Don’t burn your liberties… or your absinthe!

On the heels of much media coverage with regard to alcohol abuse and binge drinking, Perth Now - part of the News Corporation stable, has reported that some Western Australian bars are undergoing a self-regulatory move to prohibit binge drinking of straight spirits.

HOTELS are banning shots of liquor in a bid to ease alcohol-fuelled violence.

Straight nips of spirits like vodka, tequila or absinthe have been removed from sale in various Perth venues because they have been irresponsibly misused.

Health Minister Jim McGinty supports the measure.

He said the Government would consider supporting submissions to the Director of Liquor Licensing to force venues with a history of violence to stop serving shots of liquor.

Mr McGinty said the Government would also consider supporting possible legislation.

Now, the absinthe snob in me says that any move to shift the consumption of absinthe away from flaming shots to more genteel methods of consumption where a decent absinthe might be appreciated is a good move in the right direction.

However, the libertarian in me objects to the manner of its execution, which is bordering on a neo-prohibitionist attitude by a state government.

“Franz, du dummkopf- ve told you not to burn ze absinth!”

Responsible alcohol service and consumption makes a lot of assumptions, albeit worthy ones. One, that venues do monitor the way alcohol is provided, and the safety to the patrons. The other assumption is that individuals who choose to drink to get drunk should take the reponsibilities for those actions and the reactions of the venue hosting their activities.

If a venue chooses to serve shooters, slammers and bombs then they are part of the equation of responsibility and consequence for that choice. Industry self-regulation is an appropriate first line intervention as it dictates the level of responsibility that a venue is willing to take with regard to its clientele. In this regard, I see the self-regulatory action of the hotels mentioned in the story completely appropriate if they feel to do otherwise would compromise their committment to the responsible service of alcohol.

However, when government expresses a desire to dictate by law how people should consume an otherwise legal product in a licenced venue, then this is a step to far. Especially when:

“State chief executive Bradley Woods said there should also be a ban on emotive names for drinks such as “shooters”, “bombs” or “slammers”, or sexually explicit names. “

I feel somewhat aggrieved that if visiting fair Perth, that Mr Woods thinks he should have a say in whether I can get Sex On A Beach, a Slow Comfortable Screw Against A Wall, or even a Dirty Fuck (20mL Absinthe, 10 mL Baileys - although admittedly this one really isn’t tempting me…)

Any legislated government ban or liquor licence controls on serving of ’shots’ carries certain questions - is a whisky straight up a potentially prohibited drink? Does the addition of ice make it ok? How do they propose Schnapps should be drunk, if at all?

And if drinking shots is out of the question - why is the repeated serving of cheap jugs of beers over an extended period to a group of individuals ‘buying rounds’ more acceptable? Are such clientele naturally predispositioned to be ‘happier’, more pleasant drunks and less likely to shove a broken glass in my face?

Let the venues decide how they provide alcohol and under what circumstances.

The fact most governments are willing to happily suck down the cash flows of alcohol taxation, pokies revenues and hotel lobbyist political contributions into their overinflated lungs like a crackhead makes them less the virtuous paragons of public policy when it comes to issues of temperance.