that time makes its way around the world.

 “In this magical moment – the ninth minute, of the ninth hour, of the ninth day, of the ninth month – we wanted people to hear the message that in the nine months of pregnancy, while breastfeeding or planning to conceive, women should not drink alcohol,” said Christine Rogan from Alcohol Healthwatch.  “In that minute, we also want the world to remember those who are living with fetal alcohol disorders.

 ALAC Early Intervention Manager Sue Paton said drinking at any time during pregnancy could affect the normal development of the fetus.

“The harms that result from pre-natal exposure to alcohol range from mild intellectual and behavioural issues to profound disabilities,” she said.

Research commissioned by ALAC showed that many women still believed a small amount of alcohol would not hurt the fetus, she said.  The research found only 40 percent believed women should abstain altogether from drinking during pregnancy.  Half of the women surveyed said one drink or less was safe to be consumed on a typical drinking occasion in pregnancy.

“But in fact there is no known safe level of consumption of alcohol for pregnant women and unfortunately, medical advice on drinking during pregnancy is variable,” she said.

Ms Paton said there needed to be a stronger public policy response to FASD in New Zealand. ALAC recommended labelling alcohol containers to caution against drinking during pregnancy and currently had an application for health advisory labels before Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

There needed to be consistent messages from health professionals on the dangers of drinking while pregnant, proactive identification, assessment and help for families at risk of being affected by FASD, and research to more accurately ascertain the prevalence of FASD.

Ms Paton said there was little information about the true prevalence of FASD in New Zealand as there had been no population-based prevalence studies.  However, the Ministry of Health estimated there were two to three per thousand live births for FASD and four to five per thousand live births for partial-FASD.

There was a danger the rate of FASD in New Zealand might increase because the prevalence of potentially hazardous drinking among women of child-bearing age was increasing.

Every year International FASD Awareness Day is held on the 9th day of the 9th month to symbolise the 9 months of pregnancy.  The aim of this awareness day is to have Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) more widely recognised, understood and prevented. FASD is a term used to describe a range of developmental disorders that can happen to an unborn baby when a pregnant woman consumes alcohol.  The effects may be life-long and can range from the most subtle behavioural and learning difficulties to more severe forms of brain damage resulting in alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.  These are all entirely preventable if drinking stops at that all-important developmental stage of life.

Availability and access to alcohol is a major concern and there are proven evidence-based interventions we can introduce. We support proposals to introduce a nationwide set of trading hours, restricting off-licence hours to 8am to 10pm, and on-licences until 2am. ALAC proposes allowing for community say and local variation of these nationwide opening hours via a well-consulted local alcohol policy, and where each licence applicant is able to demonstrate that they have a plan to manage the risks of any extended trading hours. The nationwide hours will target the greatest harms (weekend night-time drinking) whilst not overly restricting the freedoms of most New Zealanders wishing to drink responsibly.

ALAC strongly supports the ability for licensing decision makers to refuse a licence on wider grounds than permitted at present, such as likely detrimental social impact and inconsistency with local alcohol policy. However, we do not support the proposal to remove restrictions on the type of premises able to apply for off-licences, because the proposed widened grounds for refusing licences will not be a sufficient safety net to control alcohol availability and the proliferation of alcohol outlets.

Driver alcohol and drug impairment is inflicting a very high and concerning cost on our society. Any initiative to reduce alcohol-related road crashes will also reduce the incidence of other alcohol harms. We strongly believe the legal blood alcohol content limit for drinking should be lowered to 50mg/100ml, and the under 20-year old limit lowered to zero, regardless of licence status.

Youth binge drinking is a characteristic of New Zealand’s alcohol environment. We know that about one-third of youth drinkers binge drink with negative impacts on themselves and society, such as alcohol-related offending, injuries and road crashes. As our young people will define New Zealand’s future drinking culture, they deserve the support and assistance of adults, whānau, communities and importantly our legislative system. ALAC maintains its historic position that the minimum purchase age should be 20 years. ALAC supports the requirement for parental consent for the supply of alcohol to a young person under the age of 18 years, and we recommend that it be an offence for any person to supply alcohol to a young person without the consent of a parent or guardian.

Early intervention in primary health is an identified gap in the current provision of health treatment and support for those New Zealanders with drinking problems. ALAC is keen to play a more active role and we believe that a comprehensive plan for alcohol treatment is needed.

