Thursday, April 6, 2023

Guyon Espiner on booze

Guyon Espiner has written a critical book - a very critical book - about booze called The Drinking Game. It's about the place of alcohol in New Zealand society and it draws heavily on his own experiences.

There’s the big problem, right there. Espiner admits he was a problem drinker. The reader is bombarded with anecdotes about the times he drank to excess. There’s an almost boastful tone to some of these stories.

But most people who drink are not problem drinkers, as Espiner admits, and at the end of his book I was left wondering what the point was.

The Drinking Game purports to be a critical analysis, but a self-confessed problem drinker is no more capable of writing a balanced book about alcohol than a vegan is capable of writing a balanced book about the meat industry, or an atheist about the Catholic Church.

The entire book is coloured by Espiner’s own experiences, but they’re not typical. And because they’re not typical, you have to ask what relevance they have to people who are able to drink without getting blotto (which, at the risk of labouring a point, means most of the population).

His revelation that he has Type 1 diabetes, which finally provided the incentive he needed to give up drinking, makes him even more atypical. Yet he persists with the theme that his own experiences are somehow applicable to everyone.

Espiner has burrowed deeply into the academic literature, of which there’s no shortage. Almost all of it is hostile to alcohol (and to capitalism, I suspect), but ignores the ability of most people to drink without harming themselves or those around them. He relates cautionary tales about alcoholics, but again misses the point that alcoholics make up only a small minority of drinkers.

He lets himself down in places with sloppy research. He writes that Mac’s Brewery was founded in Dunedin (wrong; it was Nelson) and that Claytons was a zero-alcohol beer (it was non-alcoholic, but it wasn’t a beer). He even manages to place Bagram air force base in the wrong country despite having been there himself. Nit-picking readers might wonder what else he got wrong.

Like the finger-wagging academics he approvingly quotes, he rails against the supposedly malign influence of the booze barons and their hold over weak or venal politicians. If Espiner is to be believed, they wield an almost mystical power (an impression likely to be reinforced by the overwhelming vote in Parliament this week against Chloe Swarbrick's bill that would have banned alcohol sponsorship and advertising in sport). 

He also bewails the fact that alcohol has been “normalised”. But alcohol is normal, and has been for millennia, as Espiner acknowledges. He even grudgingly acknowledges alcohol’s benefits as an agent of social bonding and creativity: “Humans need to drink alcohol to be human,” he writes. Then he swiftly moves on, presumably because that bit doesn’t align with his overall theme.  

It’s possible to nod in agreement with some of Espiner’s points. Yes, New Zealand’s liquor laws did lurch from one extreme to another, to the point where many would agree there are now far too many outlets and licensing hours are ridiculously loose. Even people in the hospitality business say so.

But Espiner doesn’t give due credit to the early stages of that liberalisation process, which made social drinking immeasurably more civilised and inclusive than it used to be. He’s too young to remember the scungy, men-only public bars of the 1960s and 70s and the days when only the rich could afford to patronise the tiny number of restaurants that were permitted to serve wine.

Espiner can be an entertaining writer, though he tends to be rather too fascinated by himself. He’s also a capable journalist who has recently been lauded, justifiably, for his investigative work exposing the political lobbying racket. But there’s no more zealous crusader than the reformed sinner, and there’s an almost evangelical tone to his book that could be summarised as: “I gave up drinking! You should too!” But most people don’t need to.

Incidentally, the cover of Espiner's book carries a melodramatic plug ("This is real, it is raw, and it lays out the truth about booze") from his friend Patrick Gower, who made a documentary last year in which he too admitted a drinking problem. And you might wonder about the timing of a recent Morning Report item in which Corin Dann - who with his wife, Living Sober website manager Lotta Dann, is acknowledged in Espiner's book as a key source of advice and support - interviewed anti-alcohol activist Boyd Swinburn about the access to politicians enjoyed by liquor industry lobbyists, which Espiner had highlighted in his RNZ series. It all starts to look decidedly clubby. 

In the final analysis, The Drinking Game repackages a familiar message, albeit through a personal lens: liquor is too widely available, it’s too cheap, it’s advertised too much and politicians are incapable of resisting lobbying pressure from the industry. And of course booze is hazardous, at least for people who can’t control their intake.

We’ve heard all this before, ad nauseam. But Espiner isn’t entirely clear about what he thinks should be done about it, and in the end he gets us no closer to solving the old conundrum: should the majority of people who drink safely and responsibly be penalised because of the unfortunate things that happen to the minority who don’t?

(Disclosure: In a past life I was a wine writer, in which capacity I was provided with free wine for review purposes. I'm aware that in the eyes of some neo-wowsers in academia, that made me complicit in the liquor industry's attempt to enslave the population.)

 The Drinking Game, published by Allen and Unwin, $36.99.


14 comments:

Max Ritchie said...

Reducing the number of liquor outlets and their hours is wowserism. And as for liquor being too cheap, not the sort I want to drink. Increasing the price of low quality liquor just increases the price of high quality too. Better to ban Espiner and others from all liquor outlets.

Don Franks said...

Guy Espiner's book I havn't read but there are real problems with alcohol. It's a proven carcinogen, bad for the liver and the brain and even in very small doses, terribly damaging to an unborn baby. Alcohol is an addictive substance which can take over and blight the lives of unsuspecting people. Alcohol's been a part of my culture since I was a kid, I still have a drink sometimes, but not as often as I used to.

rouppe said...

