Putting together a comprehensive bill of reforms to try to solve some of the beastly sides of alcohol is no easy task.
Which is why it took such a long time.
So, of course, I figured the alleged experts and advisors, who comprised the committee and put the whole thing together, had fixed their focus on what pretty well everyone I know believes is a real problem spot - age.
But, no, that was the one thing that was not part of the 130 recommendations - many of which are as lukewarm and as witless as a flat ale.
The 18-year-old is still able to go out and imbibe, and that is not right.
That is too young, because in the way 20-year-olds sometimes filtered it down to 18-year-olds in days long past, 18-year-olds now filter it down to 16-year-olds.
There was nothing wrong with 20, and there is plenty wrong with 18. I think a large number of night-shift emergency service workers would give the nod to that.
There was also no movement on drink-driving levels which, again, I find difficult to see as rational.
Now, I may be out of touch, and maybe the committee had access to reports and information statistics that I wasn't aware of, but I kind of figured teenage drinking and drink-driving would have been the two main pivot points to alcohol reform.
No. But restricting advertising and making the products less visible got the big tick. Brilliant.
It doesn't make any difference at all. People know it's there and they'll buy it.
The whole thing is as weak as a light beer and has about the same substance as a glass of chardonnay mixed with lemonade.
But hey, it's election year, and 18-year-olds have the vote.