The supporting management structures and tools available to those working in the alcohol sector are important to improve. ALAC recommends making the primary object of any new legislation the reduction of alcohol-related harm, which will provide guidance to agencies and authorities working in the sector. We believe that the licensing and enforcement system should: enable the proactive enforcement of the law and effective functioning of licensing bodies; further the object of the Act; provide flexibility to respond to changing needs and new technologies; ensure that licences can be revoked where fundamental breaches are shown, and; ensure community say in licensing decisions. Enforcement offences and tools should seek to balance harm reduction with the rights and freedoms of responsible New Zealanders.

Although the evidence base is increasingly clear about the adverse impacts of alcohol promotion, it is unclear how best to deal with the issue, while avoiding perverse results or unreasonably impacting on New Zealand’s economy. Given this complexity, ALAC recommends as a priority, that a whole of government process, similar to ‘Smokefree’, be initiated to deal with alcohol promotion. Measures should be undertaken to reduce the exposure of those under 18 years of age to alcohol advertising. There is a case to increase the retail price of alcohol to reduce the incidence of heavy sessional drinking. We support a minimum retail price policy in theory, but recommend further research and policy work to determine the magnitude and impact this would have. ALAC also recommends a legislative requirement that off-licence alcohol marketing and retailing practices are socially responsible, similar to that which already exists for on-licence practices.

Overall, ALAC believes that this opportunity to fundamentally review the sale of liquor legislation in New Zealand is our one opportunity in this decade to make real change and reduce alcohol harm. As such we should not be afraid to ensure we are sending the right messages and providing the needed support to those working to reduce alcohol harm. We need to provide a safe drinking culture for our youth and our future.

ALAC’s full submission is available at http://www.alac.org.nz/InpowerFiles/v1_ACTIVE-SubmissionforWeb-WorkSiteAcrobatIntegration.pdf.

As people listen to others and begin to tell their story in CADS family and friends support groups, the most common statement is

 ”I thought I was the only one”

Sadly, only a proportion of families experiencing addiction issues gain access to specialist treatment services. Often when this happens the focus is usually on the individual presenting with the alcohol and drug issue rather than the wellbeing of the whole family and whanau.

“A part of the enormous social cost of alcohol and other drug (AOD) abuse, alcohol and other drug issues impact significantly on New Zealand families, friendships and communities,” says Trish Gledhill, Director, Kina Families and Addictions Trust.  “The need to address these issues requires little argument.”

With the support of ALAC, the Mental Health Commission and the JR McKenzie Trust, Kina has recently produced Living Well – a resource to promote the health and wellbeing of families and friends of people affected by a loved one’s alcohol and other drug use.

Living Well is a framework utilising the Stress Coping Model, a primary health model developed by Alex Copello and colleagues in the United Kingdom. The approach has demonstrated how the effects of stress and the increased rates of psychological and physical symptoms experienced by people with family alcohol and drug issues can be mitigated towards healthier outcomes (Copello, A., Orford, J., Velleman, R., Templeton, L., & Krishnan, M; 2000).

Living Well has been designed to be applicable to a New Zealand context in reflecting the diversity of our families.  It incorporates family resilience concepts, aimed to instil realistic hope for people while they explore their various coping strategies in response to these issues.

While the resource has been designed to ‘stand alone’ for individuals to use, it is ideally introduced in a setting that is conducive to family inclusive practice in addressing alcohol and drug issues, and by a worker who understands the model and can support its delivery with a consistent approach.  Therefore, to ensure the most effective utilisation of the resource and the most benefit to families, training and support in the application of the model will be provided to key staff such as practice nurses.

Living Well can be used on its own, as the basis for working one to one with family, and also in group situations.  Living Well employs the Stress Copying Model by simply modeling the process and guiding AOD clinicians and family members to identify current coping strategies and to utilise those that are most likely to support their own health and wellbeing.

“This resource has been enthusiastically received in the sector with several requests for copies to assist with service delivery,” says Trish.

Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) provides services in Auckland for those concerned about their own or someone else’s use of Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) and has been using Living Well.

“Through providing a simple and effective framework, the Stress Coping Model, demonstrated in Living Well has been found to be a lovely way of working with affected others in these settings,” says Suzy Morrison, Family Services Coordinator, CADS Auckland.  “It can also reduce any fears voiced by AOD clinicians that they need to be a family therapist to work with families.”

