Blaming the drinking age?
The HoS reports:
His son was killed by a teen driver who broke every rule. Now a grieving dad wants the drinking age raised – and his plea comes as the Government gives its strongest signal yet of major changes to driving and liquor laws.
Gerald Fluerty lost his son Ezra, 19, in an accident that “had all the ingredients for disaster”.
“I think these young people, at 18, just don’t have the ability to make the right decision on their own.”
Driver Maia Thorby, 18, struck a power pole while speeding on a learner licence in a car with no warrant or registration. He was four times the legal alcohol limit and had been smoking cannabis. …
Donald said she wanted to see the drinking age increased and for young drivers to get more education before they took to the roads on their own.
“They also need to be taught how to drink in moderation.”
One can only have the deepest sympathy for any parent who loses their child in a road accident – especially one caused by a young drunk and stoned driver.
But that does not mean that their identification of the alcohol purchase age is logical.
Let us look at what the the 18 year old driver did that night:
- He broke the law by driving at night on a learners licence
- He broke the law by driving with passengers on a learners licence
- He broke the law by driving a car with no warrant
- He broke the law by driving a car with no registration
- He broke the law by speeding
- He broke the law by smoking cannabis
- He broke the law by driving with a blood alcohol four times the legal limit
- He broke the law by driving stoned
Now I’m sorry but does anyone rationally think that making it illegal to purchase alcohol at 18 or 19 would have in anyway affected what happened? I mean you can’t even buy cannabis legally at any age, and they managed to get some.
If an 18 year old has absolutely no regard for the law, for basic safety, and is the sort to drive while stoned and pissed, then the age of alcohol purchase is not what needs to change.
The vast majority of 18 and 19 year olds appreciate being able to have a wine with dinner, go out nightclubbing or buy some beers at the supermarket to take home for the rugby. Turning all of them into criminals is not the answer to the problems caused by the minority. Especially when a law change would probably have made absolutely no difference to the outcome in this tragic case.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Why worry.?
All we need to fix this problem is Steve Joyce, another hundred Wellington bureaucrats, and another 5000 pages of legislation.
Works every time, don’t it Stevey?
November 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Regardless , a legal drinking age of 18 is crazy. You’ve just got to go out on a friday night to see the mayhem caused by young drinkers.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:42 am
DPF – one could argue every other bad decision he made was because he was under the influence
November 15th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Whenever anything bad happens the there oughta be a law brigade come out and politicians are usually only too happy to oblige.
Laws get tightened peoples freedom and independence curtailed – and shit still happens the way it always has and will
November 15th, 2009 at 9:50 am
“because he was under the influence”
Yep, under the influence of Progressivism, that political ideology that has broken down NZ’s family structure and thereby its moral base.
Made fathers into weak shadows of the strong figures they are meant to be, and children into amoral narcissists.
It is the left’s long time attack on the family unit that has led to a generation of children who have no respect or trust for their parents, and for whom telling a lie is as easy as falling off a log.
The traditional patriarchal family unit is the answer, but who will dare speak such sacrilege amongst our spineless PC cowed politicians??
November 15th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I think the fact that he was driving under the influence of a drug with no legal age for consumption invalidates the drinking age idea
November 15th, 2009 at 9:52 am
It is more of a public attitude problem than a legal problem. For example, how often do you hear people laughing and joking about how pissed they have been and how stupid they were when they were pissed – and what proportion of people laugh along with it.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:53 am
These deaths increasingly happen because more and more parents today, are failures as parents.
Temptations have always been there for teenagers (of every generation for centuries), but it is their parents who are responsible for not instilling in their children a sense of what is safe or not safe (like getting into a car driven by a drunk driver), or developing their own moral compass about what is right or wrong.
I’m not too bothered that these kids die, so long as they only hurt themselves in the process. It’s natural selection really, where the stupid and dumb are removed from the gene pool.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:54 am
How many teenagers are sometimes stupid and dumb and should naturally select early graves?
November 15th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Read an interesting article on this the other day-
Mike Adams nails it in his piece “Weak Negotiating Fathers”
http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/11/09/weak_negotiating_fathers?page=full&comments=true
November 15th, 2009 at 10:15 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3063667/Booze-price-hike-meets-retailers-resistance
Here is another lot of arseholes trying to tell retailers how much they can make on their product. So, according to the Law Commision, whose members I suspect don’t buy their wine from Pak N Save but have it delivered, I should not be able to get alcohol that may suit my budget because other people are pissheads. I know people who buy nothing but top shelf stuff who are alcoholics. Why don’t they just ban alcohol except for the enlightened few who know everything and how everyone else should live.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:19 am
“wreck1080 (763) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Regardless , a legal drinking age of 18 is crazy. You’ve just got to go out on a friday night to see the mayhem caused by young drinkers.”
