- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, November 08, 2010

Government won't change drink driving rules because of 'political correctness' monster



This Government is soooooooo gutless when it comes to booze levels in blood because they have spent so much time creating the nanny state bogeyman - remember Key referring to the Political Correct stormtroopers of the Nanny State in one of his debates for the 2008 election? National have feed their favourite bogeyman to convince people the dykeocracy was forcing water saving showerheads and power saving lightbulbs down our throats.

I love reminding NZers how embarrassingly worked up they got over petty power saving lightbulbs and water saving showerheads and then comparing that supposed 'nanny state' to the social damage this Government is causing. I enjoy the difficult squirming it always causes in people who bought Key's 'change' bullshit hook, line and sinker.

The bullshit 'blame the kids' line the Government are spinning to defend their piss weak response to booze is made even more pathetic in the wake of information that the booze industry muscled National into this weak response in the final month before the decision was due.

The Government spent so much political capital while in opposition convincing NZers that any social policy was 'nanny state political correctness gone mad' that they now can not implement any social policy whatsoever. Their fear of a 2 drink maximum is that the old boys who make up the rump of National's voting block and who can legally drive drunk at the moment from 7 'standard' drinks will scream when they are told they can't go over two drinks that it's 'political correctness gone mad', National Party strategists want to avoid that at all costs, even if it means more deaths on the road.

For those who say price can't change patterns of consumption comes this news today...

Dramatic slump in stores' cigarette sales
Demand for tobacco has fallen 15 per cent at supermarkets since the tax rise in April - a far greater reduction than expected.

"It's extraordinary," public health physician Dr Murray Laugesen said yesterday, commenting on supermarket sales figures supplied to him by research company ACNielsen.

Based on earlier tax increases, a tobacco price rise of 10 per cent would have been expected to reduce sales by 5 per cent.


...and the point of Supermarkets using booze as a loss leading product that is harming the society we live in was made perfectly clear today by Professor Sellman...

Supermarkets are drug pushers, says lobbyist
Supermarkets are drug "pushers" who are selling high quantities of discounted wine and should be viewed the same as dealers dishing out Ecstasy pills or morphine.

It may seem extreme but it's a view that Professor Doug Sellman, director of the National Addiction Centre and spokesman for the Alcohol Action Group, is taking quite seriously.

Professor Sellman believes the Government should remove alcohol from supermarket shelves and limit the amount of advertising operators are allowed for liquor, among many changes he hopes might alter people's attitudes to drinking.

Think it's over the top? He will tell you that's because you have been brainwashed into downplaying our excessive consumption of alcohol.

In a three-month study of advertising in the Herald, the Dominion Post, the Press and the Otago Daily Times, Professor Sellman said New World was the country's biggest "drug pusher" because it had the most alcohol-related advertising.

He said the sale of alcohol in supermarkets made it cheaper and easier to get, which meant more people would use it.

Some supermarkets also sold alcohol below cost to lure customers in, which was contributing to the problem.


...by blaming da kids when research shows the majority of NZs heavy drinkers are over 25 years of age, this gutless Government have simply put industry booze profits ahead of the well being of NZers, and all because they don't want to wake the Nanny State Political Correctness Monster they built in the minds of their weak and frightened supporters.

Oh and the less said about Judith Collins embarrassing attempt to defend allowing the Police to drink themselves into a stuper in unlicensed Police Bars the better.

I love how even Joyce can't buy the bullshit he is spinning...

Two Drinks Max: Joyce can't figure out new figures
Transport Minister Steven Joyce was left red-faced last night after trotting out new figures supporting the Government's position on drink-driving - then admitted they made little sense.

8 Comments:

At 8/11/10 6:02 pm, Blogger Marty Vincent said...

