It goes without question that a certain degree of uniformity is not only desirable, but essential, in administering the laws and systems of the nation, but it is also impossible merely to lay down general principles and expect the country to run itself smoothly thereafter.
Continued hands-on management - light in the rein as it may be - is the only pragmatic way of dealing with all the individual cases and problems that can occur.
Recall the fine-sounding words from the lips of the legislators when the last bout of liberalisation of liquor laws occurred, about how they would be properly and adequately enforced, that the built-in controls would prevent or deter a breakdown in social behaviour.
The results speak for themselves, of the great personal and economic cost to the nation, and now we await the latest proposals consequent on the Law Commission's two-year review.
We have been to this well many times: the 1997 advisory committee which, among other things, recommended Sunday trading and reduction of the minimum drinking age to 18 years; the 1989 Sale of Liquor Act, supposedly to "establish a reasonable system of control over the supply and sale of liquor with the aim of contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse so far as that can be achieved by legislative means"; the 1986 working party which found that the 1962 Sale of Liquor Act had "failed to break out of the pattern of the past and continued largely to be a vehicle for the reconciliation of the conflicting interests of the liquor industry and its opponents"; and so on.
It surely cannot be denied that there is a heavy drinking problem in this country, with all its sorry consequences (other than for the liquor industry, of course).
But "the Government" is not responsible for that state of affairs any more than the present scapegoat - youth - are responsible for the far larger percentage of adult alcohol abuse.
The horse has long bolted from the stable - unless prohibition is back on the agenda - so the only realistic action that can be taken is astute management of the problems.
The signs are not good that we will go about it in other than a short-term, self-serving way.
The Government's decision to dodge (in favour of "more research") making a necessary change to the blood-alcohol level as a means of further reducing alcohol-related driving is but one example.
Today, it will announce its law reforms, based on the Law Commission's report.
There are already signs of disunity even while the parties in the House agree to allow some limited freedom from block voting.
Members will not be bound by party votes when considering whether to keep the alcohol purchase age at 18, raise it to 20 or split it to 18 for drinking in bars and 20 for purchase at off-licence outlets.
One informal and very limited poll last week suggested most will vote for the split age.
In 2006, when a conscience poll was held over keeping the age at 18, the result was 72 to 49 for retention.
All the other reforms proposed today, however, will be decided by party votes.
The most important factor in the new legislation will be the opportunity it presents for the public to have their say through the select committee submission process.
If communities are frustrated by their inability to effectively manage the harm alcohol is causing, then this is their chance to respond to the challenge.
The regulatory framework controlling the sale and supply of liquor is quite clearly incomplete or inadequate in contemporary society, yet only in recent years could it be said that liberalisation has been applied to the rules.
Mature and sensible drinkers have welcomed the innovations, while they have also proved to be fatally attractive to youth and those for whom alcohol is addictive.
The Law Commission suggested price rises through heavier taxes (about $1 billion a year is already gathered by the State); extending the minimum purchase age to 20; providing maximum closing hours for on- and off-licences; and more restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorship.
As we have observed previously, very few of those who advocate the sale of alcohol also promote to an equal degree education about safe drinking practices, especially among adolescents, yet there is no point in further tinkering with the regulations unless and until such measures are firmly and routinely cultivated.
It is excellent that the police, in some communities, are actively taking steps to try to stop alcohol-related crime by opposing extended licensing hours for bars; it is good that city councils and places with higher populations of young alcohol abusers are beginning to apply stricter standards, even prohibit sales in some outlets.
The proposed reforms - whatever they may eventually be - represent a severe challenge for all parties in Parliament, not just in braving the inevitable political backlash but also in resisting the powerful influence of the alcohol industry.
They will also be a test for all adults in the community concerned that this is an important matter for the country's future health and wellbeing.
No-one should resile from the challenge.
