Reading between the headlines
A few minutes ago I saw the headline “Drinking age back on MPs’ agenda“.
My initial reaction was a flurry of swear words directed towards the Government as I read “The National Government will look again at raising the legal drinking age from 18 to 20 this year”.
But luckily I carried on reading the article before I fired off venom, and it is not quite what the headline and first sentence suggest:
The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill was introduced by the former Labour Government last August and has been picked up without change by the new Government. It is due to have its first reading when Parliament resumes and will then go to a select committee for public submissions.
Although the bill does not refer to the drinking age, Mr Power said he was sure there would be submissions asking for the age to be raised.
“You can’t have a discussion about the sale and supply of liquor without the drinking age being factored in,” he said.
So it is not the Government saying it wants to raise the drinking age, just the Minister saying that as we consider this bill, people will want to debate the age issue also. Power goes on to say:
Mr Power said he himself voted to keep the age at 18 because he believed the drinking age should not be dealt with in isolation.
“I sat on the select committee that heard submissions, and two things struck me,” he said.
“First, when the police came before that committee they said that in 51 per cent of cases [of under-age drinking] the last drink had been taken at home. That has stuck in my mind.
Simon gets to the nub of the issue – it is one of supply, not age of purchase.
The problem is not 19 year olds having a drink in a pub. It is 14 year olds getting wasted at parties. And the way to deal with that is to make it an offence to supply alcohol to minors in an irresponsible manner.
Criminalising every 18 and 19 year old in NZ (or the 95% who like to have a drink) would be a retrograde step.
However it looks like it may be an issue again, so might be time to reassemble the Keep it 18 campaign team!
January 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Why don’t they just try it with 20 for buying from bottle stores etc, and 18 when drinking in a pub. Seems pretty simple to me. And its infinitely better than giving the police something else to do when they already have far to much to do, I mean how much time is going to be wasted investigating who gave the bunch of 14 year olds a bottle of vodka, instead of who stole the house lot of electronic goods?
And also looking at instituting some sort of split in the duty on alcohol, with the stuff sold in on licences being set a lower level than that being sold at off licences.
I know many of my friends still drink a lot at home before going out because its cheaper, and I bet that’s where most of the drunkenness comes from, if there isn’t that much of a difference in price people won’t do it as much
January 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
well everyone semed keen to lower the drink drive limit, to the same level the aussies have.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the drinking age in the USA is 20
Im all for raising the age to 20 – together with voting
January 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Heck, I don’t trust anyone under 50 with a vote
Seriously though, I strongly believe that anyone who is old enough to be allowed to enlist in our armed forces, or sent to war in times of conflict, should be allowed to enjoy every right and privilege available to any other citizen. If they are old enough to risk their lives for us, they can sure as hell have a drink. Keep it at 18.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
That may explain how Hamas came to power (10 year olds with the vote)
January 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Tell you what DPF, you gather your keep it 18 team and I wager that I could assemble a far larger group who want the age raised to at least 20.
[DPF: Maybe but the quality of argument is what matters, and the KI18 team managed quite well last time on that front]
January 8th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Patrick
“Im all for raising the age to 20 – together with voting”
I am right with you on this one, as well as raising the voting age to 20 I think it would be reasonable to suggest that only those who pay tax should be eligible to cast a vote, the only exclusion being those who receive superannuation.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Gross over-simplification alert – “The problem is not 19 year olds having a drink in a pub. It is 14 year olds getting wasted at parties”.
It’s also those in their late-teens getting totally drunk, and then doing various things that have a major negative effect on other people.
Raise the age to 20!
January 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Everyone pays tax in the form of GST. Socialist governments are good like that. If it wasn’t for GST, they’d be a SUS (standing up straight) or SUC (sitting in chair) tax.
GST the tax that isn’t a tax? GST the tax that is charged on tax?