The higher figures may be right as 4 in 10 dead drunks had priors 10 yrs ago, but with more policing it could have doubled in over 20's - given a long look-back like 10 yrs, versus the 4 year look back that is normally used by Justice to pretty up DUI recidivism stats.
It is Nanny state to NOT do 0.05 as it protects us from the fates of - Denmark where it increased their drunk injuries & fatals from 1998, Victoria where 0.05 doubled deaths in 21-30 year olds within 3 years of intensive ticketing (44,000 tickets yearly), Northern Territory where 0.05 increased alcohol involvement in fatalities from 45% in 2005 up to 76% last year (NT Police Alcohol Policing Strategy doc 2010-12).... I could go on with multiple examples of failure of 0.05, in long term analyses. MoTs regulatory impact statement for Safer Journeys to 2030 even told the Minister any reduction in deaths of 0.05-8ers would be offset by more sober drivers dying as THESE PEOPLE DON'T CRASH DUE TO IMPAIRMENT so will keep crashing even without a drink.
The Herald misrepresents the evidence beyond all reason, it has closed debate with a righteous albeit sinister call to arms. 0.05 will erode road safety and we don't need that.Let me count the ways it erodes it - removes focus from high BAC drivers, reduces respect for DUI laws by creating trivial infringement, drives drivers unlikely to crash to the back roads where MoT studies say 86% of real drunks lurk in waiting, results in more Police chases, causes people to switch to traffic risk drugs or drink sub 0.05 with drugs which produces impairment and crash risk equal to twice the limit, stops men enjoying 4 beers in 2 hours as they elect o drive without alcoho which actually raises their crash risk above a more relaxed moderate drinkers... don't believe this then check this study which proves from comparing several thousand crashers with non crashers that a 0.04ish guy is at lower crash risk than a sober one - "Grand Rapids Revisited". http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s9p2.htm
"For BACs less than 0.06%, the AR is small, overall negative. Hardly any accidents involving drivers with those BACs can be attributed to intoxication and risk is generally lower than sobre drivers.." This would not apply here though as our sub 0.05ers poly drug more with cannabis which gives a risk equal to a 0.14 BAC while at 0.03BAC..
Thats why over 100 are killed yearly at 0.01-0.05, but only a couple between 0.05-8.
Taking aim at 0.05 is a bit like thinking you shoot a deer when you see lights near the side of the road. It's called not identifying your target and does more harm than good.

 
At 8/11/10 6:02 pm, Blogger Marty Vincent said...

The higher figures may be right as 4 in 10 dead drunks had priors 10 yrs ago, but with more policing it could have doubled in over 20's - given a long look-back like 10 yrs, versus the 4 year look back that is normally used by Justice to pretty up DUI recidivism stats.
It is Nanny state to NOT do 0.05 as it protects us from the fates of - Denmark where it increased their drunk injuries & fatals from 1998, Victoria where 0.05 doubled deaths in 21-30 year olds within 3 years of intensive ticketing (44,000 tickets yearly), Northern Territory where 0.05 increased alcohol involvement in fatalities from 45% in 2005 up to 76% last year (NT Police Alcohol Policing Strategy doc 2010-12).... I could go on with multiple examples of failure of 0.05, in long term analyses. MoTs regulatory impact statement for Safer Journeys to 2030 even told the Minister any reduction in deaths of 0.05-8ers would be offset by more sober drivers dying as THESE PEOPLE DON'T CRASH DUE TO IMPAIRMENT so will keep crashing even without a drink.
The Herald misrepresents the evidence beyond all reason, it has closed debate with a righteous albeit sinister call to arms. 0.05 will erode road safety and we don't need that.Let me count the ways it erodes it - removes focus from high BAC drivers, reduces respect for DUI laws by creating trivial infringement, drives drivers unlikely to crash to the back roads where MoT studies say 86% of real drunks lurk in waiting, results in more Police chases, causes people to switch to traffic risk drugs or drink sub 0.05 with drugs which produces impairment and crash risk equal to twice the limit, stops men enjoying 4 beers in 2 hours as they elect o drive without alcoho which actually raises their crash risk above a more relaxed moderate drinkers... don't believe this then check this study which proves from comparing several thousand crashers with non crashers that a 0.04ish guy is at lower crash risk than a sober one - "Grand Rapids Revisited". http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s9p2.htm
"For BACs less than 0.06%, the AR is small, overall negative. Hardly any accidents involving drivers with those BACs can be attributed to intoxication and risk is generally lower than sobre drivers.." This would not apply here though as our sub 0.05ers poly drug more with cannabis which gives a risk equal to a 0.14 BAC while at 0.03BAC..
Thats why over 100 are killed yearly at 0.01-0.05, but only a couple between 0.05-8.
Taking aim at 0.05 is a bit like thinking you shoot a deer when you see lights near the side of the road. It's called not identifying your target and does more harm than good.

 
At 8/11/10 6:02 pm, Blogger Marty Vincent said...

