Govt’s imminent alcohol decisions are predictable

New Zealand has been waiting six months for the Government to respond to the Law Commission’s historic review of the liquor laws and some drip-feeding has already begun. But the recent decisions on drink-driving provide strong clues to the way the Government is heading.

The Government’s three main drink-driving proposals were:

- reduce the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) drink-driving level for those under 20 years to zero;
- increase criminal charges and introduce alcohol ignition locking devices for recidivist drink-drivers; and
- undertake “more research” on adult drunk-driving to delay the obvious and reduce the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05.

This set of decisions reveals three strategies, which could very well be the same strategies soon to be seen in the Government’s response to the Law Commission. These strategies are:

1. Frame the heavy drinking culture as primarily a youth issue;
2. Stigmatise alcoholics and intensify their punishment rather than actively provide them treatment; and
3. Avoid any decisions that would actually make a significant difference to the heavy drinking culture.

The heavy drinking culture can be usefully thought of as the collective thoughts and behaviour of the 700,000 heavy drinkers in New Zealand. This statistic has been derived from two independent studies and therefore has strong scientific validity.

The challenge for the Government (if it is committed to changing the heavy drinking culture) is how to influence the behaviour of this group of citizens, which includes those who have an addiction to alcohol (currently about 120,000) as well as those who are habitually hazardous or problem drinkers but whose habits have not yet become compulsive (currently about 580,000).

There are four key actions that stand out from the international literature (summarized previously as the 5+ Solution) that would undoubtedly make a significant difference to changing the behaviour of the 700,000 heavy drinking New Zealanders. These are general population-based interventions just like those that have successfully dismantled the smoking culture in New Zealand over the past 40 years.

1. ban legal drunk driving by reducing the blood alcohol concentration for adult driving down to 0.05 (a no-brainer)
2. ban broadcast advertising and alcohol sponsorship of sport and cultural events (like the French have already done and as other European countries are contemplating)
3. ban the sale of alcohol from dairies and supermarkets (as in West Auckland and Invercargill)
4. put an end to extremely cheap alcohol by introducing a minimum price of $2 per standard drink (a bottle of wine containing 7.5 standard drinks couldn’t be sold for less than $15).

If the Government remains true to form on measures that actually work, we can predict the upcoming response will be to either totally ignore these four key evidence-based actions, or alternatively call for “more research” related to them. They have already done so with the BAC level for adult driving.

The second strategy is punishment rather than treatment for offending heavy drinkers. We are living in harsh, vindictive times when it comes to the treatment of fellow citizens who are not coping well with modern life, especially those who are breaking the law. The call from the public to build more prisons and increase the punishment of offenders is being responded to by governments who are more intent on managing public opinion for short-term popularist gain than providing leadership for the greater long-term good.

Currently, less the 5% of people who are caught drunk driving are referred for even an assessment of their alcohol problem, let alone obtain appropriate treatment.

So, we can expect no new initiatives for increasing treatment opportunities for the 700,000 heavy drinkers in New Zealand. Rather, we are more likely to see measures that further stigmatize and punish individuals who come to public attention. This will fly in the face of the evidence that punishment doesn’t work and can actually make behavioural health disorders worse. It will ignore the strong body of evidence that demonstrates appropriate treatment is effective across the heavy drinking spectrum.

The trifecta will be completed by an emphasis on measures targeted at young people. This will be despite the fact that less than 10% of the heavy drinkers in New Zealand are under the age of 20 years (actually about 8%). New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture in reality is primarily about adults rather than young people.

While young people are particularly susceptible to harm from heavy drinking, they are not responsible for the way New Zealanders drink. But it seems likely the Government’s response will feature measures targeting heavy drinking amongst youth, but an absence of such measures for the 92% of heavy drinking adults. In addition to the already announced zero BAC level for drink-driving for those under 20 years, we can expect an increase in the purchase age, strengthened regulations around the provision of alcohol to minors by parents and care-givers, and perhaps new regulations related to “ready to drink” spirits (RTDs), all supported by the Law Commission, but conveniently side-stepping the far greater issue of adult heavy drinking.

If this set of predictions are right, there is likely to be widespread public disappointment and anger when they are released because the Government will be on the brink of wasting their golden opportunity to change the heavy drinking culture in New Zealand, an opportunity which is unlikely to be repeated for another 10-20 years.

Young people will rightly feel scapegoated, and a feeble, cynical Government response particularly if talked up as bold and tough in PR spin, will be especially difficult for the families, loved ones, police, and other frontline workers including health professionals who live and work with the tragic results of New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture on a daily basis.

Which raises the question: why would the Government risk acting in such an irresponsible way, especially avoiding the most important actions that would seriously address the heavy drinking culture?

They may have misjudged public opinion on the decision about BAC levels for adult driving, but if the predictions above come true it will be clearer there are other compelling factors.

First, there is a knotty ideological problem for National/ACT. Broad-based interventions can too easily be denigrated by the “nanny state” taunts from Roger Kerr’s Business Roundtable. So, even though the science points strongly to the four key actions described above, our leaders could very well allow ideology to trump science. This brings to mind political regimes we tend to look down on with great disapproval.

Another fundamental reason the Government would risk overriding public opinion is the enormous power and influence of the alcohol industry, including supermarkets and the alcohol advertising industry. Unbelievable profits are derived from the heavy drinking culture by industry because the national clean up is subsidized by the taxpayer. The four key actions described above are a threat to the “unbridled commercialisation of alcohol” the Law Commission identified as a major driver of the heavy drinking culture.

With the country’s editorial comment already strongly critical of the Government’s appalling decision about the BAC levels for adult driving, further avoidance of measures that would actually work will likely set up alcohol as a General Election issue in 2011.

Professor Doug Sellman
Director, National Addiction Centre
University of Otago, Christchurch

© Scoop Media