“The resource is gaining popularity with both clinicians and family members and is in high demand as part of CADS service delivery,” say Suzy.

Kina Trust’s objective is to see Living Well accessed by people through different ways across the AOD sector and the wider community.

“The next Kina project is aimed at the promoting effective utilisation of Living Well in a number of accessible community and primary health settings,” says Trish from Kina Trust.

Copies of Living Well may be obtained from Kina Trust. To contact Kina Trust visit their website on www.kinatrust.org.nz or email info@kinatrust.org.nz

When communities work together, sexual violence can be prevented.

In New Zealand, it is estimated that as many as 1 in 4 females and 1 in 8 males are likely to experience sexual violence in their lifetimes. This comes at a huge expense to our country as the cost of sexual violence is about $72,000 per incident (total $1.2 billion in 2003-04[1]).

Community Responsibility

Communities, including parents, teachers, bus drivers, coaches, business owners, social networks and others can learn to identify signs of sexual violence and sexually violent behaviours and how to respond to them.  You can create a sense amongst your community that sexual violence is unacceptable and that it is okay for a victim/survivor or potential offender to seek help.

 How Bystanders can help

A bystander can be any person in the community who witnesses behaviour that is harmful to another. It is important that we all know how to intervene safely when we witness harmful or abusive behaviour. If there are clear messages in your community that sexual violence is unacceptable, and people endorse that prevention is everyone’s responsibility then there is more likely to be active, safe bystander intervention.

Case Study About Lack of Help

16 year old Melanie was at a party. Most people, including Melanie, were drunk. As the evening wore on she got more drunk, louder and uninhibited.  She was having a great time and was entertaining to be around.

Around 1 am Melanie passed out on the couch. A group of five guys began removing items of her clothing and touching her breasts and genitals. Bystanders’ reactions were mixed. Some people thought Melanie had brought the assault on herself with her drinking and skimpy dress. However, most bystanders were disturbed and didn’t think it was okay. Rather than intervene, they left.

The experience has taken a toll on Melanie’s life; she was sexually violated. It also had an impact on the bystanders; some felt disturbed and guilty for not intervening.

What Bystanders Can Do

Incidents of sexually inappropriate, harassing, abusive or violent behaviour where bystanders fail to intervene occur often due to bystanders believing that others will intervene or that it is not their business to get involved. However, there may be numerous opportunities where bystanders can help.

 If there is an opportunity to intervene, you can decide:

• if something is wrong. Is the person being treated with respect and care?
• if your help is needed. Don’t take cues (such as to do nothing) from people around you. If you’d appreciate someone intervening (if this was your child, parent, friend or family member) then do your best to take some action.
• if it is your responsibility to intervene. We all have a responsibility to work to create a safer world. 
• if you can calmly, safely intervene, go ahead. Do not step into a situation where you could put yourself in danger. Call the police or report behaviour to an authority. 
• to talk to someone. Visit www.rapecrisis.org.nz for a list of support agencies in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Zealand Treasury Working Paper.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/researchpolicy/wp/2006/06-04. Accessed 15th March 2009.

“An Australian study showed 21 percent of sexual assaults happen in or around licensed premises,” says Veronica Marwitz, Education & Research Manager, Rape Prevention Education.  “ESR data shows that in New Zealand the main ‘date rape’ drug is alcohol.   This means that the hospitality industry can have a huge input in preventing sexual violence.  This training will go a long way to helping licensed premises staff know how to step in.”

Rape Prevention Education will be providing free workshops in Auckland, Welllington and Christchurch to hospitality and security staff who would like to know more about how they can help prevent sexual violence, and make venues a safe place to party!

Staff will come away from the two hour training with the ability to identify situations that could lead to sexual violence and will have strategies on how to intervene in these situations.

By providing staff with preventative and effective training it can give clients/patrons (especially young women) peace of mind knowing that licensed premises are a safe place to party.

