Beer - redefined!!!

[Geoff Griggs]

Don't you just love politicians? Have a look at this...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25475893-23289,0...

"... from July 1 beer will be defined by its level of bitterness and the addition of sugar, artificial sweeteners or spirits may result in beverages being taxed as spirit-based products"

So pretty much everything brewed by Lion, DB and CUB could be re-classified???

[Christian]

Beer and politicians - two things that should never be mixed.

[Greig McGill]

Geoff pointed this out on the SOBA committee mailing list yesterday. His worrying thought was where Australia go, we often follow. I'd ask all of you, SOBA members or not, to keep an eye out for any such sneaky legislation here and be prepared to be vocal in your opposition. Unless you never want to taste another fruited lambic on these shores again, that is.

The sugar thing is odd though. Brewing sugars might not meet the Reinheitsgebot, but they are traditional. Maltose is a sugar too!

[Dai]

Does anyone else apart from me think that Governments always appear to be reactive rather that proactive in regards to dealing with binge drinking? I mean, isn't the reason why alcopops are so popular is because the alcohol industry simply reacted to tax rates on drinks with certain ABVs, and alcopops are drinks that are at the upper end of an ABV range within a certain tax bracket (may be I am wrong). The Aussie government's plan to target these under the guise of sugar content, will probably only result in the industry creating a different type of drink; thus manufacturing another loophole. Also, is it in the interest of Government to reduce binge-drinking? The statement "In a move expected to generate $125 million for the Government over four years" could be interpreted in a number of cynical ways.

NZ does not appear to be immune to this, and I feel we are just as guilty. The Law Comisson's liquor review, headed by Geoffry Palmer, shows that we are also in a reactive state of mind. Two of the main recommendations were that higher excise taxes be paid on alcohol and the drinking age be raised. Surely this is pandering to the lowest common denominator, which probably wont work, but will create a lot of revenue for the Government as people will not stop buying booze because they will simplying do without other stuff (like good quality food, etc).

I think a more proactive stance should be taken. This will take more time, but the problems will only be reduced when people's attitude's toward drinking change. At the moment we are bombarded with a whole bunch of conflicting messages from the powers-that-be in the form of those annoying (but sometimes amusing) TV ads. I mean, last night I watched the one when the guy does actually 'take one for the team' and sticks to OJs at the pub while his mates get smashed- so smashed in fact that that the 'flannel mess' can hardly walk from the car to his front door. This is okay though, as someone stayed sober to drive. Then there is the ad when the guy gets drunk in the pub and starts swinging punches, or the other one when the lady gets smashed we are left with the impression she is going to be molested. This, however, is not okay (unlike the guys getting wasted in the first ad). In my opinion, these do not apply to me as (1) I am not an aggressive drunk (when I do have one or two more radlers/cyclists than I should), and (2) even though not female, I would not be in the situation where I am out, drunk, and on my own. Even though stuff like this unfortunately happens, it has never happened to me when I have been drunk- so I basically feel like the advert campaign is largely irrelevant to people like me (and I feel I am pretty average).

Why can't the Government try and do something to change our attitudes, rather than these 'quick-fix, revenue gaining' measures they consistently roll out. I remember when I was doing my MSc at Lincoln a few years ago. I had a country flat with 4 other guys. We had a spare room, so when a hot Italian girl came for a summer placement in my Department, we naturally offerred our place for her to stay. Apart from her not having any worries about wandering around the house in her underwear :) , she hosted a few international student parties at our place. These were great as we did drink a lot, but over a long period and everyone brought heaps of food, there was loads of dancing, and not many got really drunk (compared with our usual crate and bag o' chips 'parties). Surely this is what we need to encourage, and increasing excise tax will never achieve it. How to do it, I do not know, but it appears that the Italians have no troubles!

I know that I am no saint, and drink more than I should on occasion. However, I can easily go to a good pub like the C&B in Hamilton and because I live in Cambridge, have two pints and dinner over 2-3 hours, drive home, and feel like I have had a great night. Getting this across to the demographic that Geoffry Palmer is directing these recommended alcohol changes to is what needs to happen- not penalising the majority with short sighted law changes.

[Geoff Griggs]

What a brilliant post!

Congratulations, Dai, on raising so many valid points.

[Greig McGill]

Personally, I don't want a proactive government any more than I want a reactive one. I would quite like one which just stays out of my business fullstop. It especially galls when you consider just how much those useless ads you mentioned cost... and then you realise that's YOUR money they just spent making them. Thanks Govt. Now get out of our business, cheers.

Anyway, the point I am coming to is that we should stop looking to "the government" to change attitudes. Or to regulate them. It's simply not their place to do so. If we want change, we need to do all we can to promote a decent drinking culture. Support your local brewery - when was the last time you saw Steve Plowman, Steve Nally, Luke Nicholas, or any of those great brewers we all know and love trying to get people boozed just to sell more beer. OK, so maybe Luke. ;)

So, if we want to remain unmolested by government busybodies who demonstrate over and over again that they really have no clue at all, WE need to change it. Educate. Educate. Educate again! I've been called a beer snob so many times lately, but I'm not going to stop promoting drinking for enjoyment of flavour over drinking to get pissed. I'll also never stop fighting for the government to get the hell out of the pockets of brewers who are trying to change this culture by producing products full of flavour. If it wasn't for the government taxing the living crap out of them, we'd have more of them, they'd make more money, and people would already be drinking for flavour instead of to get drunk.

The government is part of the problem. It is NOT the solution. Take some responsibility, and teach your mates how to do the same. Don't be put off by being called a beer snob, or an idealist. Unless they really do just want to get pissed, they'll come around eventually, and if they DO just want to get pissed, neither you, nor I, nor the government will ever be able to change that.

[Dai]

Greig, I take your argument on board: I do not want the Government to tell me what to do either. But will you concede that they will always meddle, make expensive adverts, and generally nanny us? The point I was trying to get across was that all the measures that they appear to be taking are very short-sighted and reactionary, and if they will interfere, why not try something a bit smarter?

I suppose this is a bit of a Pandora's box once you start getting into, and no advert campaign is going to change the binge-drinking culture in NZ. Yes, I agree we need to keep up the good fight by supporting makers of quality beer and other alcoholic beverages (not just solely the craft brewers either, as there are some good big brewery beers too; albeit, largely from overseas). Appreciation of a good drink is key here- not just using alcohol as a vehicle to get wasted. Once that happens, then we'll be on the right track. (preaching to the converted on this forum, eh?!)

Also, I agree that the Govt is not the solution, but I do feel that they are the elected representives of us, so we must look to them to make socially appropriate laws. However, I think fundamentally this is a issue the whole society needs to address: so the Govt is part of that, but so are parents, teachers, peers etc. My god, I am sounding like a bleeding-heart lefty, so will stop now.

[Hugh Grierson]

Further to what Dai has been talking about with binging and the Govt, every time they have a do in Wellington, they have shedloads of free wine, and it gets drunk. As Russel Norman pointed out, have some mind altering drugs while your running the country..
Jerry Man Whale Brownlee did not get that big on hummis and carrots.
Maybe SOBA should try to organise a function at the Beehive which has good beer and no big brewery swill?

[Glynn Foster]

I've been to the bar at the Beehive a couple of times - from recollection, the tapped beer wasn't good, but they had a few decent craft beer bottles in the fridge (3 Boys being one of them that I remember).