Have A Drink On Me

Really, what's at issue here is not whether or not our government interferes in our daily lives - the evidence of this is as concrete as the paper trail of legislation trailing the steps of the Beehive. The real issue here is whether or not the populace sees this interference as a good thing or a dangerous thing. Does our government do us a favour when they make blanket restrictions in the name of The Greater Good, or do they take a step too far? And where are the boundaries when it comes to their involvement in our civil liberties? How far is too far?

We've looked at the smoking issue. For some people, including those addicted to nicotine, anti-smoking lobbyists and the hospitality industry, this issue is a very pertinent one. For those who don't indulge in smoking, it's a relatively unimportant one; our lives aren't really affected by The Nanny State getting in amongst the Dunhill butts.

So what happens then, when a dark shadow begins to fall on our beloved tipple?

The debate over alcohol restrictions has been a contentious issue for a long time. Perhaps longer than we think; in his thesis Removing Temptation: New Zealand's Alcohol Restrictions, 1881-2005, author Paul John Christoffel paints a picture of the alcohol issue as a point of historic contention in this country. Alcohol's been on our government's mind for over a century now - they've toyed with everything from prohibition to having control over the number of pubs, to dictating their operating hours.

To wade into a debate this longstanding, it probably behooves us to find a good place to start wading in.

I'm sure we can all agree that alcohol is a consumer product that is relatively harmless when enjoyed in moderation.

I'm sure we can all agree that alcohol is a product that needs to be handled responsibly, by people of a responsible age.

With that in mind, we can probably all agree that baseline legislation like:

• a set drinking age (18)
• legal alcohol limits for driving

are logical and reasonable, right?

So, can The Nanny State be accused of stepping beyond 'reasonable legislation' when it comes to alcohol?

Popular Nanny State alarmist David Farrar was one of the first people to start smelling a rat when rumours of proposed crackdowns on alcohol laws began to rattle through the halls of government.

The result was what the government called a "balanced plan for alcohol reform". From now on, getting your drink on was going to be a lot tougher:

• Firstly, the purchase age was going up - 18 years for on-licence purchases and 20 for off-licence.
• Next up; it's now illegal to provide alcohol to an under 18, unless you are their parent or guardian. And if your under-18 mates want to come around to your place for a quiet Heineken, they have to bring a note from their parents.
• The Minister of Justice is given more power to ban products he/she deems particularly appealing to minors.
• Widening areas of liquor bans
• Tightening the types of places that can sell alcohol.

And that's just the highlights.

Some of you are thinking 'great, fine, down with KGB's and feijoa-flavoured vodka - this drinking thing is a man's game anyway, any drink that needs the crutch of a tropical fruit deserves to be singled out.'

But, let's, for the sake of my already abandoned concept of brevity, just look at the last point.

There's some fine print in that last point; it's to do with the government's changing definition of 'on-license' and 'off-license' - the long and the short of it is, under the new legislation, dairies, convenience stores and superettes now lose their right to sell alcohol.

Suddenly, the government has stepped into your local dairy and taken a baseball bat to the small liquor aisle, and consequently, taken a chunk out of the small store owner's livelihood. And in the blink of an eye, there is nothing they can do about it. Unless they want to upgrade themselves to a supermarket, who can continue to sell alcohol.

And this is the issue, really. Because any dairy owner suffering to carve a living from already slender profit margins will tell you that "the greater good" of the nation just came at the expense of the carpet being pulled out from underneath their bread and butter.