For more information regarding workshops in you area please contact JT on 09 360 4001 or Jason@rapecrisis.org.nz

Rape Prevention Education also delivers Professional Education nationwide to organisations wanting more knowledge around preventing and responding to sexual violence.  For more information please contact Kylie on 09 360 4001 ext 207 or kylie@rapecrisis.org.nz

An ALAC resource for young people is making its presence felt on the international stage.  Countries as diverse as Cameroon, Zambia, Portugal, Chile and Canada have approached ALAC asking for permission to use Smashed n Stoned?.  Sue Paton, Early Intervention Manager says “I put the first booklet on the Global Alcohol Harm Reduction Network a few months ago.  Since then I’ve been approached by clinicians from four African countries, Pakistan, Portugal, Chile and a group of First Nation Canadians asking for permission to use the resource in their mahi.  It is great to think that what we are producing here is perceived as helpful in so many far flung nations.”

“It is interesting that clinicians from other nations are keen to use it because it is a distinctly New Zealand resource that incorporates Te Whare Tapa Wha model of health that focuses on the social, spiritual, whänau aspects of young person as well as personal responsibility.” 

Smashed n Stoned? is an early intervention programme to assist at risk young people to focus on their alcohol and drug use and draw on their own strengths to see they can make choices to improve their health and wellbeing.  It is based on the Guided Self-Change model of working with addiction developed by the Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto.

The programme is motivational, designed to help young person move through stages of change and importantly, non-judgmental, providing a supportive environment where group participants can examine their alcohol and drug use and come to their own conclusions. It provides a framework for setting goals and creating a plan to make positive changes.

Smashed n Stoned? is a small group programme for 13-18 year olds with a series of four workbooks.  Young people work through these with the assistance of a counsellor or alcohol and other drug worker

“While we’ve pretty much stayed true to the Guided Self-Change model, the input from young people and Darcy Solia’s hip hop style illustrations have helped to give the resource added appeal to young people,” says Sue Paton.

 “When I started at ALAC in 2004, one of my first tasks was to redevelop the original Smashed or Stoned programme” says Sue.  “I was determined to involve young people who had been excluded from school to ensure that the target group participated in its development, and to find a young Māori or Pacific artist.” 

“Early intervention is recognised best practice in working with young people,” she says. “In New Zealand, funding for adolescent alcohol or drug intervention is allocated at the severe/dependent end of the alcohol-related harm continuum and there is limited provision for early intervention.” 

The Smashed n Stoned? resource can be used both by alcohol and drug counsellors and also by non-specialist alcohol and drug clinicians such as school counsellors.

Smashed n Stoned? is available from www.alac.org.nz.

The tobacco industry and the liquor industry have a lot in common. They’re both legally entitled to sell a product which frequently kills the user – and sometimes kills innocent victims as well. Both industries are well aware of the damage done by their industries and both have fought vigorously to avoid taking any responsibility for the death and destruction their products cause.

However, for the tobacco industry things changed in the latter half of the C20th when new research led to growing awareness that people could die from passive smoking. Once nonsmokers became aware of this, public acceptance of smoking began to wane (1). Few people wanted to be passive smokers and it became polite to ask – ‘Do you mind if I smoke?’ Some said: ‘Yes – I do.’

The public groundswell

So did the government – and from the 1980s onwards, a raft of measures were passed to make life increasingly difficult for those who lit up – including graphic warning labels on packets, smoking bans in hotels, bars and the workplace and a dramatic increase in taxation on tobacco. A groundswell of public opinion against smokers imposing their poison on the public played a significant role in the process. It was no longer so cool to smoke and a lot of people quit.

Ever since a bottleshop owner was murdered in Manurewa in 2008 there seems to have been an increasing awareness by politicians and the media of the death and destruction caused by alcohol (2). With a bit of a push, this awareness could also turn into a groundswell. England’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr Liam Donaldson has tried to help the process along by claiming that the damage done to society by alcohol is akin to ‘passive drinking’ (3). 

Price and controls

According to Donaldson, the way to tackle passive drinking is exactly the same as the process used to discourage smoking – by raising the price and limiting availability. In developed nations around the world, momentum is building for big hikes in the cost of alcohol to alleviate the harm it causes. Australia recently imposed a 70% tax hike on alcoholpops. The government in Scotland is considering imposing minimum prices on alcohol and the World Health Organisation has a global plan to tackle alcohol abuse (4).

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, head of the NZ Law Commission, has suggested that New Zealand could follow suit (5). The Commission has been asked by government to review New Zealand’s liquor legislation.

