At around 4am on September the 4th, 2010, I left the Christchurch Temperance Society and wandered the short distance back to my central city flat. I had only just got into bed when I was back out of it, with the first of the seismic events that have so violently scarred our city. The Temp – as it was known to it’s regulars – was never to re-open, along with many other bars which didn’t survive the September or February quakes.
One of the reasons I chose to live in the city – right in the heart, above a night club, and within spitting distance of at least three others – was the proximity to bars. I enjoyed being able to pop out at short notice for a late dinner, to see a band, to meet friends. I liked being able to stay out all night, even though in reality I didn’t get to do it as much as I did when I was younger. I also realise that being able to go out and drink is a privilege, not a right – a distinction that it seems the hospitality lobby has overlooked.
Much has been written in the past few weeks about the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), with strong lobbying from two very entrenched positions. The hospitality industry are arguing that restrictions on sale will kill the central city. The health officials are saying that they don’t want to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff – or the top of Hagley Park – anymore. The binge drinking culture is a problem that is by no means limited to Christchurch, but given our chance to create a city anew, it would make sense to start our licensing policy from scratch too.
The hospitality industry has started campaigning concertedly on this, with facebook groups that both exaggerate claims about the impending death of the city, and look back nostalgically to a series of bars that were destroyed in the quakes. These actions have led to a large number of submissions to the council on the issue – over 3,000 were received. While it’s great to see so many people engaging in the process, I worry that the argument has not been particularly constructive.
The hospitality lobby has laboured over just a few points. One of the main facebook groups is called “Save the Chch Nightlife”, with almost 8,000 members, implies in its title that the Christchurch nightlife is in some perilous state. It’s not. The latest numbers from Statistics NZ show that the hospitality industry is back trading at the levels they were pre-quake.
Nowhere on these facebook pages, or in the opinion pieces that have been written for the paper, is the harm cause by alcohol mentioned. If anyone asks, they try lay the blame at the supermarkets and off-licenses. If there are any problem operators, it’s someone else, not the upstanding ones who write to the paper. Maybe they don’t think there is a problem, or maybe they’re aware of it, but don’t think they’re part of it. I was the same. I’m not the problem, so why should my ability to go out be curtailed? Well, not any more. I can’t just pretend that we don’t have a problem.
We have a drinking problem. As a city, as a country, as a culture. Though we might think it doesn’t apply to us individually, it does. We are enabling this culture to continue. It makes our city unsafe. It makes our streets dirty. But most critically, it is costing our health system. Whilst the hospitality lobby will accuse the health board of being wowsers and party poopers, that does nothing to resolve this issue. If the LAP remains the way it is, then what will stop the binge drinking culture we had pre-quake from spreading back into the city? Can we sustain it?
The hospitality lobby needs to smarten up. The onus is not on the public health workers to continue picking up the pieces. They have the evidence of real harm and the numbers on their side. The CDHB can cost out alcohol-related harm, and records the admissions to the emergency department as a result of drinking. Police stats show that crime has followed the drinkers to the suburbs. They are damning statistics. So why has no-one from the alcohol lobby even acknowledged that they exist?
Going out and getting drunk isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Liquor licenses legislate a privilege. If you abuse a privilege, it can be rescinded from you. Bar owners and the industry as a whole need to work harder to convince the public that they are due that privilege. I’d like to see some creative counter-proposals from the hospitality lobby that might address the problems. What about proposals to limit the size of venues? Or staggered closing times for venues, based on size? 200 people venues closing at 1am, 150 people at 1am, 100 people at 3am, 50 people venues can go all night. Exemptions could be offered for venues which are involved with live music. What if you limited the extent of queuing outside a venue, and the inevitable fights that start when people can’t get in? Can you better integrate with late-night food outlets and taxi ranks to reduce the problems that they cause?
I hope for a lot of things in the rebuilt centre of town. I would like to think I will again be able to live in a central city apartment, to walk to work, to restaurants, and to bars. I will give those bars my custom and my money. In saying that, I don’t think we need to be held hostage by the hospitality industry, with their threats that the city will die. The centre of Christchurch will once again be a creative, vibrant place to live – and it’s up to the bars to show us they’re responsible enough to be part of it, not the other way around.
Kia ora James
I too spent a few years living in the inner-city of Ōtautahi, although instead of an apartment, it was squalid party flats in the Inner City East (does anyone else remember the infamous “Monopoly Houses” in Worcester St?). I was involved in the local music and arts scene, and supported heaps of projects to offer spaces for creative projects and events, including the Psyclone local music festival, which I initiated and co-directed.
I too saw many of the problems caused by excessive drinking, but I think the fundamental problem is not the “hospitality industry” as a whole, but the dominance of alcohol over that industry. Selling alcohol is one of the few practical ways to afford the inner-city rents on spaces suitable for performance venues. There’s no other legal commodity which earns high enough returns to pay staff (with the possible exception of coffee), and getting enough public funding to pay rent and staff, even for a totally non-commercial performing arts space, is difficult if not impossible. Consequently, those who are able and willing to sell liquor end up effectively as the gatekeepers of live music culture, with the only exceptions being DIY punk and metal shows, and warehouse raves, held in precarious quasi-legal venues.
Somehow we have to make it practical for collectives of artists, musicians etc to afford the ongoing use of spaces which are not bars, and for some of them to have paid jobs administering those spaces. Then, drinking, and socialising with drinkers, will be one choice among many on a night out, not an unavoidable part of any social situation.
