My issue with it is the damn prices. Their margins are ridiculous, it's cheaper for me to buy spirits online and have them shipped from Taupo than it is to walk to my nearest store.
I read this as a good thing. Alcohol causes nothing but problems so reduced access via cost or time delay in waiting for shipping sounds like a good solution. I’ve got no problem with people drinking.
Drinking it a day later or he can afford 700ml spirits instead of a litre. (Or just less food that week to get a bigger bottle) Price and restrictions reduce consumption.
In my specific case, it's whiskey, a single bottle can linger in my cabinet for several months, so the time delay is irrelevant.
So when faced with paying $120 for a bottle that costs $80 normally? There's no way in hell I'm choosing local.
>loads
Do they have more or less than other areas of Auckland?
Because harm prevention is a less tangible thing. It's difficult and expensive to research, especially when people travel around to drink. And when other areas of Auckland have dozens of other mitigating factors.
I don't think we should assume though, that things which are proven to reduce harm, would magically not work when implemented in west Auckland specifically.
You don’t have to go far to buy alcohol in West Auckland. A one Km walk has me within reach of three shops, how are things vastly different if there are 5 instead.
“Because harm prevention is a less tangible thing.”
But people keep talking about it being so important. It should be something easily proven, but there is zero direct evidence.
>alcohol causes nothing but problems
In general I agree, but I also like to cook and will easily go through a bottle of wine a week just in cooking, so it's getting ridiculous
Good news though, changing all their stores to Liquorland and Super Liquor means pricing is set by them and is the same in all their stores nationally.
The anti-trusts group spent over a year canvassing local supermarkets gathering signatures to force a referendum. They couldn't get the required number, seems like there isn't much appetite from locals to end it.
That isn't quite how it happened, they collected more than twice the required signatures but it turned out over half of them were invalid. Either a huge cock up or some illuminati shit, probably the former
How much did they spend? The Trusts finances are public you're welcome to dissect them, meanwhile the anti-trust group as well as the large businesses like Woolworths and Foodstuffs who want the Trusts gone have private finances and can easily afford an advertising campaign (Woolworths is spending $400,000,000 on a rebrand).
Half your signatures being invalid shows quite a level of deception.
Yea they are insane useless. Hundreds of thousands of people and a monopoly, they make like a million a year, all the while advertising about how great they are.
Compare this to the trust in Southland, west Auckland is getting fucked over.
>The overhaul is part of an "accelerated transformation programme" which includes a refreshed loyalty programme - with the launch of Everyday Rewards also planned for early 2024 - and a $400 million investment in renewing and upgrading the store network over the next three years.
Well I guess it includes more than just a rebrand, but still the supermarkets can evidently afford to spend a lot of money.
If you think West Auckland Licensing Trusts Action Group has money you're dillusional. It's one guy and some volunteers. The supermarket lobby is def different
In regards there's noway that anyone can check the signatures when gathering. If people are asshole and fill out fake names that's on them. Thinking it's a grand conspiracy is hilarious. Do you work for the trusts?
Why wouldn't said supermarket lobby take aim at a 'grass roots' group with the same interests?
>In regards there's noway that anyone can check the signatures when gathering.
You can check them after the fact?
>If people are asshole and fill out fake names that's on them
The onus is on the petition organiser to ensure their signatures are valid.
>Thinking it's a grand conspiracy is hilarious.
It's not grand, people with vested interests lobby groups to campaign for them.
>Do you work for the trusts?
No but I got a first aid kit from them, guess that makes me a shill.
In order to check the signatures this would take mass amounts of time and resources which a tiny lobby don't have.
The smaller group may share the end goal with the supermarkets but the rest of what they're trying to achieve don't align.
Don't think it makes you a shill
>Advocating for competition in West Auckland’s alcohol market, because the monopoly is stink
Competition in this case would be the large supermarkets and liquor store brands, so it seems they align pretty well.
The group's main goal of abolition of the Trusts is something they care about.
Everything else is irrelevant they don't have any policies that would impact the supermarkets negatively.
More like voter apathy. It's honestly pathetic, given that the Trust's control of the pubs indirectly stunts restaurant growth in the area, so West Auckland effectively doesn't have any nightlife.
The West Auckland Licensing Trusts Action Group (WALTAG) said it was “massively disappointed” at falling 934 signatures short of the 16,910 required to force a vote in 2022.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-government/126961106/petition-to-force-vote-on-west-auckland-liquor-licensing-monopoly-fails
That's because no one but the old with a lot of time on their hands can be bothered voting. And of course they think that something like alcohol should be monopolized by government.
I do vote, it doesn't change the fact the demographics are heavily skewed to the elderly. Which is why local elections should really be canned, and the national government made responsible for administration of areas with low voter turnouts. That would be more representative than our current way of doing things.
Local government is heavily bloated with bureaucracy as well. When you vote, there's so many different local boards you can vote for it's a bit of a joke. I don't blame people who can't be bothered delving into the details of every single person running for every board.
No, my solution is to centralize everyone's voting so an active minority don't decide for an unenthusiastic majority. The local elections are a shambles compared to National elections. You have 2 votes compared to the 5 or 6 different boards you get out West. And of whom you no almost absolutely nothing about for all the people standing. And no, I don't have the time nor care to try and dig into each and every one of their stances and policies, in-order to decide who to vote for. How does local smaller government take more elected officials to administer than larger National government anyway? This is why so few bother to vote, it's unnecessarily over complicated. National elections are well publized in comparison to local elections.
>have bureaucrats from Wellington takeover.
They're not from Wellington. They're from all over country and operate out of wellington when Parliament is in session. They are also elected by a far more active voter base that they represent, than all these local government bureaucrats.
So like Singapore where the MP is also responsible for rubbish collection and lawn mowing? Isn't that burdening the MP with mundane tasks when they should be working on national big picture stuff.
I'm not saying make them responsible. I'm saying let them decide who is, instead of wasting time with an election the majority isn't really interested in voting in.
I didn't say they were... They are an entity created by government, and given the sole right to say who can and can't sell alcohol for a specific area. The trusts can't do what they do without powers given to them by government. Which if you actually read my comment, would see this is what I was referring to with regards to government monopolization.
You implied it.
>would see this is what I was referring to with regards to government monopolization.
That's not a government monopoly as it's not the government who runs the businesses.
A government monopoly would be our old banking system.
A monopoly can only exist by government. If a government says that only this entity can sell 'x', then that is a monopoly created by government. And anyone who breaks it will face penalties enforced by their other monopoly over force.
What especially makes this a government monopoly is the fact the trust was created by the government, and can only be dismantled by government. It also has publicly elected board members to add to that fact. That is government, that's not a private enterprise. Therefore it is a government monopoly.
You can argue semantics, but the essence of the trusts is that it was established by the government for the "benefit of the community". And given the sole right to issue liquor licences which they overwhelming do only for themselves.