Part way into the process, Sir Geoffrey has already announced that increasing the price would be one of his key recommendations. In this speech (available at http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/Publications/Publication_154_430_PDF%20of%20GP%20Speech%20to%20Nelson%20Police%20Breakfast%20240409.pdf) Sir Geoffrey carefully noted that he was “launching some trial balloons today”.  He said the Commission does not make Government policy, only recommendations, and that in the July discussion paper we are contemplating indicating some preferred policy options compared with others in order to concentrate the public debate.

At a speech in Nelson in February he said: “It seems to me that the taxpayer should not be asked to shoulder as much of the burden as is currently being met from public funds…  the case for increasing the price of alcohol to ensure drinkers contribute more to the costs imposed on society is persuasive.”  Sir Geoffrey said we also need to decrease the availability of alcohol, place tighter controls on advertising and alcohol promotions and lower the permissible blood alcohol level for drink driving.

The 5+ Solution

Professor Doug Sellman of the National Addiction Centre at the University of Otago also wants to see the price raised.  Given the recent report by BERL that alcohol imposes a $5.3 billion burden on the economy (6) ($16 billion according to economist Brian Easton (7)), Professor Sellman wants to encourage the Law Commission to adopt a set of proposals referred to as the
5+ Solution. These proposals are part of evidence based recommendations from the World Health Organisation and are similar to those suggested by Sir Geoffrey Palmer.

The 5+ Solution is:

1   Increase the price of alcohol

2   Increase the purchase age of alcohol

3   Decrease accessibility of alcohol 

4   Decrease marketing and advertising of alcohol

5   Increase drink-driving measures

      PLUS: Increase treatment opportunities for heavy drinkers.

10 things the alcohol industry won’t tell you

Will the government listen to these proposals? Maybe – but not without public support.  There needs to be another groundswell – this time against the damage done by the 785,000 binge drinkers in New Zealand (8). Professor Sellman seems to have a plan for that too. He intends to undertake a nationwide speaking tour starting in September to help persuade the public, the media and the government of the need to impose more effective regulation over the supply, sale and marketing of alcohol. His plan is to give a public presentation in 30 different towns and cities titled “10 things the alcohol industry won’t tell you about alcohol”.

His presentation will no doubt include research conducted at Curtin University in Australia where researchers recently gained access to confidential alcohol industry documents (9).  These documents identify the top 10 concerns of the liquor industry, not one of which is about the harm caused to consumers by alcohol. Instead, these documents highlight the industry’s fear of being targeted by health reformers and controlled by government in the same way that the tobacco industry has been.

The liquor industry’s contempt for its customers which is displayed in these documents shows how much liquor and tobacco have common. There is no doubt – Big Booze needs to be treated like Big Tobacco. Hopefully, the publicity that Doug Sellman’s speaking tour and the Law Commission’s review will generate will be enough to turn the tide of public opinion.  

Footnotes:

(1)     Smoking hygiene: a study of attitudes to passive smoking: Wael AI-Delaimy, Derek Luo; Alistair Woodward; Dr Philippa Howden-Chapman; New Zealand Medical Journal, 22 January, 1999.

(2)     John Roughan, NZ Herald, May 23, 2009

(3)     Realities of boozing are tough to swallow, Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, 31 March, 2009.

(4)     Coghlan, ibid.

(5)     NZ Herald, 24 April, 2009

(6)     Cost of Harmful Alcohol and Drug Use, Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL), Dr Ganesh Nana et al, March 2009.

(7)   Assessment of the Health Impacts of Lowering the Minimum Legal Age for Purchasing

      Alcohol, ALAC Occasional Publication No. 16, Wellington, April 2002.

(8)     Interesting general statistics about alcohol,  ALAC website, www.alcohol.org

(9)     Bond L, Daube M, Chikritzhs T. Access to Confidential Alcohol Industry Documents: From ‘Big Tobacco’ to ‘Big Booze’. AMJ 2009, 1, 3, 1-26. Doi 10.4066/AMJ. 2009.43

Article submitted by Roger Brooking, Alcohol and Drug Counsellor.

The views expressed in this article are the opinions of the person who submitted the article and may not be the opinions or views held by ALAC.

To submit articles for this column please contact Michael Johnson, the editor of Alcohol.org.nz by email: m.johnson@alac.org.nz

ALAC congratulates the LLA, for what seems to be a changing attitude towards the issuing of licences and dealing with enforcement applications, in light of the heightened public conversation regarding alcohol related harm and liquor abuse issues across New Zealand.

