“The DTI’s national liquor policy (NLP) proposals will bring back the evils of apartheid. The unintended consequences will make illegal the majority of licensed liquor premises and undermine the dignity of black Africans, particularly the poor. Several of the proposals are illogical, unworkable and unenforceable; they ignore lessons from SA’s history and disregard international norms. Instead of promoting transformation, a key NLP aim, the effect will be to turn this noble intention on its head,” said Free Market Foundation (FMF) executive director, Leon Louw at a media briefing on 23 July in Johannesburg.
The proposals introduce vicarious liability for retailers and suppliers; prohibit sponsorship for socio-economic events and activities; reintroduce zoning and restricted trading hours; raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, and introduce a new 500m rule.
According to Louw, to make retailers and suppliers liable for accidents and crimes committed by drunk customers is unworkable and illogical. Alcohol retailers and suppliers, being so far removed from the end result, cannot be considered liable for the subsequent actions of customers in the same way that shop keepers cannot be held liable for crimes committed with knives bought from their stores.
Restricting advertising and marketing of alcohol will remove a fundamental consumer right – access to information. Consumers have a right to know about product availability, pricing and promotions to make informed purchasing decisions as adults. International experience shows that banning alcohol advertising does not reduce consumption. India banned it in 1995 but has one of the fastest growing alcohol markets in the world. To ban sponsorship from liquor manufacturers will have a devastating effect on sport and recreation, especially among poorer communities who rely on financial support to exist. At a stroke, the NLP removes a powerful source of funding for the socio-economic development of poor communities and enrichment of the arts, sports, culture and conservation.
Restricted trading hours do not reduce drinking but drives it underground and onto the black market, the very opposite to what the DTI intends. While the idea of zoning shows that the lessons of apartheid are easily forgotten; apartheid’s legacy is that most townships have no properties zoned for business purposes. Most blacks do not live in zoned areas and this makes the proposed law racially discriminatory.
Raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 will encourage young people to drink illicitly in more dangerous circumstances and away from a responsible drinking culture, the DTI’s goal. At 18, a person can vote, drive, get married, have children, sign contracts and take responsibility for their lives – but will not be able to buy a beer.
The most damaging proposal is to make it illegal for licensed premises to be within 500m of schools, places of worship, recreational facilities, rehabilitation or treatment centres, residential areas and public instituions, petrol stations, premises attached to petrol stations, premises near public transport, and areas not classified for entertainment or zoned by municipalities for liquor trading. Licenses already issued will be terminated in two years.
SA’s townships are densely populated with small businesses alongside taverns, eating places and residential homes. This proposal is simply unworkable and would put many enterprises out of business or see them facing criminal prosecution, as under apartheid.
Louw said the Prohibition Act of 1897, in force until the 1930s, made it illegal for black South Africans to drink alcohol. Blacks and Indians were prohibited from selling alcohol or entering licensed premises and were confined to government owned beer halls selling sorghum or “kaffir” beer. This led to organised crime and a large and illegal liquor trade mushroomed in the townships. Many Africans were arrested for alcohol-related offences. The consequences were social breakdown, family violence, alcohol related diseases, crime and accidents in poor communities. Blacks were presumed to be incapable of responsible liquor trade or consumption. Whites were considered responsible and respectable enough to buy, consume and trade without limits. The DTI’s proposals will have the same effect if not intention.
The NLP talks about “education and awareness” which the FMF fully supports as the way forward in a free and open society – the DTI and government should “educate not regulate”, said Louw. Instead, as with banning smoking in public places and other draconian measures against tobacco use, the proposals undermine consumer and small business freedom by stealth in the guise of safeguarding the nation’s health. Once lost, freedom cannot easily be regained. The NLP proposals need to be resisted before more freedoms are taken away while the nation sleep-walks into the nanny state.
Ends