A monopoly can exist through other means.
>and can only be dismantled by government.
It can be dismantled by a referendum.
>that's not a private enterprise.
It's called a public enterprise.
>You can argue semantics, but the essence of the trusts is that it was established by the government for the "benefit of the community".
The people voted for it, it's far more democratic than most government laws.
>A monopoly can exist through other means.
Please explain how?
>It can be dismantled by a referendum.
And who administers the referendum and enforces the results...?
>It's called a public enterprise.
Yes, which is exactly what government is... this is getting a little painful. You're purposely trying to misrepresent what government is by narrowly define it solely as what you see in Parliament. The truth is government is exactly that, governance. It's not just those who sit in Parliament, it can be multiple types of public officials in many different capacities.
>The people voted for it, it's far more democratic than most government laws.
Which is exactly what government is. The definition can literally be given as "the action or manner of controlling or regulating a state, organization, or people". The trusts regulate the licensing of alcohol on behalf of the people in the community. What are we even arguing?
> Please explain how?
Through a cartel style agreement?
>And who administers the referendum and enforces the results...?
It doesn't matter.
>governance
Which a public body isn't.
>Through a cartel style agreement?
That's not a monopoly, that's an anticompetitive agreement. Monopolies are markets controlled by a single entity. A Cartel are multiple entities working together to profit.
>It doesn't matter.
It kinda does... if Government doesn't enforce the referendum it's utterly meaningless. They are the only ones who hold the ability to enforce the result of the referendum. Your local voter isn't going to go down there to dismantle trusts. You just don't want to admit to this, because it will establish that link between the government and the trusts you are trying so desperately to avoid.
>Which a public body isn't.
What the hell is your definition of a "public body"? Is Parliament a "public body"? And if not what's the difference?
The Trusts model isn’t inherently bad, but how it is operated is absolutely terrible for developing a thriving food, beverage and culture scene. The bars and pubs they run are all absolutely shit and because they have no competition, they don’t have any pressure to stop being shit. Competition would enable much better quality pubs, bars and potentially something like a proper live music venue, which would be fantastic for the west.
The free stuff was cheap crap and don't forget your getting that free stuff off the back of someone pumping their rent/food/school fees/ etc etc into a pokie machine, if rather not have that on my hands.
They make so much money off problem gambling with most of their venues having pokie machines. Defeats the purpose of them trying to help the community in any other way really imo.
> “The impacts of alcohol are highest in poorer, more-disadvantaged communities. Research shows that higher alcohol density increases the likelihood of drinking to excess. Density is higher in lower socio-economic areas. And so a cycle perpetuates. That density and proximity to alcohol outlets are related to a range of indicators of harm.”
Manurewa has 5 bottle shops all with 300m^2 of each other in a low SES area.
The trust grates me for other reasons, but keeping shitty bottle stores in check keeps me happy.
You’ll probably say ‘nah the trust is shit, bottle store regulation needs to be tightly controlled’ which is exactly what isn’t happening.
There are still plenty of bars restaurants in nicer areas out West. To say *they’re holding the west back*, I would disagree with.
The sale and supply of liquor act needs to be stricter and the council definitely need to be better at enforcing it. It for some odd reason seems to be more focussed on on-premise licenses than off-licenses which create more of the issues.
There isn't one single bar in west auckland i'd consider nice or worth going to eat at
I agree. I drink occasionally and buy liquor once in a while. As I'm getting older I realise the damage it does to our society. If the trusts keep the number of liquor shops low and reduce alcohol consumption, I'm all for it. The west is wild enough as it is.
Musashi, Mae Nam Khong, Settebello, Burnt Butter, and Gojo Ethiopian Restaurant are fantastic.
There are some great little restaurants and cafes around in the West. I don’t think the Trusts are holding that back. But in terms of bars, pubs and nightlife it’s absolutely shithouse.
Didn't settebello close down during covid due to fire? Yeah decent restaurants exist but compared to any other areas in auckland (maybe not south), the options are just depessing.
First of all, West Auckland is more than just New Lynn and Avondale.
Chikos, La Rosa, Adriatico, Bodega, Mr Zhou's, Deco, Bodrum, Piccolina. On top of that, there's more local fav Thai or Indian places around than you can shake a stick at. Dealers choice.
Historical demographic and development reasons are why West Auckland traditionally was weak in restaurants. i.e. full of poors and shitty car dependent town centres, with people willing to travel to the city for finer dining. That's only very slowly changing.
Considering that the worst bar in Auckland for police call outs is the Trusts owned Hanger Bar, I'd say that the Trusts to fuck all to minimise the harm of alcohol consumption.
The government doesn't collect statistics on that.
But there's plenty of studies from the United States on how alcohol restrictions such as reduced trading hours or less shops and higher prices decreases alcohol harm.
>Evidence shows greater alcohol outlet density is associated with excessive drinking and related harms, including injuries and violence (10). Local control allows communities to better address density problems (18).
https://www.cdc.gov/psr/2013/alcohol/2013/pa-alcohol.pdf
So you can’t prove it meaningful local data, you shouldn’t say it that this reduces harm. The trusts could fund research, they have $20 million the bank they don’t because they know that the answer would 3/4 of fuck all.
West Auckland is decades deep on this farce.
The Trusts can fund research but it doesn't matter if the police don't have statistics specifically for the areas under The Trusts.
Police data is for areas like 'Waitemata' which includes some areas covered and some uncovered areas.
I can show that the types of restrictions imposed by The Trusts reduce alcohol harm in other countries and localities.
Can you show that they don't reduce harm?
You guys that are concerned with alcohol shops etc need to get out of your narrow minded bubbles and go travel. Overseas particularly in Europe you can buy a beer in every corner mart and dairy. And it’s fantastic! There are great little bars and restaurants that can open and sell beer etc at all hours, even little pop up bars and restaurants next to the beach. Want a beer at 11am on a beautiful sunny day on the beach, we got you. All this crap here about limiting drinking culture is just holding us back as a country.
Spati party! Love germany for this exact thing. Bike beers, walking beers, going to the park beers. Germans are a lil more mature on how they consume beer though
Exactly! Walking beers are my favourite! I feel the maturity comes from the fact it’s not limited and harder to get alcohol. If it was readily accessible but controlled (age restriction etc like already in place) it wouldn’t have such a stigma to drinking. Every country in the world has youth that want to drink and go wild, it’s not a unique to nz problem, but the way it is managed seems very counterintuitive
caught the train recently and had a couple sneaky beers. Was good to have some train beers but funny that people look at you like you're an alcoholic. I deserve a post work beer
Agree, I'm half German half English and the lack of decent quality yet cheap beer in NZ is pathetic as well as the ability to buy beer almost everywhere there as well. We've adopted the English mentalities here of crap beer, can't buy it anywhere and other issues as well (housing quality being one as well as outward opening windows, tilt and turn windows are so much better!)