One such decision to receive praise from public health and enforcement agencies was the refusal to grant a full off-licence to The Warehouse in Albany. Dr Andrew Hearn from ALAC provided a submission to the LLA and contended that, “opening the market for spirits and RTDs to large retail chains would result in further discounting and increased harm to young people.”  In its decision, the Authority recognised that two department stores with complementary style off-licences may not technically qualify for the licences, and may need to have those licences reviewed. The Authority also heard from the Police, the Hospitality Association, the District Licensing Agency and the Medical Officer of Health.  All opposed the issuing of the licence.

Another decision to make headlines was the Creek Liquor Store, in Cannons Creek, Porirua East. This application raised a high level of discontent among a range of social service agencies and community members, regarding the lack of community say in licensing decisions. This community mobilised, opposing the liquor licence, and gathering much public support along the way. In the hearing, the Authority heard from the Medical Officer of Health for the region who sought to establish that such a community, with a poor level of health, would be adversely affected by the increased availability of alcohol.  This, coupled with a number of other objectors, representing the Porirua Alcohol and Drug Cluster, health workers, church leaders and schools (to name a few) provided added weight to the Authorities decision. In his decision, Judge Unwin stated, “the evidence given by Dr Palmer and the objectors was excellently presented and quite overwhelming. Its combined force persuaded us that if this particular application were to be granted, an increase in liquor abuse and alcohol related harm in this community would be likely.”  The application was refused by the Authority.
 
Over 100 community members march to the Porirua District Court to hear the “Creek Liquor Store” application, chanting “No  more liquor stores”.

Henry’s Beer, Wine and Spirits Hallswell (PH 1789/2008) also found the public objecting to their application for an off-licence in Christchurch. Two residents appeared in support of their objections to the issue of the licence, and provided a petition with over 800 signatures along with their submissions.  The Authority granted the licence with less trading hours than originally sought, but made the following comments in its decision. “We believe that the retail initiative known as loss leading needs to be looked at more seriously by licensees. If a licensee uses liquor to loss lead, then he or she is stimulating, and not meeting demand. Where liquor is involved, it is not good enough for a licensee to say that they have to continue with this business practice because of competition. Most licensees understand that they are dealing with a drug, and that they have a duty under the [Sale of Liquor] Act to help them promote the reduction of liquor abuse. In our experience loss leading helps to promote the abuse of liquor.”  The Authority goes on to say, “in future, examples of loss leading by an off-licensee will be treated as an indication of lack of suitability.”

Other notable LLA Decisions, include the introduction of new minimum food standards (Empire Hotel decision, PH 1652/2008). The proposed guidelines are to apply to all premises, apart from restaurants and off-licences, from mid-2009. They state:

• The range of food must be readily available at all times that the premises are open
• Menus must be highly visible and food should be actively promoted using a variety of mediums, e.g menus on the tables, a board, or food on display
• Food should also be advertised in any outdoor areas
• Bar staff are expected to actively promote the range of food options
• A minimum of three types of food should be available. e.g paninis, pizzas, lasagne, pies, toasted or fresh sandwiches, wedges, filled rolls, and/or salads.  (This does not mean three types of pie.)
• It is acceptable to have a menu from neighbouring premises to provide for one or two of these options. However, there must be a back up option that could be produced on site.
• A minimum standard to be accepted on site would be a microwave or fryer and utensils, and a supply of a variety of ‘long life’ meals that do not require temperature control, or tins of soup and rolls.  There should be an area for preparation of food and utensils for service of the food.

An interesting case in Auckland City (PH 130-133/2009) helped confirm that the Act prohibits selling full bottles of spirits for consumption on licensed premises (s154(a) of the Act), and s.169(1) prohibits the sale of spirits in otherwise than a vessel of less than 500ml. In this case, the karaoke bar concerned was found to be selling one-litre jugs that contained tea with 200ml of whisky. It was also observed by the officers that there were “vomit basins” available for customers within the premises.  One in the hall, and one in the ladies toilet. The licensee argued that such “vomit basins” were decorative and they were needed, to retain the company’s status as a five-star karaoke business.

Finally, the Authority has cancelled the licence for Te Awamutu Wines and Spirits, making the following comments.  “In our view, the four sales to minors in the past two years call for severe consequences.  Accordingly, we intend to cancel the licence.”