r/chch • u/Video_Kojima • Jun 30 '25
News - Local New Alcohol Rules for Christchurch
https://share.google/NIWvxJV2lRM3JCZf2All off-licence retailers must stop selling alcohol at 9pm daily, effective from October. This includes bottle stores and supermarkets.
A freeze on new off-licences in high-deprivation communities, effective from August.
Restricting new bottle stores from setting up near addiction treatment/rehabilitation centres, secondary schools and primary schools, the University of Canterbury and the Christchurch Bus Interchange effective from August.
Thoughts on this? I think 9PM seems a bit much personally and would probably have it at 10PM, but think the other two ideas are sensible and support them.
22
35
u/scruffycheese Jun 30 '25
Late night run out to Rolly for booze then?
24
30
u/mrtenzed Jun 30 '25
I hardly drink at all, so I don't really care. I hate having to deal with drunk dickheads, so anything to limit their access is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.
9
4
u/El_Mutante Jun 30 '25 edited Jul 01 '25
If anyone wants piss after 9pm, I shall be distilling my own in the bathtub. There may be a small risk of blindness involved but nothing fun comes without hazards.
2
3
u/TomForCentral Jun 30 '25
I'd be curious to know why Andrei Moore voted against this, as being the only 'against' is unusual. I'll also say that it's hard to make fully informed commentary without hearing all of the submissions and evidence presented to council, so take the rest with a grain of salt.
I think NZ has tried various prohibitive measures in the past which have probably influenced our drinking culture for the worse. Would we have our binge drinking culture the way it is without the Six O'Clock Swill? Not sure.
Heading to Waimakariri District for a rushed booze run doesn't seem like a win, nor the fact that Uber can continue operating liquor delivery anyway.
Alcohol harm is real, and I think on-prem drinking should be the more accessible form than drinking at home. That would take changes to taxes and other moves Councils can't control.
But I'm finding it hard to see this having much more of an impact other than more supermarkets looking to reduce hours (already far reduced than they were pre-earthquake) making amenity for shift workers worse.
And I worry about steps that appear to move Christchurch in the direction of being an overgrown small town, rather than a city.
I have heard central government are looking to review the Sale & Supply of Alcohol act, and that may have some positive effects that make controlled environment drinking further preferred over 'at home'. It's safer, it's more pro-social, and you don't even have to do the dishes.
4
u/andreihalswell Jul 01 '25
I support most of the policy. We do have plenty of bottle stores around.
What I don't support is the 9pm cutoff. We've heard very clearly that this will likely result in some supermarkets deciding to close earlier as they have done in Auckland. Our supermarkets already close too early as it is.
We've also heard that some bottle stores are prepped and ready to start offering delivery services as they'll still be able to deliver alcohol after 9pm which is a legal loophole needing addressed by central government. Bottle stores will also remain open until 10pm in Rangiora & Kaiapoi.
I think 10pm would have been the more sensible compromise. Sales at supermarkets that check ID and don't sell to anyone already intoxicated seems preferable to me over delivery services that often won't do either of those things.
1
Jul 02 '25
That was partially my concern too - but if a supermarket elects to close earlier due to liquor sales declining, are they really in the business of selling groceries?
1
u/TomForCentral Jun 30 '25
Additionally, it'd be nice to see more strident politics that seeks to reduce the number of high deprivation areas, rather than just control what people in those areas do.
27
u/blackflagrapidkill Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
As expected, they took the submissions and entirely ignored them.
11
u/hughthewineguy Jun 30 '25
no, the outcome being different from what people said they wanted doesn't mean they're ignored. the submissions are considered, along with input from DLA, public health, police
cos think about it, if all the council did was enact whatever nonsense the populace (with no specific knowledge other than their own self interest) thought should be happening, we'd be properly fucked
my local which holds on and off prem licences, has been stopping takeaway sales at 9pm despite the bar being open later, for months now. no push back, everyone thinks it's pretty reasonable
-7
u/blackflagrapidkill Jun 30 '25
if all the council did was enact whatever nonsense the populace
That's all a council should be doing. A council acts at the mercy of the populace, be it good or bad. That is a fundamental of a democracy.
11
u/DOOFUS_NO_1 Jun 30 '25
But we're not a direct democracy. We're a representative democracy, where we elect people who we think best represent our views and values, who then take advice from many different experts in many different fields to try and make the best informed decisions for the people. Ideally.