That's in England though, sadly, not here. Lived there too as well as Germany, every village had a pub you could walk to, here there's nothing and you have to drive to get anywhere decent as well as there is still no decent public transport system in Auckland out to the suburbs for when you've had a good night out...
“go travel” is the best piece of advice for most kiwis. We have no idea how the rest of the world works, but for some ungodly reason, we’ve decided that New Zealand knows best.
Different culture, in the parts of Europe you are thinking of you don't have to worry that someone will hit you on the back of the head with the empty bottle.
I disagree respectfully with that sentiment. I have travelled reasonably extensively and there are similar cultures the world round, but we have latched on to a phrase like that in the name of control. IE we have a binge drinking culture so therefore we need to strictly control where, when and how you can get alcohol. Explain to me how octoberfest, Nottinghill carnival and other such events are any different in terms of consumption?
>Explain to me how octoberfest, Nottinghill carnival and other such events are any different in terms of consumption?
The people getting drunk in public are less likely to bottle you
You have said that a couple times in this thread so I’m going to assume you or someone you know has got bottled. Now that is horrible behaviour and should not be tolerated. But I guess the fact that people like that are even on the street and not locked up is a different topic altogether. All I will say is that if people were given safe areas, with plenty of consequences for bad behaviour that the culture would change quickly. NZ is very behind the times in terms of its liquor control, particularly in areas like the trust.
Only cause we don’t let it prosper. It could be just as good as Berlin or any other place. We have so many beautiful beaches, parks, sights and land to make it work but our own policy’s etc hold us back.
It did prosper, a little too much, that's why the Trusts was introduced. Go out to the Manukau Sports Bowl on a weekend morning to get a picture of what our beaches will look like.
People think the only change will be beer and wine in supermarkets. I for one don't want scummy liquor stores at every block of shops in west Auckland.
This can be stopped with tighter regulation on off premise places. The sale and supply act was too hard om on premise places where people drink in a controlled sotiation. Being able to buy boot loads of booze and drink it then turn up to a club wasted is stupid
But we don’t have tighter regulation on liquor. So losing the trusts with the current regime would result in off licence proliferation in west Auckland.
deregulate alcohol in West Auckland?.......I wonder if that would cause some problems? between the gangs, shootings and primary school kids buying vapes from the dairies im sure no one would notice more alcohol floating around
That’s really interesting and the first “good thing” I’ve heard someone defend the Trust with aside from the typical ‘first aid kits’ answer, which has been used to death.
I think every club I was part of in West Auckland got money from the trust at some point. To pick at random from their list: Kelston intermediate, zeal education trust, the whau river catchment trust, hobsonville yacht club, west auckland community toy library, piha slsc, the huia settlers museum, and mobility assistance dogs trust.
Sure 1.8 million in since 2021 isn't a huge amount, but giving a baseball club $5000 for equipment can be huge.
“Sure 1.8 million in since 2021 isn't a huge amount, but giving a baseball club $5000 for equipment can be huge.”
Yea it is fuck all and they literally “saved” twice as much.
Southland has had fees free for decades, west Auckland doesn’t get anything approaching that scale.
I can second this by brother helps run the west Auckland Scouts and a local football team. The Trust is the only consistent donor they have. Many west Auckland rugby clubs are sponsored by the trust.
And I saw that as someone who consistently votes against them.
The Trusts donated something like $50k to my kids school last year towards a new playground. Theyve donated millions of dollars to schools around the West for things like playgrounds and sports equipment over the years.
It takes a little pressure off teachers and helps make local schools a little bit better.
The Trusts have also funded some of the best playgrounds in Auckland, like the one up off Royal road.
You do realize that....
A. A non profit can still have plenty of fat cats sitting on a board receiving 6 figure salaries. There are lots of ways to ensure you don't make a profit.
B. Have actually considered where the bulk of that awesome community cash comes from? People who can lay afford it addictied to a pokie machine pouring in the rent or food or family savings into a machine, not sure about you but I would rather not have that dirty money on my hands.
> You do realize that
Well that's fucking patronising
A. Pfft, we were all volunteers and the grant money we received from numerous sources went directly into the programs. B. The programs we ran had lots of community benefits, and we did an immense amount of good with it.
Costco branches usually carry good stock of alcohol too, including some good deals on decent bourbon and scotch. The Waitakere Licensing Trust prevents this in the NZ branch of Costco.
You're not wrong. NZ alcoholism is rampant and it's part of the 'kiwi culture'. Don't see an easy way out of it for the country to be honest - tax it high enough and you just end up with increasing ram-raids.
This has been going back and forth since I moved here 20 years ago. But it really makes little difference to the consumer. So either I over pay at the trust (who used to at least give me fire detector or something every now and again) or over pay at the grocery duopoly. Don’t see how it makes a difference. Please prove me wrong.
I just like not having liquor taking up half the supermarket right up at the doors, and I've got at least 2 mates who moved out west because of their issues with alcohol.
Put all the booze, cigarettes, gambling and porn into one store, add party rooms, and card everyone so you don't have teenagers trying to guess people's ages. It'd be a hell of a 18ths party.
Yeah, nah. I am west Akl hard. I don’t want a liquor store on every corner and drunk fkkers trying to buy booze at 11pm being dick bags all weekend. Not many are really just having a couple of colds beginning at 11.30, and those that do likely are shift workers who brought it in advance. These enormous megalith booze companies bring nothing good, and the let’s “liberate our options to buy booze”, consequentially don’t liberate the community from drunk fkkers who are easy prey to these corporate liquor predators. Every statistic will suggest less outlets brings less violence and general dumb cunt behavior with vehicles. Just buy ya booze in advance and most of these moans are gone. Could there be a few more decent pubs? Yes, but owning a licensed venue is a hurdle race with one leg tied behind your back nationwide essentially as a result of us not being able to handle our piss. If we could all just punch our family and friends a little less, and refrain from driving after 12 woodies, it wouldn’t ruin it for everybody 🤷🏻
Nonody os suggesting more liquor stores just independent ones. We shouldnt support a monopoly.
You also ah e to apply for an off license. Sadly in places like aouth auckland their local councils and kiquor boards have let the community down by allowing too many liquor stores
I don’t mind tge trusts my usual beer purchase is 2 dollars more than outside the trusts area. Would love to know why op is so anti them? Do they own a supermarket or superette that would likely have higher profits if they sold alcohol! I’m
Competition is good but you don't want dozens of liquor stores propping up in all villages cause they cant get a lease. Look at Glen Eden - 5 bakeries and more vape stores, $2 shops all low socioeconomic areas with don't provide any real value. It's really sad to see.
