Nimbin HEMP Embassy

PRESS RELEASE - 25 AUGUST 2003

Liquor Licensing Enforcement

Release Date: 6 August, 2003
Media Release: Liquor Licensing Enforcement Activity in NSW.


Over the six-year period 1996 through 2001, less than two percent of all licensed premises in NSW were prosecuted in the Licensing Court for serving alcohol to an intoxicated person or allowing an intoxicated person to remain on their premises. In 2001, only about four per cent of the infringement notices issued by police for liquor offences were against licensed premises for serving alcohol to an intoxicated person or allowing an intoxicated person to remain on their premises. Much of the enforcement activity associated with the NSW liquor laws focuses on patrons rather than on the owners, managers or staff of licensed venues.

These are the key findings to emerge from a joint study of licensing enforcement in NSW by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the National Drug Research Institute at Curtin University (WA). The study found that over 4,000 actions were initiated by NSW liquor licensing enforcement agencies during 2001. More than one-quarter of these liquor breaches involved patrons who refused to leave licensed premises, while 14% involved persons under the age of 18 who had committed liquor-related offences.

Where action was taken against a licensee, manager or secretary of a licensed premises it was mostly for technical breaches of the liquor laws, such as failing to display a licence or a prescribed sign. The results were very surprising in light of earlier research carried out by the Bureau, which showed that large numbers of young people are being served alcohol on licensed premises when they are plainly intoxicated. They are also very surprising in light of recent research showing that 85 per cent of the Australian adult population favour tougher laws against serving drunk customers on licensed premises.

'The public is right on this issue', Dr Weatherburn said. 'Stricter enforcement of liquor licensing laws is critically important if we want to reduce levels of alcohol-related crime and violence'.

Further enquiries: Dr Don Weatherburn: (02) 9231-9190 (work) or 0419-494-408 (mobile).

Responsible alcohol sales are an oxymoron

The liquor industry is the legal purveyor of the drug alcohol, just as a heroin dealer is the illegal purveyor of the drug heroin. If a "client" of the heroin dealer suffers physical harm from consumption, the heroin dealer can be charged for this. Drivers can sue car manufacturers on safety grounds. Food manufacturers can be held responsible for adverse health effects. Alcohol encourages aggression, but the industry claims that control of that aggression is the responsibility of the police. Alcohol damages the liver, just as smoking damages the lungs, but the user bears all of the responsibility, unlike almost every other product. Alcohol fuels social misery as much as any other drug, but avoids any responsibility.

Just as the petroleum industry has avoided taking any responsibility for pollution, and has allowed the car industry to bear the brunt of legislative and financial responsibility, so the liquor industry has avoided responsibility for the effects of alcohol. ("The unleaded fuel!" you say? That saved petrol manufacturers from having to upgrade the refineries. The new additives cause cancer, while lead makes you stupid. Take your pick!)

In almost all disputes between the drinker and his hotelier, the police will prosecute the drinker. Bouncers are not always suited to the task, and excesses do occur. Is it the strong feeding on the weak when this happens?

The tobacco industries, like asbestos manufacturers, have been made to accept responsibility for the unhealthy consequences of their product, but thus far it appears that the alcohol industry has avoided all responsibility for the consequences of that product's consumption. No responsibility for end users taken.

Petroleum and alcohol rule the western world in more ways than one. They are not responsible, not even partially. Perhaps that is our weakness for them both.