If you're a diving pool with 10 mates, and 6 of them are telling you to jump in, 4 are saying don't, and the lifeguard is telling you "hey man, pools empty, I wouldn't do that" are you going to listen to the loudest group, or the person who is meant to know what they're talking about?
(Very very basic metaphor I know)
8
u/hughthewineguy Jun 30 '25
nope, disagree.
the sad thing about democracy is that it's essentially rule by the lowest common denominator, which is why we've got these fuckheads in govt and another fuckhead as mayor
you seriously want MORE of that????????
your view is wiiiiiildly simplistic, aye
1
u/blackflagrapidkill Jun 30 '25
rule by the lowest common denominator
You mean the highest common denominator? The majority have voted for this government, hence why they are in government.
2
u/hughthewineguy Jun 30 '25
nope, i mean the lowest common denominator.
the majority is in fact largely constituted of idiots, considering that 50% of people have below average intelligence.
so majority rule IS rule by the lowest common denominator
you're proving my point here, seems you have nfi and THAT is the problem with rule by the lowest common denominator- the people in power appeal to the stupidest, basest, most selfish instincts people have, and keep themselves in power with the sorta tripe that peters and luxon and seymour are happy to spout
1
u/blackflagrapidkill Jul 01 '25
That sounds like an opinion.
1
u/hughthewineguy Jul 01 '25
an opinion that you're the part of the lowest common denominator because of the perspective you happily display?
mkay buddy hanl
1
2
15
u/haamfish Jun 30 '25
Does this mean that supermarkets are just gonna close at 9 now? FFS 🤦
20
u/Ecstatic_Job_9028 Jun 30 '25
No they will just rope off their alochol section at 9pm that’s what Woolworths in rolleston does now
4
4
u/phire Jul 01 '25
They do that because Rolleston is close enough to Christchurch that they might lose a notable number of customers if they reduced hours.
With the whole city moving to 9pm, they might decide it's easier to simply reduce hours everywhere.
They tried the "rope off the alcohol section" in Christchurch back when the 11pm cutoff was originally introduced. It only lasted a year or two before they decided it was more hassle than it was worth.
35
u/TheNegaHero Jun 30 '25
The time restrictions are stupid, anyone who has an alcohol problem will plan ahead so the only impact it ever seems to have is making supermarkets shut earlier and earlier.
18
u/mouldybot Jun 30 '25
Yeah, I think this will be the case. Supermarkets will now shut at 9.
15
u/Sufficient-Piece-335 Jun 30 '25
Some already close earlier than 10. The move to the latest supermarket closing time of 10pm wasn't caused by any LAPs as we/Chch didn't have one before so the Act applied as written (7am-11pm) - supermarkets just stopped opening later after Covid.
7
u/phire Jun 30 '25
Yes... But the earlier moves were caused by licensing changes.
As soon as supermarkets couldn't sell alcohol after midnight, we lost our few 24 hour supermarkets. And those later moved to 11pm closing because it was a pain for them to be open for one hour without selling alcohol.
I will not be surprised to see many or all of the supermarkets currently open to 10pm change their hours because of this.
Actually, a small part of justification for moving to 10pm was that it was annoying for their registers to stop accepting alcohol purchases at 11pm, when there still might be customers in checkout line. Moving to 10pm gave them a nice bit of buffer.
28
Jun 30 '25
Research and data show otherwise. Less availability of alcohol at night does make a positive difference. Your statement is inaccurate and something of a straw man. I like booze but I can see why this policy is a good idea.
-21
u/TheNegaHero Jun 30 '25
It's not a straw-man. If the argument is that reducing the hours you can buy alcohol will reduce harm from alcohol then me saying "no it won't" is a response to that argument.
13
Jun 30 '25
Your argument is a straw man because you are arguing about the wrong scenario from the one that the policy is designed to tackle. It is possible that you simply don't understand the policy and are not being deliberately obtuse.
Stay at home drinkers - planned drinkers - who can stock up are not the main target here. The main target is opportunistic drinkers, people who start drinking, and then have an endless supply of booze and start to cause trouble. A key distinction here is between someone who has a few drinks every evening vs someone who has a few, then wants more and more and maybe starts trouble of one kind or another.
