One way door policy
The one way door policy is a relatively common strategy aims specifically to tackle alcohol related problems. According to Kirkwood and Parsonage (2008), the term ‘one-way door’ is used to refer to an intervention where, after an agreed time, patrons in licensed premises are able to remain in the premises, but cannot re-enter the premises or enter another licensed premises after leaving. In other words, any bars would be practically closed only to those who are outside a bar/club.
This policy was implemented in Christchurch CBD from the period of October 2006 to March 2007, all CBD venues of alcohol consumption were to refuse people to enter at 3am. Similar to the goal of this policy project, the initiatives of the One way door policy in Christchurch were to:
• reduce the incidence of violence where the perpetrator and/or victim are affected by alcohol
• improve local-level responses to alcohol-related violence
• increase the safety of environments where alcohol consumption occurs
• reduce crime and violence in the CBD by 10 per cent (ALAC, 2009)
According to the ALAC, the policy was “not with its faults, but it worked well enough to be extended” (ALAC, 2009). Based on Quantitative data, in the period of 2006-2007, occurrences typically identified as alcohol related on Saturday and Sunday nights increased by 101%. However, this surprising figure is to be interpreted alongside with the increased police presence. Minor offences such as disorder and liquor ban breaches are the two offences evaluated that are most typically “self generated” by police, this means the increase of police presence (as part of the policy implementation) would inevitably increase the numbers of minor offences. In order to determine the ‘real’ outcomes of the policy, one should focus on the non-‘self generated’ offences such as sexual offences and violent crimes. With this vision, the one way door policy seen to have brought a positive impact in reducing crime and violence. Occurrences (excluding minor ‘self generated’) on Saturday-Sunday night decreased by 4% and violence offences on Saturday-Sunday night decreased by 22% compared with the period 2005-2006 (when the policy was not implemented). The numbers of sexual offences decreased by 2/3 in the period of 2006-2007 compared with 2005-2006 (Kirkwood and Parsonage, 2008).
The improvement of alcohol related incidents is reflected by public perception of safety. The survey of perceptions of safety in the Christchurch CBD in the report indicates that 67% of respondents noted that their conception of safety of the city during the period of the one way door policy were better.
In terms of the cost associated with the policy, additional police frontline resource was employed in the period of policy implementation. However, one must distinguish between the policing required as the result of the policy and the additional policing which Christchurch has input as part of the grand effort of combating alcohol related harm. There is evidence the policy is welcomed by licensed premises’ owners. As Kirkwood and Parsonage indicates “Approximately 70% of the survey respondents reported that licensed premises’ turnover had not been adversely affected” (Kirkwood and Parsonage, 2008).
Discussion
The implementation of the one way door policy in Christchurch CBD provides excellent reference material for the prediction of this policy if it’s applied in Auckland CBD. It is not difficult to argue the two centers are highly comparable as they are both major urban centers in New Zealand which share similar demographic characteristics, social and economical context. As revealed in the case of Christchurch. The one way door policy is reasonably effective in reducing alcohol related harm, especially the more serious offences such as violence crimes and sexual assaults. So far there is little evidence indicating any significant adverse effects. Table 1.1 provides an overview of this policy in terms of the Criteria:
Table 1.1
| Policy |
Effectiveness in reducing Alcohol related harm |
Cost on public resources |
Adverse effects |
Breadth of research support |
| One way door policy | Strong | Moderate | Low | Moderate-Strong |
Fixed closing time
This policy is quite simple; On-license venues are required to close down for business at the particular time set by the law. The policy is commonly practiced in most European countries in the past. During a significant part of the 20th century, Australian and New Zealand pubs were required to shut down at 6pm. New Zealand abolished the 6 o’clock closing and introduced the 10 o’clock closing time in October 1967 after a referendum.
This policy is generally considered as undesirable for two reasons. First, the policy encouraged people to get drunk as possible in the limited time available, and as a result, people drank heavily instead of enjoying their alcoholic beverages in a longer time spam. Some argues that the 6 o’clock policy is the root of New Zealand’s binge drinking culture. Second, a universal closing time would generate a mass crowed in populated areas (such as Auckland CBD) and most states abolished this practice largely to avoid this problem. According to Foster, In the U.K. the government introduced the 24 hour for the purpose that “ there will be less of a public-order problem because drinkers will leave licensed premises at different times rather than coming on to the streets en masses.” (Foster, 2003).
Discussion
While it is true that greater availability of alcohol directly increases alcohol related harm. It cannot be said that a strict control of alcohol availability is necessarily more desirable. If a strict closing time policy would result in people (with the influence of alcohol) gather on the streets in mass, then this would have quite foreseeable consequences, especially for a populated centre such as Auckland CBD. The city would experience a sudden spike of disorder, violence and road congestion which generates costs for local residents and the police resource. And this gesture is likely to force people to drink in other unsupervised places result in more harm. Table 1.2 provides an evaluation of this policy in terms of the criteria:
Table 1.2
| Policy |
Effectiveness in reducing Alcohol related harm |
Cost on public resources |
Adverse effects |
Breadth of research support |
| Fix closing time | weak | Moderate | high | moderate |
24 hour liquor licensing (status quo)
Much of the character of this policy is illustrated in the section of problem analysis. In sum, the 24 hour policy greatly increases the availability of alcohol and alcohol consumption. Proponents of this policy argue that this policy would not have the adverse effects of a fix closing time policy (mass crowed and last minute binge drinking). While this is true, it does not entails that the overall level of harm is reduced. As discussed earlier, greater availability of alcohol has a direct and positive relationship with alcohol related crime. An attractive aspect of this policy is that it has an accommodating effect to the drinkers who otherwise have to drink on the street or other public places if the policy is not in put in place. In other words, under this policy, Auckland CBD ‘absorbs’ the drinkers (and trouble makers) from elsewhere and reduces the alcohol related harm in the suburbs. Table 1.3 provides an evaluation of the 24 hour policy in terms of the criteria:
Table 1.3
| Policy |
Effectiveness in reducing Alcohol related harm |
Cost on public resources |
Adverse effects |
Breadth of research support |
| 24 hour on-license policy in the CBD | Weak | High | Low | Strong |
Evaluation of policies in terms of criteria (supplement policies)
Pricing and age restriction
The effect of prices on consumption and consequent harm is one of the most extensively investigated alcohol-control measures in the international literature. There is overwhelming evidence leading to the conclusion that alcohol prices have an effect on the level of alcohol consumption (Babor et al, 2003). The particular relevance of alcohol pricing in this study is that young drinkers is more likely to be sensitive to price increase. As discuss below, statistics reveals indicate that Young people in New Zealand (between the ages of 17-20) is most likely to trigger alcohol related harm. Following this logic, the increase of minimum purchase age of on-licensed premises is an equally attractive policy in reducing alcohol related harm.