Dunno why anyone would want to give youngsters any further encouragement to drink. It’s poison – just ask any doctor. Not sure what purpose the meeting of Child Rights and the Right to Damage your Internals, has. Most things done for “the kids” are just adults indulgences and projections. It’s not like giving an 18 year old a drink will help them start a business, help them through puberty, promote healthy growth, deal with any past personal issues or reduce crime. If it were that easy i’d be all for it: Get Drunk! It’ll sort you out!
Plenty of 65 year olds still trying to find their lives at the bottom of a bottle. There’s a whole swag-load of stuff a young chap should learn before being encouraged to take self guided lessons in getting pissed. But as long as the kids have that choice, eh?
Also sounds like another way to waste tax payer dollars on pointless legislation – take note Mr.Key. What this government needs is a total freeze on picking up bills from the last government and a panel to prioritise essential changes through to non-essential tinkering, and stuff like this should go way down the bottom of the list.
The clocks ticking John, why waste your resources on this? 16mths to go and your baby’s due.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“…only those who pay tax should be eligible to cast a vote.”would cut out a lot of the wealthy tax avoiders, aye?
BB, why not go all out – allow only male landholders to vote?
January 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
bharmer hits the nail on the head – treat people as adult for everything at a given age – sign contracts, marry (without parental permission), serve on a jury. tried as an adult etc
FYI US has highest legal drinking age on the planet – 21 – most common is 18 and a surprising number of countries have limits of 16 eg France, Belgium – the yanks are thinking of dropping the legal age back to 18
Out of interest, how many here drank before the age of 18?
January 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Ok..perhaps I need to change it a bit, how about we take the vote from anybody who receives the dole or the DPB?
Seems only fair to me.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Don’t be stupid. This is 2009. Male and female landowners should be the only ones allowed to vote.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Brian, don’t tell me its 2009; tell big blouse.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“big bruv (2197) Vote: 0 1 Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Ok..perhaps I need to change it a bit, how about we take the vote from anybody who receives the dole or the DPB?
Seems only fair to me.”
I am sure its fair to you, but how is it fair to the community?
And i am sure you can tell us all what it’s like to be on the dole or DPB, can’t you?
January 8th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I did.
Most people who rant on about the drinking age and teenage drinking forget how it was when they were young. We drank like fish back in the 70s. Booze was easy to get and we got pissed at parties all the time. Teenagers getting sloshed is hardly new.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
That may be so Brian, but I don’t recall drinking spirits in those halcyon days – we drank copious quantities of beer from flagons or quart bottles, but getting trashed on spirits was a very, very rare treat – unlike today, where teens sup RTD’s by the gallon.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Jack I think BB is kidding otherwise he would be suggesting that only white right handed males between the ages of 25 and 60 who own at least 1/2 acre of land, speak English as a 1st language and support the crusaders should be allowed to vote (though why we should let crusaders supporters vote is beyond me
– they’ve already shown poor choice capabilities)
January 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Just realised because of their history of poor choices we shouldn’t allow crusaders supporters to purchase alcohol
January 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I dont understand Simon Power, first he tells us he voted to retain the age at 18 years now he wants to look at raising the age to 20 years. He seems to want one foot in both camps, is this what we want from our ministers, we have had this under labour I thought we voted them out.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Inventory2 – RTDs vary in alcohol content from 5%-12%. Beers vary from about 4% – 9% (got that from ALAC web site). Getting wasted on beer or wasted on an RTD is still wasted.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Jack
“And i am sure you can tell us all what it’s like to be on the dole or DPB, can’t you?”
Nope, I have no idea as I have always worked for a living, you should give it a crack some day it can be most rewarding.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
DPF normally i agree with much of what you say but I am completly against your opinion on this one.
The arguement last time (to lower it) may have been persuasive but in hindsight it was obviously wrong.
I say increase it now.
It has no relevance to the voting age (but i would increase that to 20 too) or the driving age (also too low) but is simply about kids just out of school (or still in the 7th form) in pubs without an adult.
that is wrong!
January 8th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Razork – what about it was obviously wrong? I feel that it isn’t so obvious, because I don’t see it. But maybe I’m the thickie in the room.