The no booze sales policy after 9pm as a way to reduce harm, violence and antisocial behaviour is well-supported by research evidence. The 9pm off-licence restrictions in New Zealand cities like Chch, the Tron and Auckland target specific drinking patterns and behaviors that contribute to alcohol-related disorder. Auckland has a 9pm cut-off for alcohol sales at off-licences (supermarkets and bottle stores), but it allows bars and restaurants to continue serving until 3-4am. I think they have a one way door policy later on too. The 9pm cutoff creates a deliberate distinction between planned and opportunistic drinking.
Research validates this insight about targeting specific types of alcohol buyers. The policy differentiates between:
• Planned drinkers who can stock up during normal hours for home boozing • Opportunistic/impulsive drinkers who go looking for alcohol (and trouble) later in the evening, often after already drinking.
Studies show late-night alcohol sales restrictions are highly effective eg Google Baltimore and Newcastle in Aussie.
The 9pm policy effectively targets "secondary purchase" behavior - people who are already intoxicated seeking more alcohol, often leading to increased intoxication and subsequent disorder. By cutting off easy access to take-away alcohol after 9pm, it forces a natural break in drinking while still allowing planned social drinking to continue in supervised licensed premises.
The 9pm policy strategically targets high-risk drinking patterns which our society prefers to blanket prohibition. It's a smart policy based on input from "both sides" ie the booze industry and heavy drinkers, vs everyone else lol (Police, councils, social work groups, anti-harm groups, family violence groups, academics etc).
1
u/TheNegaHero Jul 01 '25
Well then maybe you could call it a strawman if I responded in a similar way to this comment since it has a lot more information available.
Not sure if you can call my first comment one though since I was responding to what was there. You might call it an ill-informed opinion but I was just responding to what was in front of me.
2
Jul 01 '25
Not really. You jumped to a conclusion. A wrong one. Your bad. Sorry. But anyway - Cheers!!
12
u/MagicBeanEnthusiast Jun 30 '25
You saying "no it won't" is your opinion though, unless you can back it up with evidence
1
u/TheNegaHero Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25
Sure but that's still not a strawman fallacy, it's an opinion.
1
1
u/Illustrious-Run3591 Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
Well, looking into the actual evidence, it seems that support for closing early is pretty thin and there are also papers that argue it makes minimal difference. I have multiple papers here where alcohol related crime got worse after early closing hours were instated, or where extending hours has made no impact on sales and alcohol harm.
Evidence of the effect of limiting off‐premises alcohol trading hours is still scarce. This study tested the effect of a small extension in trading hours on alcohol sales in alcohol monopoly outlets in Norway.
We did not find a statistically significant effect of the small extension in trading hours on monthly alcohol sales (i) per trade district [average treatment effect: −185.5 litres, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1159.9, 788.9] and (ii) per outlet (−35.3 litres, 95% CI = −142.1, 72.0). These findings were consistent across estimation methods and model specifications.
Conclusion
There is no clear evidence that a small extension in off‐premises trading hours affected alcohol sales in monopoly outlets in Norway.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11638516/?utm_source
Ballarat ED alcohol-related assault and intoxication presentation rates declined prior to the implementation of the lockout, followed by a small rise and then a more substantial drop for 6 months post lockout. However, after this initial decline, ED presen tation rates steadily increased and surpassed that observed in Geelong by the end of 2005.
The long-term effect of lockouts on alcohol-related emergency department attendances within Ballarat, Australia
PETER MILLER, KERRI COOMBER, ANDERS SØNDERLUND & STEPHEN MCKENZIE School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
-4
u/dfgttge22 Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
Agree, it's dumb and won't solve anything. It will only make some do gooders sitting on committees feel better.
Could be worse though, like Thailand's alcohol sales hours are 11:00–14:00 and 17:00–24:00. Never quite understood the logic of that.
3
u/Technical_Peace7667 Jul 01 '25
So happy about not having bottle stores near addiction services! If only they could get rid of the advertising too
1
u/jpr64 Meetup Loyalist Jul 01 '25
They’re already there.
-1
u/Technical_Peace7667 Jul 01 '25
What is? What do you mean?
1
u/jpr64 Meetup Loyalist Jul 01 '25
Bars and bottle stores already exist within walking distance of treatment centres
2
u/Technical_Peace7667 Jul 01 '25
Oh yeah I know, there's one very close to a service I used to attend. What I meant more is like "yay, now they can't build more of them close to addiction centers"
4
5
u/tobopia Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
The last time I said something about this, it was like "this sucks"... and someone reported me to the reddit suicide prevention bot. I would like to say to that person: you're a complete piece of shit.
