Blame drinkers, not the bars

Christchurch Hospital Emergency Department doctor Martin Than suggests that bars wanting late-night opening hours should pay towards the millions of dollars alcohol abuse is costing. Than concedes that people want a vibrant city night-life, but questions why the costs of it should fall on the public purse.

‘‘International research shows late-night opening hours are associated with greater stress on emergency services – both police, ambulance and hospital emergency services – and we need resources in order to be able to deal with that,’’ Than says.

As one of the heroic professionals who has to clean up the mess of dangerously excessive drinking, Than deserves to be listened to – not least because this problem is especially bad in Canterbury.

Nationally, one person in four who presents to an Emergency Department is there because of boozing. At Christchurch Hospital, it is one in three.

But Than will also be aware that the Christchurch City Council spent five years and $1.1 million trying to work out a local alcohol policy that sought to impose restrictions on where and when alcohol could be sold in the city. It failed.

It is going to have another try for a draft policy in 18 months. It will probably fail again, not least because of opposition from the hospitality industry.

The publicans want to continue operating under the default provisions in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, which set onlicence opening hours of 8am to 4am.

Bar owners have already shown willing to go to court to fight council attempts to restrict opening hours, and some have pledged to not back down. It thus seems unlikely that they will step up to help pay for the cost of emergency and hospital services dealing with alcohol-fuelled problems.

And some would say, why should they? There is anecdotal evidence that much of the binge-drinking is not happening in licensed premises, or that people who later end up in ED are ‘‘pre-loading’’ on cheap booze at home before heading out for the night.

Why should bar owners foot the cost for that, when in their premises drinking is at least controlled and regulated under legislation that was written with the express intention of minimising harm?

Yet, as Than says, there is also evidence that restricting opening hours reduces pressure on the police and hospital services.

Following an exhaustive inquiry, the New South Wales government has decided to keep its ‘‘lockout laws’’ that stop customers entering a bar after 1.30am, and requires last orders at 3am.

The New South Wales inquiry found the lockout laws that were introduced in 2014 had resulted in ‘‘much safer, quieter and cleaner’’ urban areas.

But, again, things are never clear-cut. Publicans in the onetime binge-drinking hotspot of Newcastle, who spearheaded a cultural shift towards more civilised drinking in smaller premises, now say restrictive laws make it hard for their little bars to stay profitable.

While the issue is complex, at the heart of it are entrenched cultural attitudes towards alcohol that (according to the Ministry of Health) cause one in five adults to drink at a level potentially hazardous to their health.

Until society’s reckless attitudes towards drinking change, simply penalising bar owners is not going to achieve much.