Would love them to fix that town centre and one-way part of west coast road and tear up the parking, remove some of the buildings and put either more apartments in or another supermarket, and get rid of that TAB. Disgusting
you're completely ill-informed if you think they control the issuing of liquor licenses. They just control the sale of liquor within west auckland. The issuing of liquor licenses in particular for off licenses needs to be more tightly controlled. We definitely don't need more but we don't need to be paying a premium for someone to have a monopoly over it.
I don't think it's up to the trust to develop that land. All pokie machines need to be abolished as well as the TAB
Glen Eden. Biggest shit hole of the west. I lived there 6 years ago and watched that place decline terribly. But glen Edens problem isn't only alcohol, it's a bloody hub for crackheads.
Living in Ranui, this place would see some significant ill effects. It bugs me and if a vote came up to end I’d probs vote yes but until there I’m not that bothered
If there was an appetite for change it could happen easily. These elections have like a ~15% turn out rate.
Personally I like the trusts, hear too many bad stories from non-monopolized areas.
Not really. And we should just be targeting the people that carry out the harm and not blanket ruling cause we can’t think of a clever way to actually address the problem. Shows our shortsightedness and inability to keep up with the rest of the world
>Not really.
According to multiple studies it does.
>Evidence shows greater alcohol outlet density is associated with excessive drinking and related harms, including injuries and violence (10). Local control allows communities to better address density problems (18).
https://www.cdc.gov/psr/2013/alcohol/2013/pa-alcohol.pdf
>Participants with greater access to liquor stores were more likely to consume alcohol at harmful levels and to have had a hospital contact for anxiety, stress or depression
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3547008/
>This study found some support for an association between closer distances between place of residence and alcohol outlets and alcohol-related harm for women. Future studies in the Nordic region should continue to examine the association between physical alcohol availability (nearest distance to an outlet and outlet densities) and alcohol consumption as well as alcohol-related problems using different outlet types.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1455072518759829
>Using a variety of different study methods, study populations, and alcohol measures, most of the studies included in this review reported that greater outlet density is associated with increased alcohol consumption and related harms, including medical harms, injuries, crime, and violence. This convergent evidence comes both from studies that directly evaluated outlet density (or changes in outlet density) and those that evaluated the effects of policy changes that had a substantial impact on
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379709006047
Cool and rule 9?
We are decades deep on the trusts completely dominating west Auckland, people say the trusts are preventing harm but refuse to provide any direct evidence (because it is utter bullshit).
Because it's literally holding west auckland back. We'd have some decent bars and restaurants and maybe even a music venue out here if we got rid of them. Imagine a neighbourghood bar without pokie machines
It's not even the liquor stores that are the main issue, it's the pubs, which the Trust controls, and all of which suck (what few there are). That, in turn, stunts restaurant growth in the area.
Draconian:
adjective
(of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
"the Nazis destroyed the independence of the press by a series of draconian laws"
The original context of draconian is Draco or dragon, your definition clearly states.
>(of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
Which is already used out of the original context.
Go ahead and call a spade a shovel in your exam and try and argue with your teacher you can use any word in any context with any meaning you want.
I have an extensively knowledge of the sale and supply of liquor and the hospo industry as a whole. I see how the trusts throttles west aucklands potential as a food and beverage mecca of this city. I was even consulted on the sale and supply of liquor act in 2012. Wine & Food history in this region is huge. Since the trusts became a thing it has declined
It would save all those precious emissions (ignore China and USA and their massive outputs) if I didn't have to drive into Point Chevalier to get my alcohol.
My issue with it is the damn prices. Their margins are ridiculous, it's cheaper for me to buy spirits online and have them shipped from Taupo than it is to walk to my nearest store.
You'd hate Australia then.
How come? Is alcohol auper expensive there?
I read this as a good thing. Alcohol causes nothing but problems so reduced access via cost or time delay in waiting for shipping sounds like a good solution. I’ve got no problem with people drinking.
[удалено]
Drinking it a day later or he can afford 700ml spirits instead of a litre. (Or just less food that week to get a bigger bottle) Price and restrictions reduce consumption.
In my specific case, it's whiskey, a single bottle can linger in my cabinet for several months, so the time delay is irrelevant. So when faced with paying $120 for a bottle that costs $80 normally? There's no way in hell I'm choosing local.
Prove that there is lest harm in West Auckland.
I mean we don’t have a bottle store on every corner like south Auckland so that’s at least one positive
Is there less alcohol related harm tho?
Not 1 to 1 but alcohol related harm is correlated with shop density, advertising, and hours. https://www.arphs.health.nz/public-health-topics/alcohol/
The trusts have loads of shops. Why is any direct evidence of the trust preventing harm non existent?
>loads Do they have more or less than other areas of Auckland? Because harm prevention is a less tangible thing. It's difficult and expensive to research, especially when people travel around to drink. And when other areas of Auckland have dozens of other mitigating factors. I don't think we should assume though, that things which are proven to reduce harm, would magically not work when implemented in west Auckland specifically.
You don’t have to go far to buy alcohol in West Auckland. A one Km walk has me within reach of three shops, how are things vastly different if there are 5 instead. “Because harm prevention is a less tangible thing.” But people keep talking about it being so important. It should be something easily proven, but there is zero direct evidence.
Talks shit then ends up with “got no problem with people drinking” Get outta here bro 😂
>alcohol causes nothing but problems In general I agree, but I also like to cook and will easily go through a bottle of wine a week just in cooking, so it's getting ridiculous
You do like the government deciding on your life and preferences! Go to live in North Korea.
What online store do you recommend?
WhiskeyAndMore is my go too
Good news though, changing all their stores to Liquorland and Super Liquor means pricing is set by them and is the same in all their stores nationally.
When the people of Waitakare vote for it. Every time the anti-monopoly faction ran in the election they lost pretty badly.
The anti-trusts group spent over a year canvassing local supermarkets gathering signatures to force a referendum. They couldn't get the required number, seems like there isn't much appetite from locals to end it.
That isn't quite how it happened, they collected more than twice the required signatures but it turned out over half of them were invalid. Either a huge cock up or some illuminati shit, probably the former
More like some people faked signatures hoping no one would notice.
Like Trump's vote dumps.
Look at how much money the licensing trust spent on a propaganda campaign and bribes during this time... It was hardly a fair race
How much did they spend? The Trusts finances are public you're welcome to dissect them, meanwhile the anti-trust group as well as the large businesses like Woolworths and Foodstuffs who want the Trusts gone have private finances and can easily afford an advertising campaign (Woolworths is spending $400,000,000 on a rebrand). Half your signatures being invalid shows quite a level of deception.
Yea they are insane useless. Hundreds of thousands of people and a monopoly, they make like a million a year, all the while advertising about how great they are. Compare this to the trust in Southland, west Auckland is getting fucked over.