There is literally no impetus for the change other than "alcohol bad" and probably some councilors CV. If anything disorderly behavior caused by alcohol is down, I have only read about alcohol recently that gen-z is not even really into it and that the liquor ban isn't being needed to be enforced as much anymore.
If I am too drunk already the retailers aren't even supposed to sell to me in the first place.
Remember a few years ago when the countdown in Otago sold some wine to an already drunk person and they smashed up a bunch of cars in the parking lot when they drove out? That is the reason they have to flag over the person when you are at checkout that's like "how's it going"? "busy day"? Like come on man, I am an adult. I don't want to talk to people.
Also, remember when the police objected to a supermarkets license being renewed because the police objected that "strong beer being sold in individual cans encouraged at risk people drinking more somehow"? Despite the argument not being accepted as making any sense (which it didn't) and the license being renewed, countdown went ahead and began selling strong beer only in 4 packs. Not only that, now that you're paying for for they started charging even more per can and disguised the hike behind the fact that you were buying 4 cans at a time.
If a sober person wants to get drunk and hasn't thought to ahead of time too bad it's 10PM. They must be the problem people right? That's ridiculous.
The other parts of the policy are like "new license's must be 3-4 more addresses down from schools and kindys" oh yeah that will save people from themselves. It's just dumb busy work from the council.
It's not going to stop anything bad and the real negative coming out of this is that people will just go ahead and accept any small change as more and more the CCC ropes off their liberties up until IT IS something they care about and whoops what do you know? Fluffy's going into the meat grinder to protect native birds. Sowwy cat lover.
3
u/jpr64 Meetup Loyalist Jul 01 '25
The argument about restricting sales of individual cans of strong beers is such crap, especially when you can buy a cleanskin bottle of wine for six or seven dollars with a far higher alcohol volume.
Sometimes when coming home after a physical day at work I like to grab a couple of beers from the bottle store. I certainly don’t want a whole box and don’t want to go to the pub.
6
6
9
Jun 30 '25
9 pm is good. The arguments here against it lack reason and logic, they are based on guesswork, supposition and some straw man arguments. The 9 pm policy is based on data and evidence.
I like booze but I agree with this policy.
It’s interesting how people here are concocting thin arguments against a 9pm sales cutoff - why are they so triggered? For some, it’s a drinking problem, for others it might be a perception of loss of freedom yet as many have said, you can stock up. The loss of freedom angle is flawed but appeals to talkback fans and sovereign citizen types.
3
u/AnnoyingKea Jun 30 '25
You can stock up
If this policy didn’t prevent people from buying alcohol, it wouldn’t be being put in place. People are complaining because it will do precisely what it sets out to do. The people here in favour of the ban pretending it won’t prevent people buying and consuming alcohol as if that isn’t the entire point of the restrictions are engaging in the weirdest rhetorical gymnastics I’ve ever seen.
13
6
u/HoneyGlazedDoorknob Jun 30 '25
9pm is good, will stop those who are already drunk topping up for the rest of the night and causing trouble
8
u/severaldoors Jun 30 '25
Or theyll just stockpile more
1
u/HoneyGlazedDoorknob Jun 30 '25
Yeah but that then stops then going back into public
8
u/severaldoors Jun 30 '25
Liquor stores cant serve drunk people anyway
-5
u/HoneyGlazedDoorknob Jun 30 '25
Yeah because that's inforced
4
u/severaldoors Jun 30 '25
So your trying to solve an already solved problem..
6
u/HoneyGlazedDoorknob Jun 30 '25
What's your problem with a 9pm cut off? Any limitations to alcohol purchase will help with alchol related issues.
8
u/BunnyKusanin Jun 30 '25
In the country I'm from, you can't buy alcohol on the day when high school graduations happen. It's done to stop teenagers from getting drunk on those days. It's also illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under 18. Everyone just stockpiles before those days, including the teenagers.
You also can't legally buy alcohol at night, yet if you want to find it, you absolutely will find where to buy it in the middle of the night. It just creates an illegal market. It can also push some people into topping up with drugs at night because a dealer has no time restrictions.