James88 – read the post again. Power didn’t say he wants to look at raising the age, he said it is going to select committee and some muppet will inevitably bring it up, at which point the select committee will have to deal with it.
Patrick, Big Bruv. This comes down to a discussion about when someone becomes an adult. Sure, drinking alcohol is something that only an adult should do. I think an 18 year old is an adult. You seem to be suggesting they aren’t. That is the area of disagreement. If we think they aren’t an adult at 18, then I think they should be tried for any offending in a youth court, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, probably not allowed to have sex, definitely not allowed to join the armed services, potentially not allowed to enter into a binding contract, and probably not allowed to drive a motor vehicle. All of those things have consequences that are potentially just as serious as drinking alcohol is.
My view – most 18 years olds drink relatively responsibly – or at least equally responsibly as 20 years olds, 30 year olds and 40 year olds. Some drink irresponsibly. We should get out of the habit of stopping the many from doing something in order to control the few who abuse it – that is a Labour party habit, not a National party habit. If we want 18 year olds to drink responsibly, then lets have a law that makes it illegal for an 18 year old to be drunk. Or then again, maybe our existing drunk and disorderly laws already cover this?
Changing the law isn’t the answer to everything, and it certainly isn’t the right answer for being old and crotchety.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
There should be NO “drinking age”.
If New Zealand grows up and treats alcohol as just another pleasurable product proscribed only by parents, the courts or doctors for individuals and society adopts the attitude towards drunkenness that it has to drink-driving a very large part of the “booze culture”, mainly young people going out to get drunk instead of going out to have fun and use alcohol to facilitate that process, will disappear.
Yes there will still be abusers, just as there are abusers of road safety, cough syrup, the democratic process etc.
That, and only that, is what police are paid to reduce.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I don’t see why it can’t be put back up to 20, or why DPF has such a problem with that; especially if it’s going to save lives.
Young people need to drink that much that they can’t wait two extra years? It’s that bad?
Ps, Garth George has a good article on alcohol today. here – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10550881
January 8th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
The age level should be decided by referendum, the conscience of the nation, not by the conscience of Politicians many of them unelected ,and unrepresentative of the average Joe sixpack and hockey mom.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Paul; it is obviously wrong because the arguement put up that lowering the drinking age would lead to young people having more exposure to alcohol and therefore becoming more responsible hasn’t worked.
Just go downtown ChCh, wellington etc after midnight and have a look.
As a father of teenagers who arent (yet) interested in drinking at all I get to hear the stories of how their 16 year old mates got smashed in the weekend.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Razork, as one who works downtown after midnight, often, I have looked and the only thing different from days of yore is that the kids frequent nightclubs instead of private parties and both sexes now imbibe freely instead of it mainly being a male thing.
If you want to break up the downtown thing you talk of get nightclubs out of one central area and thin the crowds out.
The police will not, of course, tell you this because then they’d have to actually work for their living instead of just wanking to the slime.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Well, its a stinker in ChCh today, almost beer drinking weather, so jack’s off to The Mill to pick up a carton of Coopers Pale Ale to drink on the lawn, while I tickle me balls.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Baxter, thankfully Joe sixpacks and hockey moms don’t get a vote in NZ.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
DPF, you are soooo conservative.
There should be no age restrictions at all. Just make it so any consequences caused by alcohol abuse, either to self, others or property, are paid for by those who cause them. This way nobody can impose their lifestyle choice onto me.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I have yet to see an example of prohibition working to improve society.
We have attempted to solve the problems caused by drugs by making them illegal, which has only served to give opportunities to criminals to make more money.
Prostitution was illegal, and all that did was make it less safe for all concerned.
An of course Prohibition (i.e. the ban on all forms of alcohol) in the US was a complete failure.
Prohibition attempts to tackle supply, when the real problem is demand.
We want a society where adults can exercise their freedom to enjoy their lives, without harming others. If they choose to harm themselves, then that is their choice.