That's pretty much what I said about his article some weeks ago.

We’ve heard all this before, ad nauseam. But Espiner isn’t entirely clear about what he thinks should be done about it, and in the end he gets us no closer to solving the old conundrum: should the majority of people who drink safely and responsibly be penalised

The simple answer to that is no. No we should not. Just cause he's a piss head that can't hold his drink doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer.

Same with Gower. Those holier than thou busy-bodies can go take a long walk off a short pier.

Ian Penrose said...

My wife and I enjoy the 5pm 'sun's over the yardarm' end of day drink. We enjoy wine with our meal. We do not drink to excess - our normal intake, if exceeded lets us know in no uncertain terms. We harm nobody. It's a pleasurable part of our daily lives. If a few abuse the substance, banning it for all is not the solution imho. It's just a normal, human social thing. Cheers.

Alex said...

Could you quantify what you consider a very small dose?

Most women don't know they are pregnant until a couple of months in, and in the meantime may be drinking regularly.

It is incorrect to say that their baby is therefore damaged.

Foetal alcohol syndrome is relatively rare and is usually the result of regular excessive alcohol consumption .

Instilling fear into a woman during a stressful and important time such as pregnancy is counterproductive.

By the way, if we extrapolate your reasoning , then you as a consumer of alcohol will have cancer, liver damage, and brain damage.
I certainly hope you don't . Just making a point.
All the best.

Don Franks said...

Alex, it's not my opinion, medical authorities uniformly state that no safe dose of alcohol is safe for pregnant women. That message is now also on every bottle of wine. I don't think medical warning equates with instilling fear.
Substance induced illness is something of a lottery, most of us know of a relative or friend who smoked regularly for years and died peacefully at a respectable age. We're similarly aware of the occasional abstemious young athlete who did everything right and died of a sudden heart attack.
I think a fair extrapolation of my reasoning is that there's a chance that alcohol has damaged my organs and may yet give me cancer. My reading on the subject suggests that the more of the drug you take, the greater the chance of damage.

Alex said...

Thanks for your reply Don.
My point is that your statement that alcohol is "...even in very small doses, terribly damaging to an unborn baby." is clearly not the case. If it was then many babies would be born terribly damaged due the mother drinking during early pregnancy, the most vulnerable period in the development of the foetus.
Everything we eat and drink has safe and unsafe limits.

Alex

oneblokesview said...

Social engineering is alive and well in NZ.
When ""we"" decide what's good or bad for everyone.

The comments to your article confirm the current day Kiwis desire to tell us what's good for us.!!! Or more pertantly telling me that I can not exercise freedom of choice, because in their opinion my choice will be wrong.

Currently I am living in a topical Country where alcohol is freely available to anyone who wants it at most times of the day or night.
There are no punitive restrictive(social engineering) taxes
yet. Shock horror, Citizens are not clogging hospitals with alcoholic disorders or laying around the streets in an alcoholic haze. In fact my observation is that life is like NZ back in the 50s/60s.

They have a similar attitude to tobacco. Freely available to anyone.

A friend in NZ responded to my comment on the cost and availability with the comment. Ah but what about those dying from lung cancer.
I looked up the stats. Locals have a lower chance of dying from lung Cancer(per 100,000 pop) in this unregulated environment than Kiwis in their socially engineered environment.

So please all you social justice wokesters. Get out of our lives and take all those Government regulators with you.

Let me(76yo) make my own decisions about what's good for ME.


oneblokesview said...

Oneblokes view is written by Ra Henare

Don Franks said...

Cheers Alex

I am not a medically qualified person, to a lay person like myself,I think two things are apparent. The evidence is in that foetal alcohol syndrome causes irreversable lifelong harm, there is little disagreement on that. It's also clear that, for a variety of reasons, there have not been substantial studies done in New Zealand on the the prevelance of foetal alcohol syndrome. My point is, why take the risk. Agreed, everything we injest has safety limits, even water, some things though more than others.

R Singers said...

Bishop Espiner also thinks that Lotto is bad. An interesting insight into his personally can be seen when he is interviewed by Sean Plunket. It's as if talking to Sean reminds him that journalists should strive for balance and that in turn throws Guyon off balance.

David Lupton said...

Like Ra, I see beer on the supermarket shelves next to the coke in other countries and you can't get much more 'normalized' than that yet it doesn't seem to lead to the dire consequences our restrictive laws are supposed to be there to address.

Harry Cording said...

In reply to Ra Henare and others who want the nanny state to sod off:

Apply the same reasoning to cannabis, which is still illegal in this backward country, thanks in large part to the influence of the alcohol industry.

Anthony Coates said...

Thanks for the laugh. “Medical authorities” putting warnings on bottles is really no more authoritative than your or my lay opinion. I learned a bit about FAS when studying Psychology at Otago, and there really is no evidence to support the no safe dose hypothesis, though there is evidence against high doses at specific developmental phases. Safetyism prevails as usual, while normal people see that their parents and grandparents prior to the 1980s all drank normally and they have never met a child with FAS. So while most women bow to the social pressure and practice total abstinence during pregnancy, I know plenty who would have a glass or maybe two of wine on rare occasions. No ill effects to report.