Alcohol licences and trends

Just read the comments in the Herald from Simon Power re: alcohol licensing.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10559931

Thought I'd see how many licences we have compared to other countries... Makes for interesting reading even when just compared to the UK (which was all I could find).

(For comparisons I used wikipedia's populations of 60,975,000 for the UK and 4,280,000 for NZ = they have 14.2 times our population)

NZ has 8,000 on-licences. The UK has 27,900..
- We have one for every 535 people, the UK for every 2185 people - we have roughly four times as many.

NZ has 4,500 off-licences. The UK has 32,000.
- We have one for every 951 people, the UK for every 1905 people. - we have roughly twice as many.

NZ grants 10,000 special licences per year (200. The UK granted 100,000 (2007)
- NZ: one for 428 people, the UK: one for every 609 people. - we have half again more per capita per year.

And this doesn't even get into how many 24 hour or late night venues there are...

Interested to see how we stack up against Australia and the US in these numbers especially since "Police estimated 80 to 89 per of serious crime had some association to alcohol"

I started reading the your views but had to stop or kill myself

wew have four times more pubs per head of pop than the UK - wow... and yet we still don't have the small local pub thang going down

shame on you publicans of NZ

Strange article:
- Power says he wants this (licence and hours restrictions), doesn't want that (age increases)
- Power wants Law Commission to finish it's review but won't be drawn on outcomes
Uhhh, then what was the first paragraph about?

I'm not so sure that slightly restricting the locations of supply will make much difference. But like the general gist of his approach.

Ha ha. I didn't even notice they had them. They're always a waste of time. Biggie CA forum is the your views I read.

He's got his own opinion on it. Nothing wrong with that (unless he's an idiot). No different to how Labour held the 'trial' for Winston last year but had already made it's mind up before it started (let alone finish). It was just a pre-election window-dressing attempt to look like they were serious about accountability.

I'd trust an individual with great foresight over an opinion poll or some research any-day. We know that the research outcome will be "advise to enforce existing regulations closer" as usual.

Oh I don't mind his approach, but it was an odd way to construct an article, being so contradictory...

For sure.. (also, didn't mean to sound like I was having a go at your comment - that wasn't the idea at all)

There are some interesting articles popping up more and more in the Herald huh! Many that seem a bit unfocussed/clear.

It's really interesting to see the difference between:
- The good opinion pieces
- The rant opinion pieces, and
- The regular stories.
First can be quite good, and at distinct odds with the tone of the latter.

Anyhoo, don't want this to go off down another Herald route sorry!