Quick popularist fixes like raising the drinking age will do little to address the real problems we have and will probably do more harm especially if they make parents think that they don’t have to work hard to raise children who behave well, meaning they behave in a manner that does not do harm to others.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
DPF: And the way to deal with that is to make it an offence to supply alcohol to minors in an irresponsible manner.
It is already illegal to supply alcohol to minors unless you are the parent or legal guardian.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Razork – was that a straw man argument? Is it really true that the only reason the drinking age was lowered was because it would make youth more responsible with alcohol? Is it really true that it hasn’t happened, or that the behaviour with alcohol is noticeably different than it used to be?
If Fletch’s argument is that people should be able to wait another two years to be able to drink, then why not another 5 years? Make the drinking age 23. In fact, if drinking is per se such a bad thing, why allow it at all – we ban cannabis use, lets just ban alcohol as well. There is no good reason for randomly picking an age based on “that’s old enough to drink.” There is a very compelling argument to pick an age based on when someone becomes an adult and can live with the consequences of their choices. It won’t stop some people making stupid choices, but it is the point in your life where society stops trying to protect you from the consequences of your actions.
If you’re old enough to pay the consequences of breaking the law, to fight for your country, to get married, to enter binding legal contracts, then I say you’re also old enough to make a choice whether to drink or not. And, the same as some 45 year old people I know, also old enough to make stupid choices. If you were expecting that a change in the drinking age would somehow make everyone make good choices, then you were on a fools errand.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
PaulL
Completely agree.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
PaulL. An 18 year old may old enough to drink, but they are not old enough to be drunk. In fact in my experience they are just a fucken pollution. I have no qualms about them drinking with there parents, or confined on an island somewhere until they are sober, but I have a problem with them being out in public drunk. I’m looking selfishly at how their actions may affect me. (same with voting – that’s how the greens got in)
Besides the general rule of thumb is if the speed limit is 100k, then everyone does 110. If the age is 18, then 16 year olds are in there too.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Patrick – my point exactly. Making something illegal for person A in order to stop person B from doing it is not something that any National govt should be doing. I understand that Labour didn’t really care about people’s rights, but National should. So the argument that we should set the speed limit for everyone at 90 km/h so that those who speed will only speed at 100 is not one I agree with. If you want a particular behaviour to be illegal then make that behaviour illegal.
Your problem seems not to be that these people are drinking, but that they are drunk and obnoxious in public places. Well, let’s make that illegal. In fact, I’m pretty sure it already is. So how about we let them drink, but any time they are found by the police in an obviously intoxicated state in a public place, or, even more, any time they are behaving in a way not consistent with public well being, the book should be thrown at them. Old enough to drink, also old enough to pay the consequences of being drunk.
If we continue down your path, we’ll start making kitchen knives illegal because some people cut themselves on them. We’ll make guns illegal because some people use them for crimes. The only reason you think this is OK is because it doesn’t impact you personally, not because it is a reasonable thing to do.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
PaulL to quote you and to agree with you, you are “the thickie in the room”, dont just get your knowledge from posts, read all the news papers and articles before you comment. Simon Power is a prevaricator who blows with the wind, cant make his mind up, has not shown any principled stand. Georgebolwing stop blowing PaulL off.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
And if we continue down that path, we make everything legal just as long as no one sees the damage in public.
The last Govt already thought of that and ****ed it up by making prostitution legal. Has that worked? Seems to be just as many prostitutes being killed – maybe more than before.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I’m with slijmbal and bharmer on this one.
At 18yrs – we treat people as adult for everything at a given age – sign contracts, marry (without parental permission), serve on a jury. tried as an adult, serve as policeman, Soldier etc
The issue is nailing those who get pissed in public and those who get pissed in public and cause grief no matter their age.
As for supplying teens alcohol, same thing.
Kids +13 can drink with mum and dad as they are under their control and authority.
But remember the way of the secularists is to nail everyone to stop the very few, remember now you break the law if you smack your child for discipline purposes.
has it stooped abuse and deaths?
of course not and the same applies to this issue.