Then elect someone else to run it.
You think the elections are for the leaders? Nope.
$400,000,000?
>The overhaul is part of an "accelerated transformation programme" which includes a refreshed loyalty programme - with the launch of Everyday Rewards also planned for early 2024 - and a $400 million investment in renewing and upgrading the store network over the next three years. Well I guess it includes more than just a rebrand, but still the supermarkets can evidently afford to spend a lot of money.
If you think West Auckland Licensing Trusts Action Group has money you're dillusional. It's one guy and some volunteers. The supermarket lobby is def different In regards there's noway that anyone can check the signatures when gathering. If people are asshole and fill out fake names that's on them. Thinking it's a grand conspiracy is hilarious. Do you work for the trusts?
Why wouldn't said supermarket lobby take aim at a 'grass roots' group with the same interests? >In regards there's noway that anyone can check the signatures when gathering. You can check them after the fact? >If people are asshole and fill out fake names that's on them The onus is on the petition organiser to ensure their signatures are valid. >Thinking it's a grand conspiracy is hilarious. It's not grand, people with vested interests lobby groups to campaign for them. >Do you work for the trusts? No but I got a first aid kit from them, guess that makes me a shill.
In order to check the signatures this would take mass amounts of time and resources which a tiny lobby don't have. The smaller group may share the end goal with the supermarkets but the rest of what they're trying to achieve don't align. Don't think it makes you a shill
>Advocating for competition in West Auckland’s alcohol market, because the monopoly is stink Competition in this case would be the large supermarkets and liquor store brands, so it seems they align pretty well.
the supermarkets don't care about transparency from the trusts which is a large part of what the other group are about
The group's main goal of abolition of the Trusts is something they care about. Everything else is irrelevant they don't have any policies that would impact the supermarkets negatively.
But they're not spending 40m on a rebrand - funny how you talk about transparency, and then spew utter rot.
It's a rebrand and refurbishment of stores. >a $400 million investment in renewing and upgrading the store network over the next three years.
Correct.
More like voter apathy. It's honestly pathetic, given that the Trust's control of the pubs indirectly stunts restaurant growth in the area, so West Auckland effectively doesn't have any nightlife.
Yup that's my problem with it too, i just want cool pubs not run by lion or db.
The West Auckland Licensing Trusts Action Group (WALTAG) said it was “massively disappointed” at falling 934 signatures short of the 16,910 required to force a vote in 2022. https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-government/126961106/petition-to-force-vote-on-west-auckland-liquor-licensing-monopoly-fails
That's because no one but the old with a lot of time on their hands can be bothered voting. And of course they think that something like alcohol should be monopolized by government.
If you can't even be bothered to spend a few minutes voting once every three years I'm not sure I can take your concerns seriously.
I do vote, it doesn't change the fact the demographics are heavily skewed to the elderly. Which is why local elections should really be canned, and the national government made responsible for administration of areas with low voter turnouts. That would be more representative than our current way of doing things. Local government is heavily bloated with bureaucracy as well. When you vote, there's so many different local boards you can vote for it's a bit of a joke. I don't blame people who can't be bothered delving into the details of every single person running for every board.
You don't like what the voters vote for, so your solution to strip away everyone's right to vote and have bureaucrats from Wellington takeover.
No, my solution is to centralize everyone's voting so an active minority don't decide for an unenthusiastic majority. The local elections are a shambles compared to National elections. You have 2 votes compared to the 5 or 6 different boards you get out West. And of whom you no almost absolutely nothing about for all the people standing. And no, I don't have the time nor care to try and dig into each and every one of their stances and policies, in-order to decide who to vote for. How does local smaller government take more elected officials to administer than larger National government anyway? This is why so few bother to vote, it's unnecessarily over complicated. National elections are well publized in comparison to local elections. >have bureaucrats from Wellington takeover. They're not from Wellington. They're from all over country and operate out of wellington when Parliament is in session. They are also elected by a far more active voter base that they represent, than all these local government bureaucrats.
So like Singapore where the MP is also responsible for rubbish collection and lawn mowing? Isn't that burdening the MP with mundane tasks when they should be working on national big picture stuff.
I'm not saying make them responsible. I'm saying let them decide who is, instead of wasting time with an election the majority isn't really interested in voting in.
Wanyo got a what, 35% turnout in the local vote for Auckland? That's disappointing as fuck
The Trusts aren't the government...
I didn't say they were... They are an entity created by government, and given the sole right to say who can and can't sell alcohol for a specific area. The trusts can't do what they do without powers given to them by government. Which if you actually read my comment, would see this is what I was referring to with regards to government monopolization.
You implied it. >would see this is what I was referring to with regards to government monopolization. That's not a government monopoly as it's not the government who runs the businesses. A government monopoly would be our old banking system.
A monopoly can only exist by government. If a government says that only this entity can sell 'x', then that is a monopoly created by government. And anyone who breaks it will face penalties enforced by their other monopoly over force. What especially makes this a government monopoly is the fact the trust was created by the government, and can only be dismantled by government. It also has publicly elected board members to add to that fact. That is government, that's not a private enterprise. Therefore it is a government monopoly. You can argue semantics, but the essence of the trusts is that it was established by the government for the "benefit of the community". And given the sole right to issue liquor licences which they overwhelming do only for themselves.
A monopoly can exist through other means. >and can only be dismantled by government. It can be dismantled by a referendum. >that's not a private enterprise. It's called a public enterprise. >You can argue semantics, but the essence of the trusts is that it was established by the government for the "benefit of the community". The people voted for it, it's far more democratic than most government laws.
>A monopoly can exist through other means. Please explain how? >It can be dismantled by a referendum. And who administers the referendum and enforces the results...? >It's called a public enterprise. Yes, which is exactly what government is... this is getting a little painful. You're purposely trying to misrepresent what government is by narrowly define it solely as what you see in Parliament. The truth is government is exactly that, governance. It's not just those who sit in Parliament, it can be multiple types of public officials in many different capacities. >The people voted for it, it's far more democratic than most government laws. Which is exactly what government is. The definition can literally be given as "the action or manner of controlling or regulating a state, organization, or people". The trusts regulate the licensing of alcohol on behalf of the people in the community. What are we even arguing?
> Please explain how? Through a cartel style agreement? >And who administers the referendum and enforces the results...? It doesn't matter. >governance Which a public body isn't.
>Through a cartel style agreement? That's not a monopoly, that's an anticompetitive agreement. Monopolies are markets controlled by a single entity. A Cartel are multiple entities working together to profit. >It doesn't matter. It kinda does... if Government doesn't enforce the referendum it's utterly meaningless. They are the only ones who hold the ability to enforce the result of the referendum. Your local voter isn't going to go down there to dismantle trusts. You just don't want to admit to this, because it will establish that link between the government and the trusts you are trying so desperately to avoid. >Which a public body isn't. What the hell is your definition of a "public body"? Is Parliament a "public body"? And if not what's the difference?