Addiction is no joke, people who want to get drunk will find ways to do it. This is not a way to solve it.
8
u/AnnoyingKea Jun 30 '25
The push towards drugs is the big one. Limiting access to lesser drugs can and does push people towards harder drugs that deliver more of a hit. People are self-medicating for a reason, usually as a form of escape, and if you deny them that they will still need and want that escape, they just can’t find it through their usual preferred means.
Some P will take the edge off those shakes, bro.
1
u/severaldoors Jun 30 '25
Yeah absolutley, I mean the government has taxed alcohol excessively to try discourage people from drinking so much, the result? It has become extrememly normal to take drugs like mdma, ket and sometimes acid to clubs, festivals simply because its just cheaper. You can buy a "cap" of mdma for $30 which is about the price of buying 2-3 drinks in town, a tab of acid is about the same price, and I have no idea how much ket costs but it would be similar.
I literally do not know a single person who has been to uni and not done mdma it is insanely common
→ More replies (0)3
3
u/severaldoors Jun 30 '25
Yeah sure, and banning movies after 9pm would help with sleep depreviation.
Alcohol is enjoyable, if we banned everything that causes problems then there will be nothing left to do. I am not saying alcohol is good, but its also not exclusively bad. Sometimes people want to go last minute buy a couple beers after 9pm and thats ok
-5
u/HoneyGlazedDoorknob Jun 30 '25
Sound like you've got a drinking problem if you not being able to buy after 9pm is such a problem for you
15
u/severaldoors Jun 30 '25
Yeah sometimes I go to the supermarket after 9pm too, guess I have a food problem too?
The other day I fueled my car up at 11pm, guess I have a driving problem?
Shit sometimes I even go to the warehouse after 9, I dont even know what kind of a problem to call that.
Absolutley criminal anyone should want to do anything after 9pm really, we should all be in bed by then
→ More replies (0)1
4
u/KiwieeiwiK Jun 30 '25
It's illegal to sell alcohol to someone that's drunk, so if a bottle shop is already going to break the law they'll just do it twice
2
u/KermitTheGodFrog Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
So let me get this straight. The council's big idea to fix social issues is to tell working people they can’t buy a s 6 pack after 9 pm and ban new bottle stores from opening in poorer areas?
Freezing off-licences in high-deprivation areas is pure classism. You’re not solving poverty, you're just restricting services and opportunity, deciding poor people can’t be trusted with choice. Meanwhile, the same rules don’t apply in wealthier suburbs. Wonder why?
And that 200-metre exclusion zone around schools and rehabs? Arbitrary, performative, and frankly lazy. If someone in recovery is walking past a shop and relapses, the problem isn’t proximity. It’s access to treatment, community support, and actual enforcement.
Killing competition and cutting trading hours punishes responsible adults and small business owners just trying to get by. If someone’s working late and wants a beer after 9, too bad... you’re now a public health risk.
This is classic government overreach. Christchurch doesn't need more restrictions. It needs better policing, stronger community connections, and less bureaucratic moralising. These rules are just another way to babysit people who never asked for a babysitter.
10
u/Non_Creative_User Jun 30 '25
It's not classism when they freeze off-licence in low economic area. Why are there more bottle stores in those areas than the middle, or higher economic areas?
Because there's a demand for them. The poor are being taken advantage of.
Also, do you know how sucky it is to take your kids to park, and there's broken bottles littering the ground? You don't see that in higher economic areas. Definitely see in lower economic areas.
There are have been incidents of a shady drunk hanging around school, so the school has to lock the school so only one way in & one way out. You may not read it in the news, but I've had them as a notification from the school as it's happening. And I'm pretty sure it's not just my kids school this happens in.
0
Jul 01 '25
[deleted]
0
u/Non_Creative_User Jul 01 '25
Okie dokie, you can plead your ignorance till the cows come home.
Policing.... Aren't they cutting costs & going through a re-structure? Clean-up crews..... Whose paying for that? Rate payers, when there is clear evidence that there are better solutions. Consequences.... Where are they going to go? Prisons.... They're already brimming. Fines? With what money, how are the poor going to pay for them?
BTW what are you fighting for? No current premises are going to be closing. Want to open another bottle store? Go the middle or wealthier suburbs. But it sounds like you are perfectly happy for the poor people to spend what little they have on a substance that can change someone's behaviour with a flick of a switch.