We have a drinking problem in NZ, too many get pissed or wasted in public.
nail them all for drunk in public, simple.
but we won’t as theres too much profit to be made by Mr Sensible and his mates supporters.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
hic!
January 8th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
My vote is for no legal drinking age. Its lazy thinking and a waste of time discussing at what age someone is responsible enough to drink. Rough statistics (very rough) tells us that 50% of those at the prescribed age would not meet the required level of responsibility what ever it might be and 50% would meet or exceed it. A nation that prided itself on its thinking ability would be better served spending its energy working out ways to solve drink related problems associated with no legal age. A range of measures would need to be investigated, these measures might include making public drunkeness illegal, a 0 drink drive policy, a 0 tolerance for working under the influence, advocating a wider age range at all drinking establishments …………….. Our drinking culture has made marked improvements over the last 40 years and if we apply ourselves we can make further improvements. We are the adults here, we must show the way to drink responsibily and demonstrate a harsh reponse to those who do not meet the expected standards of acceptable behaviour, we need to reconnect with our community. With thoughtful legislation we can show the world how its done, we could develop a civilised drinking cuture where the rights of the many are paramount over those few who cannot drink responsibily.
During prohibition in the USA as drinking was illegal it follows that there was no legal drinking age. How did they deal with teenage drinking in those times?
January 8th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
PaulL. This is a ridiculous thing to say;
“If we continue down your path, we’ll start making kitchen knives illegal because some people cut themselves on them. We’ll make guns illegal because some people use them for crimes”
On that basis we would make cars illegal, and not drinking and then driving them. It’s already accepted drinking prohibits you from undertaking many activities, Driving being one, allegedly because you are not in proper control of yourself if you exceed a government prescribed limit.
My point is teenagers have shown by and large they don’t know when to stop, and I would guess that their bodies do not process alcohol the same way as someone more mature.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Brian Smaller (627) Vote: 8 0 Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
“Inventory2 – RTDs vary in alcohol content from 5%-12%. Beers vary from about 4% – 9% (got that from ALAC web site). Getting wasted on beer or wasted on an RTD is still wasted.”
Brian. Tell me what beer had a 9% alcohol content in the days Inventory2 was talking about? Shit Elephant beer was the strongest I can remember, and that was 5% – but you could only buy/afford DB Green/Brown and Lion Red by the flagon
January 8th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Two things are apparent
Firstly the media is a consistent organisation – if they can find a “half true headline at best” to start a story they will. They did it under the previous government as well. You would not see this sort of bullshit headline in The Washington Post.
Secondly, we skim newspapers and quickly fall into the trap of believing the headlines.
I like the form of The Barking Dog bar that has just opened in Botany (Auckland) which will only serve alcohol (and I think allow on the premises) to people who are 21 and over.
Still that will not alter the fact that the Police say that over half of young people involved in alcohol related incidents had their last drink at home (wording slightly distorted on purpose).
January 8th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“I would guess.” And I would guess that they’re just young and stupid. My point is and remains that the thing you have an issue with is excess consumption of alcohol by young adults, not any consumption at all. You’re suggesting banning something because some people misuse it. Seems to me the last 9 years in NZ have infected your thinking.
But, we’re now repeating ourselves. And are back where we started – you think that 18 year olds aren’t adults and need special protecting from themselves. But only as it relates to alcohol. I think 18 year olds are adults, and need to make decisions on their own.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:00 am
“And I would guess that they’re just young and stupid” – so should they be drinking?
“Seems to me the last 9 years in NZ have infected your thinking.” – no, but being told what I’m thinking is certainly reminding me of it
January 9th, 2009 at 8:12 am
I’ve never understood NZ’s dire obscession with alcohol.