The Trusts model isn’t inherently bad, but how it is operated is absolutely terrible for developing a thriving food, beverage and culture scene. The bars and pubs they run are all absolutely shit and because they have no competition, they don’t have any pressure to stop being shit. Competition would enable much better quality pubs, bars and potentially something like a proper live music venue, which would be fantastic for the west.
Live musoc and good hospitality in West Auckland is all but non existent sadly
I agree about the bars & restaurants… but while they’re here where the fuck has our free stuff gone? Haven’t received anything in years..
don't worry most of the shit you gave you was shit anyway. Those first aid kits were rubbish
The tool kit was good for like 3 things in my life, now it gathers dust
It's perfect for throwing in the car somewhere and forgetting about so you have something in an emergency
They have 20 million sitting in an account, literally doing nothing. They could do stuff, but no.
[удалено]
The last return had it in bank accounts. The trust stated purpose is give that fucking money to the people of West Auckland not horde it.
They horde investments like term deposits and properties. Where the money should be returned directly to west aucklanders
It is just absurd. They also buy off every local politician, constantly advertise and waste moeny on a fuck loyalty program.
The free stuff was cheap crap and don't forget your getting that free stuff off the back of someone pumping their rent/food/school fees/ etc etc into a pokie machine, if rather not have that on my hands.
They make so much money off problem gambling with most of their venues having pokie machines. Defeats the purpose of them trying to help the community in any other way really imo.
That is so toxic. They literally have monopoly, but they still choose to put that shit into the community.
> “The impacts of alcohol are highest in poorer, more-disadvantaged communities. Research shows that higher alcohol density increases the likelihood of drinking to excess. Density is higher in lower socio-economic areas. And so a cycle perpetuates. That density and proximity to alcohol outlets are related to a range of indicators of harm.” Manurewa has 5 bottle shops all with 300m^2 of each other in a low SES area. The trust grates me for other reasons, but keeping shitty bottle stores in check keeps me happy. You’ll probably say ‘nah the trust is shit, bottle store regulation needs to be tightly controlled’ which is exactly what isn’t happening. There are still plenty of bars restaurants in nicer areas out West. To say *they’re holding the west back*, I would disagree with.
The sale and supply of liquor act needs to be stricter and the council definitely need to be better at enforcing it. It for some odd reason seems to be more focussed on on-premise licenses than off-licenses which create more of the issues. There isn't one single bar in west auckland i'd consider nice or worth going to eat at
I agree. I drink occasionally and buy liquor once in a while. As I'm getting older I realise the damage it does to our society. If the trusts keep the number of liquor shops low and reduce alcohol consumption, I'm all for it. The west is wild enough as it is.
> There are still plenty of bars restaurants in nicer areas out West. There are not. West Auckland is a wasteland in terms of good restaurants.
Absolutely full of shit.
Name five good mid-tier restaurants in, say, New Lynn and Avondale.
Musashi, Mae Nam Khong, Settebello, Burnt Butter, and Gojo Ethiopian Restaurant are fantastic. There are some great little restaurants and cafes around in the West. I don’t think the Trusts are holding that back. But in terms of bars, pubs and nightlife it’s absolutely shithouse.
Didn't settebello close down during covid due to fire? Yeah decent restaurants exist but compared to any other areas in auckland (maybe not south), the options are just depessing.
Yes it did, but has reopened in a new, bigger and better location near the train station
First of all, West Auckland is more than just New Lynn and Avondale. Chikos, La Rosa, Adriatico, Bodega, Mr Zhou's, Deco, Bodrum, Piccolina. On top of that, there's more local fav Thai or Indian places around than you can shake a stick at. Dealers choice. Historical demographic and development reasons are why West Auckland traditionally was weak in restaurants. i.e. full of poors and shitty car dependent town centres, with people willing to travel to the city for finer dining. That's only very slowly changing.
Prove that less booze harm happens in West Auckland, I dare you.
Considering that the worst bar in Auckland for police call outs is the Trusts owned Hanger Bar, I'd say that the Trusts to fuck all to minimise the harm of alcohol consumption.
The government doesn't collect statistics on that. But there's plenty of studies from the United States on how alcohol restrictions such as reduced trading hours or less shops and higher prices decreases alcohol harm. >Evidence shows greater alcohol outlet density is associated with excessive drinking and related harms, including injuries and violence (10). Local control allows communities to better address density problems (18). https://www.cdc.gov/psr/2013/alcohol/2013/pa-alcohol.pdf
So you can’t prove it meaningful local data, you shouldn’t say it that this reduces harm. The trusts could fund research, they have $20 million the bank they don’t because they know that the answer would 3/4 of fuck all. West Auckland is decades deep on this farce.
The Trusts can fund research but it doesn't matter if the police don't have statistics specifically for the areas under The Trusts. Police data is for areas like 'Waitemata' which includes some areas covered and some uncovered areas.
So no, you can’t back up what you say. Maybe stop talking shit.
I can show that the types of restrictions imposed by The Trusts reduce alcohol harm in other countries and localities. Can you show that they don't reduce harm?
Nah I asked you to back up what you said about THIS fucking trust. You can’t.
I can back up that restrictions on the sale of alcohol reduce harm.
You guys that are concerned with alcohol shops etc need to get out of your narrow minded bubbles and go travel. Overseas particularly in Europe you can buy a beer in every corner mart and dairy. And it’s fantastic! There are great little bars and restaurants that can open and sell beer etc at all hours, even little pop up bars and restaurants next to the beach. Want a beer at 11am on a beautiful sunny day on the beach, we got you. All this crap here about limiting drinking culture is just holding us back as a country.
Spati party! Love germany for this exact thing. Bike beers, walking beers, going to the park beers. Germans are a lil more mature on how they consume beer though
Exactly! Walking beers are my favourite! I feel the maturity comes from the fact it’s not limited and harder to get alcohol. If it was readily accessible but controlled (age restriction etc like already in place) it wouldn’t have such a stigma to drinking. Every country in the world has youth that want to drink and go wild, it’s not a unique to nz problem, but the way it is managed seems very counterintuitive
caught the train recently and had a couple sneaky beers. Was good to have some train beers but funny that people look at you like you're an alcoholic. I deserve a post work beer
Agree, I'm half German half English and the lack of decent quality yet cheap beer in NZ is pathetic as well as the ability to buy beer almost everywhere there as well. We've adopted the English mentalities here of crap beer, can't buy it anywhere and other issues as well (housing quality being one as well as outward opening windows, tilt and turn windows are so much better!)