One possibility is for the council to own certain buildings which are set aside as live performance venues, in a range of sizes, which can be used by local artists. These venues could also double by day as meeting spaces for community groups, public meetings and assemblies etc. Since the council owns them, they wouldn’t need to pay rates, and only cost would be maintenance, so the community could use them cheap or free . That would cover much of the cost of many arts, culture, and community projects, which would reduce the time such groups currently waste writing lengthy funding applications for a few hundred dollars, and the time council staff spend processing such applications.
Another possibility is to create legislation to allow places like the Daktory to operate without harassment, licensed to sell moderate amounts of cannabis under strict codes of host responsiblity (and vulnerable to losing that social license if they abuse it). Such organisations could provide an alcohol-free social space, funded by cannabis sales, and be obliged to recommend dependence counselling or other treatment, if any of their patrons are abusing cannabis rather than using it moderately.
If both these options were implemented, people would have a choice on any given night to socialize in public venues organised around drinking, creative experession, or pot smoking. People who want to avoid drinking, or pot smoking, or both, would be able to do so without being social outcasts. In each case, the costs of the venue would be covered without dependence on ongoing public funding. Surely this would go a long way to reversing the normalisation of binge drinking as the only way to socialize?
Just after I left Christchurch I was trying to find somewhere in Wellington to live. When I checked this place out, I was patting my now-flatmate’s dog when she told me that despite what she’d written in the ad, she isn’t a nurse. She’s a cop. (And ex-army to boot!) Now a year ago I would not have expected to be living with a police officer, and it could still get awkward if I start doing any protesting again, but she’s actually pretty cool and we have similar opinions on quite a few things. I’d previously read about the statistics on crimes fueled by alcohol – I remember one says it’s about 80% – but it’s not really quite the same as actually talking to someone who has the experience. She’s basically never had trouble with stoners, but with drunks it doesn’t even just extend to the nights when they’re drinking – there’s also a lot of shit the next day when people get into fights about things that happened the night before, or when they’re hungover and irritable and short on patience. From what she’s said, 80% sounds pretty damn plausible.
Tobacco would never be allowed if it was first marketed today, and you have to wonder if alcohol would be either. It does significantly more harm than marijuana, though I wouldn’t say weed is perfectly safe (it certainly has its downsides, as does anything that affects cognition). Unfortunately it’s absolutely entrenched in our culture and getting it out, even reducing the binges people go on, is a huge, long job that isn’t going to be solved by single policies or campaigns. Or even by the rebuild of a central city. But it could definitely be a good start, if we handle it right.
Tobacco would never be allowed if it was first marketed today, and you have to wonder if alcohol would be either.
Alcohol would be a class A prohibited drug if we first discovered its effects now. It’s toxic, addictive and those under its influence are irrational and sometimes violent.
That being the case, many people wonder why we don’t impose much more strict controls on alcohol production, purchase and use. A more relevant question would be: given that we apply just a few basic regulations to the production and use of this dangerous drug, why do we put so much time, effort and money into policing other ones that are in many cases less dangerous?
I would hope the “Save the Chch Nightlife” facebook page has that many “members” because of its name: save the night-LIFE; it’s not called “Save the Hospitality Industry Trading Levels”. Although the Christchurch CBD had long since slid into a consumerist alcoholic stupor before the earthquakes came along, the term “night-life” (here at least) has not always been synonymous with getting wasted. I would argue that one big reason people drink is boredom, and when there’s nothing to do in the city except drink, well, that’s quite boring. Compounding the issue, the alcoholic culture that has arisen hinders the potential success of less drunken alternatives, because people who would otherwise go to town are put off by the rowdy, sloppy, and sometimes dangerous drunk people roaming the streets (not to mention the pools of vomit and urine they leave behind). I have spoken to a number of people who, like me, miss and would love to see more alternatives for night-time entertainment. Perhaps a good start would be to have licensed premises actually obey the law that states “Intoxicated people will not be served”? What a joke that sign is in so many establishments.
Wow – I’m not sure that getting drunk should be considered a ‘privilege’. Most privileges I am familiar with actually add value to life . . . not sure how getting drunk does that.
Gotta agree that cannabis does much less harm than booze . . . so isnt it time that we do something about this. Even the Drug Bust celeb cops admit that tinnie houses are a scourge – selling to anyone with cash (and trading with those witbout the $$).
Legislation. Regulation. Taxation. Education.
Very well written James and you raise some good points.
In addition I would suggest such things such as bars being more proactive with policing intoxication by doing things such as not serving consecutive shots, no shots after 12am, no shots of high octane spirits (Chartreuse,Absinthe) and not selling RTDs which generally have quite high levels of caffeine in them. Also bars should not serve Red Bull and other energy drink mixed drinks as it masks intoxication and makes people act quite loopy.
Christchurch has some really fantastic bars (N.B I must disclose that I work in a popular temporary bar) run by by fantastic entrepreneurial people such as Volsted Trading Company, Pomeroys, Smash Palace, Darkroom and The last Word that know that is not a good look to have people being aggresive and vomiting in their bars. Sadly for many of the DB and Lion Nathan dominated bars it’s purely about the bottom line.
And yes I miss the fantastic Temperance Society and also The Bicycle Thief which will be demolished for the great land bank (sorry Freudian Slip! I meant the East Frame) much to the delight no doubt of bar and property baron Anthony Gough.
Comments are closed.