Some moves I’d like to see:
1. Make the purchase age for booze in line with voting, contracts, military service etc.
2. Tax the living bejesus out of this filthy poison. I’m talking 50-60% of the purchase price.
3. Implement some of those American laws – e.g. open bottle in the car.
4. Wind back retail distribution coverage – starting with supermarkets and dairies.
5. Alchohol related injury = no ACC coverage.
6. Banning [Yes the greenies' favourite!] booze advertising. [Just like tobacco products]
January 9th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Alcohol causes a lot of problems in society and I’m all for raising the age of supply back to 20. However I also support keeping the driving age at 15 years. My thinking being that alcohol can have a far greater negative effect on a young person than picking up the responsibility of learning to drive.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:15 am
zero drinking age will have some maori feeding DB to their new borns as a game to watch them get drunk – then when the child goes blind or their organs go into terminal failure, baby screaming and blood from every oriface, they’ll claim colonialism made them do it.
and Age 13+ will allow ignorant whities of the “harden up” brigade to slowly damage the developing brains and internals of their children at BBQs – just fast enough so they can increase the lables of “useless” they already use to make themselves feel better, only this time instead of it being a projection of the parent, it will actually be physiologically true.
Come on people, theory is one thing, but at the coal face of NZ more than 50% are ignorant as fuck and quite happy with that situation.
Mix ignorant legalised substance abuse with the taint of socialism and you’ve just complicated and intensified everything that’s already wrong with our country.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:24 am
The better answer: raise the excise taxes. (cue howls of protest).
But serioualy, taxes are be a useful way to limit demand and suply and deal with externalities – in this case binge drinking and long term alcohol abuse. Taxes do well to constrain tobacco use.
When a teen myself (and the age was 20) we could still access alcohol, but we could only afford enough to be happy, not blotto. There is some good evidence (incl. Europe and elsewhere) that the increase in binge drinking culture is because it so much more affodable than 20 years ago.
OK am I prepared to pay say 50% more for a wine or a beer? Probably.
Actually I would be snobby about it and help our wine industry – highest taxes on alco-pops.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:36 am
GJ,
” I also support keeping the driving age at 15 years”
This is one that I disagree with entirely.
I used to work with a guy who completed a Masters looking at driving related injury for insurance claims. His conclusions indicated that the length of time a young person had been driving had absolutely zero impact on the likelyhood of having a major accident – the AGE of the driver was the all important factor (ie; an 18 year old who has three years driving ‘experience’ is still more likely to have a major accident, than a 21 year old who has only just completed the qualification).
Physiologically, we know that 15 year old brains are still developing into full adult form. I believe it is simply far too young to be put in charge of a 1-ton missle…
January 9th, 2009 at 10:40 am
pkiwi, what a load of crap!
Taxes do nothing in constraining tobacco use, nor would they do anything to stem alcohol abuse.
The only thing higher taxes do is give bloody politicians more of our money to abuse. If you were even slightly honest in your statement you would be suggesting brewers, distillers etc. should increase their profit margins by 100%.
Nor does affordablity come into the equation, those who will abuse alcohol will find a way of accessing it.
The way to reduce current alcohol abuse is to tell the we-know-best crowd to target genuine alcohol abuse instead of pretending that all alcohol use is abuse thus inflating the figures they are so fond of quoting.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:43 am
You can’t raise the age to 20, that would cut off the supply of fresh young female meat for the pub creeps to prey on. Everyone knows these young ladies are only intelligent enough to choose the right bloke after a few drinks, its a moral outrage to raise the drinking age to 20!!
How will we uphold our nations reputation for quality night life and our drinking and rooting culture? some people have no morality!!
January 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Phil: If that is true, how is it that we produce so many talented young race car drivers in both go carts and circuit racing at well under the age of 15. The more relevant point is that we still don’t teach them to drive correctly before issuing a licence and letting them loose on our roads. Teach them responsibility in our homes and schools and then have a descent driving test and 15 to obtain a licence remains fine in my books.
Your friend may have had a masters looking at driving related injuries, however I bet he never looked into driver related skills which has a lot more relevance to the issue of an age to obtain a drivers licence.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Another step I would like to see is significant insurance premium discounts for non-drinkers.
The fact is that alcohol has and is the greatest contributing factor in death, illness, misery, poverty and despair on the planet.