Garth George: Raising the drinking age won't stop binge culture

A couple of weeks ago the police concluded the latest of their drink-driving blitzes, five weeks during which they breath-tested just on 20,000 greater Auckland motorists and turned up just under 200 positive readings.

Which caused a West Auckland senior-sergeant to express disappointment that, in spite of the numbers being down on previous blitzes, some people weren't getting the message. That seemed a bit naive to me.

Because over the final weekend of the five-week operation, which took place in Waitakere City, 7644 vehicles were stopped and only 47 drink drivers were nobbled - and that's a strike rate of a mere 0.6 per cent.

Which was a smidgen better than the score for the North Shore and two and a half-times lower than the score for Auckland City. And that, considering the reputation of us Westies, should have given Senior-Sergeant Jaqui Whittaker good cause to celebrate.

On the North Shore 5428 vehicles were stopped for 43 positives, which is an 0.8 per cent strike rate, while in Auckland City 6850 vehicles were stopped for 107 positives, a strike rate of 1.56 per cent.

And for the entire operation over the five weeks, 19,922 drivers were stopped for 197 positives, a strike rate of just 0.98 per cent.

Which is, in fact, insignificant and certainly indicates that the anti-drink-driving campaign waged by the police and others over many years has been an unqualified success.

There will always be people who drink and drive and to suggest that this could ever be a zero-sum campaign is about as rational as the belief of the veteran rabbit board chairman I knew years ago who was convinced that one day we'd kill the last rabbit.

Considering that it is generally believed that for every 10 people who imbibe alcohol, one will become addicted to it, the percentages hoisted in the latest blitz indicate that even problem drinkers are staying off the road.

But you can bet there are those who cannot or will not and they will continue to take the risk, some in spite of having one or more previous drink-driving convictions.

My own experience leads me to believe that anyone who chalks up a second drink-driving conviction is, prima facie, suffering from an alcohol problem; and that anyone who is convicted more than twice is, prima facie, an alcoholic.

And all the blitzes from now until kingdom come are not going to keep them off the road. All that can be done is for the courts to direct them to attend lectures on the effects of alcohol on the body, mind and spirit.

I concede that for most such people it would be a waste of time, but if only one man or woman was turned back from the brink of that hellish disease of alcoholism, it would be worthwhile.

There are those, too, who are just too stupid or arrogant to comprehend the danger to themselves and others of drinking and driving, and no amount of education or policing will ever get through to them. Every society has its share of those.

And, last, there is that small group who might one day or night genuinely accidentally over-imbibe just a millilitre or two and face the shock and embarrassment of a failed breath test.

The one blitz statistic that astonished me was that of all those who were found to be over the limit, only 33, or a minuscule 0.165 per cent, were teenagers - and not one, incidentally, a Westie kid.

Which brings me to the parliamentary move to put the legal buying age for alcohol back up from 18 to 20.

If there was ever an example of politicians trying to show us that they're doing something about a problem while in reality doing nothing at all, then this has to be it.

For the proposed legislation has more holes in it than a fishnet stocking, so that even if it is passed it will be virtually unenforceable.

Eighteen and 19-year-olds will still be allowed to work in bars and licensed restaurants, and to drink in them, too, if they are accompanied by parents, guardians or legal partners aged over 20.

Parents will still be able to supply alcohol to their children, apparently irrespective of age, and anyone will be able to supply minors at private gatherings.

So it's no wonder that even those who support the law change concede that it will not be enough to dent the binge-drinking culture which brings to our young people so much tragedy, injury and, far too often, death.

There is no doubt that lowering the legal drinking age brought with it the hideous epidemic of binge drinking among children as young as 14, even if opponents of the law change, such as Green MP Metiria Turei, haven't the nous to see it.

And there is no doubt, either, that the only way to alleviate that catastrophe is to make it an offence for anyone to supply liquor, under any circumstances, to any person under the age of 20.

As the chief executive of the Alcohol Advisory Council, Mike MacAvoy, remarked: "Any exemption makes it difficult to enforce, and enforcement is absolutely vital to the effectiveness of the act."

So I suggest that all those policemen and women who have been standing out in the cold manning drink-drive roadblocks for yonks should, if the law is passed, be reassigned to regularly blitzing nice warm - and these days smokefree - bars and restaurants.