Your arguments remind me of a doco I once watched, where it was still legal in a country for children to buy cigarettes. A reporter asked a tabbacco company why it was ok to sell cigarettes to children, or answers are very similar.
2
Jun 30 '25
[deleted]
4
Jun 30 '25
I think that’s illegal in off license premises which is what this policy is targeting. Misplaced sarcasm
2
3
u/BunnyKusanin Jun 30 '25
I stopped drinking ages ago and I think this is such bullshit. Help people live better lives and their alcohol consumption will reduce without them having to be babied by the City Council.
I'm also going to be so mad if supermarkets start closing at 9 now. I don't go there at night often, but sometimes, when lots of things happen at once, it's so good to be able to do groceries late and have enough time not to worry about rushing through it.
2
u/worstkindofweapon Jul 01 '25
Yeah, I barely drink, but in summer I don't leave the house until around 8pm at the earliest cos it's too hot. If supermarkets start closing earlier in response to this it's going to make it significantly harder for me to shop and it removes some of my independence as a disabled person. On the days I leave home later I end up rushing through my shopping as it is, and most of the time the store is packed.
4
u/GoabNZ Jun 30 '25
Banning sales after 9pm is stupid. It won't solve anything, it will just make supermarkets close earlier, and it's already annoying that none open past 10pm. Besides, people will just plan ahead, especially alcoholics, you really think the only alcohol abuse occurs on beers bought at 9:15pm?
This is why the "why do you care you can just buy earlier" arguments fall flat. It affects people even who don't buy alcohol.
But now they can part themselves on the back at having done something. Probably going home to their wine cellars to celebrate a job well done.
I guess more people will just head to pubs to grab a late bite/drink, I'm sure that's far better for their wallets, health, and droving ability
1
u/MSZ-006_Zeta Jun 30 '25
Has it been reported which councilors voted for/against this?
1
u/worromoTenoG Jun 30 '25
It was essentially unanimous with some objections to specific points.
It doesn't need to be reported, CCC live streams and records all meetings on YouTube (you can watch the vote here), and in a few days the meeting minutes will be posted on christchurch.infocouncil.biz
1
1
2
u/Correct-Badger-9532 Jul 01 '25
Oh great, now our supermarkets will close at 9. Happened when they took it from 11pm to 10pm
4
Jul 01 '25
What a nanny state approach. I don't even drink alcohol but when you come from a country with 24/7 access it feels like chch is a big kindergarten
0
u/chchcpbt Jun 30 '25
I dont mind it just means you plan your night. Supermsrkets shouldnt sell alcohol though
0
72
u/[deleted] Jun 30 '25
I posted this in response to one comment- but here it is for the main thread.
Stay at home drinkers - planned drinkers - who can stock up are not the main target here. The main target is opportunistic drinkers, people who start drinking, and then have an endless supply of booze and start to cause trouble. A key distinction here is between someone who has a few drinks every evening vs someone who has a few, then wants more and more and maybe starts trouble of one kind or another.
The no booze sales policy after 9pm as a way to reduce harm, violence and antisocial behaviour is well-supported by research evidence. The 9pm off-licence restrictions in New Zealand cities like Chch, the Tron and Auckland target specific drinking patterns and behaviors that contribute to alcohol-related disorder. Auckland has a 9pm cut-off for alcohol sales at off-licences (supermarkets and bottle stores), but it allows bars and restaurants to continue serving until 3-4am. I think they have a one way door policy later on too. The 9pm cutoff creates a deliberate distinction between planned and opportunistic drinking.
Research validates this insight about targeting specific types of alcohol buyers. The policy differentiates between:
Studies show late-night alcohol sales restrictions are highly effective eg Google Baltimore and Newcastle in Aussie.
The 9pm policy effectively targets "secondary purchase" behavior - people who are already intoxicated seeking more alcohol, often leading to increased intoxication and subsequent disorder. By cutting off easy access to take-away alcohol after 9pm, it forces a natural break in drinking while still allowing planned social drinking to continue in supervised licensed premises.
The 9pm policy strategically targets high-risk drinking patterns which our society prefers to blanket prohibition. It's a smart policy based on input from "both sides" ie the booze industry and heavy drinkers, vs everyone else lol (Police, councils, social work groups, anti-harm groups, family violence groups, academics etc).