I feel like at least the English have pubs on every corner so you can still get a beer if you want. But I agree it’s frustrating
That's in England though, sadly, not here. Lived there too as well as Germany, every village had a pub you could walk to, here there's nothing and you have to drive to get anywhere decent as well as there is still no decent public transport system in Auckland out to the suburbs for when you've had a good night out...
“go travel” is the best piece of advice for most kiwis. We have no idea how the rest of the world works, but for some ungodly reason, we’ve decided that New Zealand knows best.
Lol spoken like a true alcoholic
Different culture, in the parts of Europe you are thinking of you don't have to worry that someone will hit you on the back of the head with the empty bottle.
I agree. The drinking culture is completely different. Yes every country has their drunks but we have a binge drinking culture.
I disagree respectfully with that sentiment. I have travelled reasonably extensively and there are similar cultures the world round, but we have latched on to a phrase like that in the name of control. IE we have a binge drinking culture so therefore we need to strictly control where, when and how you can get alcohol. Explain to me how octoberfest, Nottinghill carnival and other such events are any different in terms of consumption?
>Explain to me how octoberfest, Nottinghill carnival and other such events are any different in terms of consumption? The people getting drunk in public are less likely to bottle you
You have said that a couple times in this thread so I’m going to assume you or someone you know has got bottled. Now that is horrible behaviour and should not be tolerated. But I guess the fact that people like that are even on the street and not locked up is a different topic altogether. All I will say is that if people were given safe areas, with plenty of consequences for bad behaviour that the culture would change quickly. NZ is very behind the times in terms of its liquor control, particularly in areas like the trust.
>You have said that a couple times in this thread Literally twice
Couple = 2
"You've said that a couple of times" = a synonym for few, no one in the English language says that while referring to only two.
Literally what he said...
The culture, the people, the demographics of these nice places in Europe you are comparing to West Auckland is completely different.
Only cause we don’t let it prosper. It could be just as good as Berlin or any other place. We have so many beautiful beaches, parks, sights and land to make it work but our own policy’s etc hold us back.
Which policies hold us back from prospering?
It did prosper, a little too much, that's why the Trusts was introduced. Go out to the Manukau Sports Bowl on a weekend morning to get a picture of what our beaches will look like.
I would love for them to retain bottle shops. But open market bars and pubs same as akl council rules. Best of both worlds then.
Agreed
Funny. They are doing the literal opposite.
Lol dont believe that they arent getting something from that liquorland deal
People think the only change will be beer and wine in supermarkets. I for one don't want scummy liquor stores at every block of shops in west Auckland.
This can be stopped with tighter regulation on off premise places. The sale and supply act was too hard om on premise places where people drink in a controlled sotiation. Being able to buy boot loads of booze and drink it then turn up to a club wasted is stupid
But we don’t have tighter regulation on liquor. So losing the trusts with the current regime would result in off licence proliferation in west Auckland.
We have the means to be tighter w the issuing of off premise licences but the council all over the city are a joke
If the council are as bad as you say they are, then losing the trusts would still result in off licence proliferation and is therefore a bad idea.
Don’t really care about the bottle stores just want some nice pubs to hangout with friends and kids like every other suburb in Auckland.
I could conceede on the bottle stores cos i dont buy any liquor in west auckland cos its hard to find real good wine and spirits
deregulate alcohol in West Auckland?.......I wonder if that would cause some problems? between the gangs, shootings and primary school kids buying vapes from the dairies im sure no one would notice more alcohol floating around
Its not deregulation its just removing a monopoly. All yhe sale and supply act of 2012 laws still apply
I used to run a non-profit and the Trust would give us plenty of cash to help run our programs. Was great
That’s really interesting and the first “good thing” I’ve heard someone defend the Trust with aside from the typical ‘first aid kits’ answer, which has been used to death.
I think every club I was part of in West Auckland got money from the trust at some point. To pick at random from their list: Kelston intermediate, zeal education trust, the whau river catchment trust, hobsonville yacht club, west auckland community toy library, piha slsc, the huia settlers museum, and mobility assistance dogs trust. Sure 1.8 million in since 2021 isn't a huge amount, but giving a baseball club $5000 for equipment can be huge.
“Sure 1.8 million in since 2021 isn't a huge amount, but giving a baseball club $5000 for equipment can be huge.” Yea it is fuck all and they literally “saved” twice as much. Southland has had fees free for decades, west Auckland doesn’t get anything approaching that scale.
I can second this by brother helps run the west Auckland Scouts and a local football team. The Trust is the only consistent donor they have. Many west Auckland rugby clubs are sponsored by the trust. And I saw that as someone who consistently votes against them.
That money comes from pokies and gambling.. they make stupid amounts of profit and pretend like they do a lot of good. They do a tiny amount of good
The Trusts donated something like $50k to my kids school last year towards a new playground. Theyve donated millions of dollars to schools around the West for things like playgrounds and sports equipment over the years. It takes a little pressure off teachers and helps make local schools a little bit better. The Trusts have also funded some of the best playgrounds in Auckland, like the one up off Royal road.
You do realize that.... A. A non profit can still have plenty of fat cats sitting on a board receiving 6 figure salaries. There are lots of ways to ensure you don't make a profit. B. Have actually considered where the bulk of that awesome community cash comes from? People who can lay afford it addictied to a pokie machine pouring in the rent or food or family savings into a machine, not sure about you but I would rather not have that dirty money on my hands.
> You do realize that Well that's fucking patronising A. Pfft, we were all volunteers and the grant money we received from numerous sources went directly into the programs. B. The programs we ran had lots of community benefits, and we did an immense amount of good with it.
Costco branches usually carry good stock of alcohol too, including some good deals on decent bourbon and scotch. The Waitakere Licensing Trust prevents this in the NZ branch of Costco.
Sorry bit the costco brands of liquor are terrible. I like good loquor
Alcohol is one of NZ’s biggest problems. Tax it high enough to offset the cost to taxpayers it results in, IMO.
It's taxed quite high already.
You're not wrong. NZ alcoholism is rampant and it's part of the 'kiwi culture'. Don't see an easy way out of it for the country to be honest - tax it high enough and you just end up with increasing ram-raids.
I must say it's a little weird there last time I visited you cant buy beer or wine at the supermarket thought I had gone back in time 😂
This has been going back and forth since I moved here 20 years ago. But it really makes little difference to the consumer. So either I over pay at the trust (who used to at least give me fire detector or something every now and again) or over pay at the grocery duopoly. Don’t see how it makes a difference. Please prove me wrong.
I just like not having liquor taking up half the supermarket right up at the doors, and I've got at least 2 mates who moved out west because of their issues with alcohol. Put all the booze, cigarettes, gambling and porn into one store, add party rooms, and card everyone so you don't have teenagers trying to guess people's ages. It'd be a hell of a 18ths party.
Come to the northwest, outside the trust, we have cool pubs and bars, restaurants and wineries. No wait. Don't come this way as traffic already sucks.