The higher figures may be right as 4 in 10 dead drunks had priors 10 yrs ago, but with more policing it could have doubled in over 20's - given a long look-back like 10 yrs, versus the 4 year look back that is normally used by Justice to pretty up DUI recidivism stats.
It is Nanny state to NOT do 0.05 as it protects us from the fates of - Denmark where it increased their drunk injuries & fatals from 1998, Victoria where 0.05 doubled deaths in 21-30 year olds within 3 years of intensive ticketing (44,000 tickets yearly), Northern Territory where 0.05 increased alcohol involvement in fatalities from 45% in 2005 up to 76% last year (NT Police Alcohol Policing Strategy doc 2010-12).... I could go on with multiple examples of failure of 0.05, in long term analyses. MoTs regulatory impact statement for Safer Journeys to 2030 even told the Minister any reduction in deaths of 0.05-8ers would be offset by more sober drivers dying as THESE PEOPLE DON'T CRASH DUE TO IMPAIRMENT so will keep crashing even without a drink.
The Herald misrepresents the evidence beyond all reason, it has closed debate with a righteous albeit sinister call to arms. 0.05 will erode road safety and we don't need that.Let me count the ways it erodes it - removes focus from high BAC drivers, reduces respect for DUI laws by creating trivial infringement, drives drivers unlikely to crash to the back roads where MoT studies say 86% of real drunks lurk in waiting, results in more Police chases, causes people to switch to traffic risk drugs or drink sub 0.05 with drugs which produces impairment and crash risk equal to twice the limit, stops men enjoying 4 beers in 2 hours as they elect o drive without alcoho which actually raises their crash risk above a more relaxed moderate drinkers... don't believe this then check this study which proves from comparing several thousand crashers with non crashers that a 0.04ish guy is at lower crash risk than a sober one - "Grand Rapids Revisited". http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s9p2.htm
"For BACs less than 0.06%, the AR is small, overall negative. Hardly any accidents involving drivers with those BACs can be attributed to intoxication and risk is generally lower than sobre drivers.." This would not apply here though as our sub 0.05ers poly drug more with cannabis which gives a risk equal to a 0.14 BAC while at 0.03BAC..
Thats why over 100 are killed yearly at 0.01-0.05, but only a couple between 0.05-8.
Taking aim at 0.05 is a bit like thinking you shoot a deer when you see lights near the side of the road. It's called not identifying your target and does more harm than good.

 
At 8/11/10 8:04 pm, Anonymous Grant said...

The classic National Party moment was way back with Bill Birch fighting in the house to assert that alcohol was not a drug and therefore couldn't be classified as such and then restricted ...haha. The amount of money the booze industry funds the Nat Party with would surprise even the most cynical , that why they drag their heels over every little move towards a stricter boozing environment.

 
At 9/11/10 8:32 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Thank you so much for the argument from the booze industry Marty, I hope you invoice them directly for your ridiculous argument.

 
At 9/11/10 7:08 pm, Blogger Marty Vincent said...

What-ever! I thought you went to uni so could think. Think then about the experience of 0.05 failure in Denmark, Victoria, Northern Territory, France, Slovakia etc etc. Seems you'd like to see drink drive deaths in 20-30 year olds be doubled by 0.05, as in Victoria post 0.05. See line graph 3 - it shows deaths rose from 14-30 straight after 0.05 enforcement went hard out. Lots more wher thi casme from. Oopsy daisy, a bit worse than a scraped knee ya?
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=6&tierID=3&navID=91C67AC87F00000100716FA042BED8C1&navLink=null&pageID=23

Evil flourishes when good men stand by and do no research. Try getting your info from clean sources not Govt Depts and their spin Drs who are Herald kisser uppers. You might find reality refreshing. 0.05 is a freiend of the booze industry as then people stay home and drink more. It is not however a friend of road safety. Are you a friend of road safety? Methinks nope Sherlock. Its a believable lie that 0.05 works but a lie all the same as it just isn't so simple. Closed minds lead to coffins closing. Don't do it.

 
At 9/11/10 7:11 pm, Blogger Marty Vincent said...

And hey - facts are facts not an argument. I just presented facts so why the personal attack, and don't be scared of the booze industry - it can't make you drink yourself silly. Personasl choice - hey I think I'll vote NZ Fist but only if Bobsy Jones joins them.

 
At 9/11/10 7:15 pm, Blogger Marty Vincent said...

How can my input be pro booze industry when I said (if you reflect deep and long on my words) that no alcohol is safe in such a drugged out dog tired overworked dope and pharmaceutical lovin' population as ours? No alcohol like Sweden is more apt as a limit but 0.05 is a mongrel that does more harm than good - strictly on the evidence.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home