Alcohol related harm associate more with Young people and especially there is a higher proportion of late teens had been involved in trouble than other age groups (Greenaway and Conaway, 2006). In their study of the alcohol bans in Auckland CBD, quantitative data reveals that the 17-20 year olds are much more likely in engaging disorder offences, serious assaults, and alcohol involved traffic crashes compared with other groups[1].
Evidence gained from countries such as the United States and Australia proved that an increase in minimum purchase age (in both on and off licensed premises) is one of the most effective measures to reduce alcohol-related harm. According to Wagenaar (1991), in the United States, there is a significant increase in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related traffic crashes involving young people followed by the lowering of the legal drinking age in most states in the 1970s.
While there is no existing counter arguments against the effectiveness of alcohol pricing for the particular purpose of reducing alcohol related harm. The proposal to lift the minimum drinking age encountered severe setbacks from industry groups as well as official advisory committee. It was argued by the industry lobbyist that “To suggest that drinking at 18 years of age constitutes a major change with potentially unsafe consequences for society is alarmism with no basis in fact” (Beer Wines and Spirits Council quoted in Casswell and Maxwell, 2005). Somewhat surprisingly, the liquor Review Advisory Committee, which had been set up by the Ministry of Justice to review the sales of Liquor Act concurred with the opinion of the industry groups and recommended an 18-years purchase age. The committee disagreed with the theory that the greater availability of alcohol provides the opportunity for greater abuse. Instead they hold that since many young people are already accessing alcohol through parents or other adults. The purchase age is immaterial (Liquor Review Advisory Committee quoted in Maxwell and Casswell, 2005)
Discussion
The people who are most likely to cause alcohol harm are the 17-20 year olds. Therefore it is reasonable to consider any policies that prevents or reduces the alcohol availability for this group in order to reduce the negative externalities of alcohols for Auckland CBD or for the Country in general. There is some evidence leading to the assumption that a price increase (normally through increase in alcohol tax) would serve this purpose.
The effectiveness of an increase in the minimum age requirement is unclear. International literatures do point out its strong effectiveness but this is disagreed with the local view presented by the Liquor Review Advisory Committee.
If young people are likely to have in access to alcohol despite the legal restriction through their older friends or family members, then an increase of minimum age requirement for on-licensed premises in Auckland CBD would generate foreseeable adverse effects. People who are under the legal limit would drink on elsewhere with pre-purchased alcoholic beverages. It is likely they would wonder in the streets drunk or party in other unsupervised public places causing more harm to local residents.
Table 1.4 Provides an overview of increase price and lifted age restrictions in terms of the criteria
|
Policy |
Effectiveness in reducing Alcohol related harm |
Cost on public resources | Adverse effects |
Breadth of research support |
| Increase price | high | low | weak | Strong |
| Heighten minimum age | ? | low | Potentially Strong |
Strong but inconsistent |
4.4.2 Drink Driving counter measures
There are commonly employed measures to reduce drink-driving:
- Lowering the legal limit of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level.
- Random breath testing.
According to Maxwell and Casswell (2005), the lowering of legal BAC levels has a strong evidence for being a positive and cost-effective strategy and a lower BAC limit near zero has been shown to be very effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes in young drivers.
The introduction of compulsory random breath testing also seems to have a positive effect in New Zealand. The Land Transport Safety Authority indicates that the introduction of the policy ‘sparked fears’ and 76% of the population believe it works.
Both of the policies have positive effects in reducing traffic accidents. And both measures have been introduced in New Zealand. In 1993, A lower legal breath/blood alcohol limit for drivers was introduced, the limits are 0.08mg/ml for adults and 0.03mg/ml for under the age of 20 (Maxwell and Casswell, 2005). However there is room for improvement, the legal limits for adults in Australia, Japan and most of Europe are 0.05mg/ml. In 2003 the attempt in New Zealand to lower the BAC level to 0.05/ml failed Improvements could also be made on random breath testing. According to Williams, 46% of New Zealand drivers reported being stopped at an alcohol checkpoint, whereas a survey of Australian motorists in 1999 showed 82% reported being stopped. Table 1.4 provides an overview of the two policies in terms of the criteria.
Table 1.4
|
Policy |
Effectiveness in reducing Alcohol related harm (traffic accidents) |
Cost on public resources | Adverse effects |
Breadth of research support |
| Lowering BAC levels | high | moderate | weak | moderate |
| Random breath testing | high | moderate | week |
moderate |
[1] The other age groups were the 14-16, 21-30, 31-50, and 50 and older.