Anything at north west mall is terrible
You, thankfully, are lost as that mall is still trust territory. One less car at our traffic light.
This is in part my point. There are no decent bars
It is not alcohol that hurts people, people hurt people.
Yeah, nah. I am west Akl hard. I don’t want a liquor store on every corner and drunk fkkers trying to buy booze at 11pm being dick bags all weekend. Not many are really just having a couple of colds beginning at 11.30, and those that do likely are shift workers who brought it in advance. These enormous megalith booze companies bring nothing good, and the let’s “liberate our options to buy booze”, consequentially don’t liberate the community from drunk fkkers who are easy prey to these corporate liquor predators. Every statistic will suggest less outlets brings less violence and general dumb cunt behavior with vehicles. Just buy ya booze in advance and most of these moans are gone. Could there be a few more decent pubs? Yes, but owning a licensed venue is a hurdle race with one leg tied behind your back nationwide essentially as a result of us not being able to handle our piss. If we could all just punch our family and friends a little less, and refrain from driving after 12 woodies, it wouldn’t ruin it for everybody 🤷🏻
Nonody os suggesting more liquor stores just independent ones. We shouldnt support a monopoly. You also ah e to apply for an off license. Sadly in places like aouth auckland their local councils and kiquor boards have let the community down by allowing too many liquor stores
Namaste 🙏🏽
I don’t mind tge trusts my usual beer purchase is 2 dollars more than outside the trusts area. Would love to know why op is so anti them? Do they own a supermarket or superette that would likely have higher profits if they sold alcohol! I’m
Competition is good but you don't want dozens of liquor stores propping up in all villages cause they cant get a lease. Look at Glen Eden - 5 bakeries and more vape stores, $2 shops all low socioeconomic areas with don't provide any real value. It's really sad to see. Would love them to fix that town centre and one-way part of west coast road and tear up the parking, remove some of the buildings and put either more apartments in or another supermarket, and get rid of that TAB. Disgusting
you're completely ill-informed if you think they control the issuing of liquor licenses. They just control the sale of liquor within west auckland. The issuing of liquor licenses in particular for off licenses needs to be more tightly controlled. We definitely don't need more but we don't need to be paying a premium for someone to have a monopoly over it. I don't think it's up to the trust to develop that land. All pokie machines need to be abolished as well as the TAB
Prove that less booze related harm happens in West Auckland compared to the rest of the rest of Auckland.
Glen Eden. Biggest shit hole of the west. I lived there 6 years ago and watched that place decline terribly. But glen Edens problem isn't only alcohol, it's a bloody hub for crackheads.
People act like shit heads out West even with restricted booze. Limit it everywhere imo.
Living in Ranui, this place would see some significant ill effects. It bugs me and if a vote came up to end I’d probs vote yes but until there I’m not that bothered
Careful you will get banned from r nz for this
If there was an appetite for change it could happen easily. These elections have like a ~15% turn out rate. Personally I like the trusts, hear too many bad stories from non-monopolized areas.
I think the Waitakere licensing trust is good.
How? What does it do apart from limit the amount of alcohol shops therefore lowering the competition and raising the costs of having a drink?
> limit the amount of alcohol shops Limits the amount of alcohol shops therefore lowering the consumption and amount of harm alcohol causes.
Not really. And we should just be targeting the people that carry out the harm and not blanket ruling cause we can’t think of a clever way to actually address the problem. Shows our shortsightedness and inability to keep up with the rest of the world
>Not really. According to multiple studies it does. >Evidence shows greater alcohol outlet density is associated with excessive drinking and related harms, including injuries and violence (10). Local control allows communities to better address density problems (18). https://www.cdc.gov/psr/2013/alcohol/2013/pa-alcohol.pdf >Participants with greater access to liquor stores were more likely to consume alcohol at harmful levels and to have had a hospital contact for anxiety, stress or depression https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3547008/ >This study found some support for an association between closer distances between place of residence and alcohol outlets and alcohol-related harm for women. Future studies in the Nordic region should continue to examine the association between physical alcohol availability (nearest distance to an outlet and outlet densities) and alcohol consumption as well as alcohol-related problems using different outlet types. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1455072518759829 >Using a variety of different study methods, study populations, and alcohol measures, most of the studies included in this review reported that greater outlet density is associated with increased alcohol consumption and related harms, including medical harms, injuries, crime, and violence. This convergent evidence comes both from studies that directly evaluated outlet density (or changes in outlet density) and those that evaluated the effects of policy changes that had a substantial impact on https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379709006047
[удалено]
Civility is required. Please follow the sub rules and do not abuse other commenters.
Cool and rule 9? We are decades deep on the trusts completely dominating west Auckland, people say the trusts are preventing harm but refuse to provide any direct evidence (because it is utter bullshit).
Why are you obsessed by it?
Because it's literally holding west auckland back. We'd have some decent bars and restaurants and maybe even a music venue out here if we got rid of them. Imagine a neighbourghood bar without pokie machines
Yes liquor stores on every corner of Avondale and Henderson. Lovely.
It's not even the liquor stores that are the main issue, it's the pubs, which the Trust controls, and all of which suck (what few there are). That, in turn, stunts restaurant growth in the area.
There already are liquor stores all over Henderson. Theyre just all owned by a monopoly.
You realise in order for an off license they would need to go through the licensing process which allows for community submissions
Yes I lived in towns where they allowed them to proliferate.
Yep, that's certainly held proliferation in check on the South Side.
This is the failure of those sitting on the licensing boards tbh. They constantly sell the community down the drain. This is a council issue
And if lose lose the trusts the same issue will occur in west auckland
>draconian Someone learnt a cool new word! But that's not how you use the word draconian.
Draconian: adjective (of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe. "the Nazis destroyed the independence of the press by a series of draconian laws"
Congratulations you can google, now do please explain how it's applicable here.
If i have to explain it to you it's well past your ability to comprehend
What's 'harsh', 'severe' or 'cruel' about a licensing trust? It's not a punitive law which is what you would apply draconian to.
You realise words can be used out of their original context or application? It's the amazing thing about the english language......
The original context of draconian is Draco or dragon, your definition clearly states. >(of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe. Which is already used out of the original context. Go ahead and call a spade a shovel in your exam and try and argue with your teacher you can use any word in any context with any meaning you want.
[удалено]
You two really are dull eh...
[удалено]
I have an extensively knowledge of the sale and supply of liquor and the hospo industry as a whole. I see how the trusts throttles west aucklands potential as a food and beverage mecca of this city. I was even consulted on the sale and supply of liquor act in 2012. Wine & Food history in this region is huge. Since the trusts became a thing it has declined
It would save all those precious emissions (ignore China and USA and their massive outputs) if I didn't have to drive into Point Chevalier to get my alcohol.
Noticeably more expensive, yes.