Wreck, I’m out every Friday night, driving the city streets, working.
Most “mayhem” I see is caused by 20-25 year olds with a bit of help from those 26 and over.
Of course I see bugger all “mayhem”, mainly just a large number of young people enjoying themselves.
But I agree, a drinking age of 18 is crazy.
No drinking age limit and a crack-down on public drunken behaviour (and inappropriate liquor sales) aimed at forcing people to take responsibility for their own actions accompanied by a campaign to make public displays of inebriation socially unacceptable (as drink/driving is now) would make far more sense.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:30 am
New Zealand has become a nation of whingers and moaners. Forget the Poms: we are the improved Down-Under version.
The number of people wanting to ban things because they don’t like them, is incredible. The list includes soda drinks, fast food, tobacco, alcohol, party pills, quad bikes, energy drinks, etc.
My message to all these do-gooders, busybodies, and killjoys: get lost and out of my life.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I think the important thing to ask ourselves is, making the driver 22 years old but holding all other factors constant, would the outcome have been any different? Sadly I don’t think so.
Age limits will always be arbitrary. I wish there was such a simple solution as raising them, but unfortunately there isn’t.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Beer Wine & Spirits had a lobbiest with her own parliamentary pass until matt Robson kicked up a stink.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
The 2009 Social Report found;
Most recent data
In 2006/2007, 23 per cent of drinkers of alcohol aged 15 years and over had a potentially hazardous drinking pattern.
Longer term trend
There has been no change in the rate since 1996/1997.
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/media-releases/2009/pr-2009-10-23.html
November 15th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I use to drive stoned quite a bit back in the day. I really, honestly believe it made me a better drive. I drove slower, was more aware.
However, if anyone knows, combing alcohol with pot is a very bad mix. It intensifies the drunkness and makes you quite tired.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:58 am
“The vast majority of 18 and 19 year olds appreciate being able to have a wine with dinner, go out nightclubbing or buy some beers at the supermarket to take home for the rugby”
Yes, well the vast majority of 2-3 year-olds like to poke knitting needles and knives into wall sockets, and swallow small plastic toys. But they don’t know any better because their brains are un-developed and so we don’t let them do it.
Same with 18-19 year-olds – their brains are under-developed, they make poor fatal decisions, so society needs to control their behaviour too.
[DPF: So you think then that 19 year olds should also be banned from marrying, having sex, driving a car, voting, joining the Army?]
November 15th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
This may not be a “quick fix”, but it will have an effect when the consequences are understood.
ALL those convicted of an alcohol/vehicle related charge get an IRD tag which removes them from ANY welfare entitlement,
for a period of NOT LESS than 12 months (or more, depending on the degree of offending).
This includes DPB with children (brings some consequence to family), includes Pension, includes long term Invalids, perhaps not short term Sickness.
Where this appears too draconian then use IRD to tag at a lesser rate OVER a longer time.
With luck the pisshead(s) will emmigrate. Good job well done.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I know, we need another sherry tax, don’t see many old buggers out creating mayhem now, do you.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“I think these young people, at 18, just don’t have the ability to make the right decision on their own.” Yet, presumably, they have the aptitude to vote? 18 and 19 year olds are legally adults, with all rights and responsibilities that entails.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
At 18 a young person can
1. serve in the armed forces or police and get killed for us,
2. they can enter into marriage
3. They can enter into legal contracts,
4. vote for the wankers in parliament
and some say the answer is to say they can’t have a beer
Let’s get real here.
We do have a drinking culture in NZ, but who are the modellers to those under 18?
Those over 18.
So let’s have a “drunk in public law” by all means and then use it.
1. Lock up drunks (no matter the age and gender) in Public,
2. take them before a magistrate on the next working day and fine them and bind them over.
3. 2nd time they come before the courts they go to 30 days jail no excuses.
Now that’s fair instead of chomping down on those who are copying us!
More govt income through increased taxes for them to waste is not the answer.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Its not the making of things illegal as has been pointed out here, its the lack of consequences for actions. The punishment needs to fit the crime. Parents have as redbaiter alludes to, been stripped of their right to parent.
I would also like to see the lifting of automatic name suppression for chidren responsible for extreme acts of violence. This is where the culture of invincibility and you can’t touch me starts.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Talking of which, this from Aussie just a wee while ago.
Fines for parents
Sunday, 15, Nov, 2009 4:16PM
Proposed changes to drinking laws would see Australian parents hit with $6,000 fines for allowing alcohol at teenage parties.
The Australian Drug Foundation is calling for the tough penalties to be brought in as part of a radical reform of drinking laws.
The state and federal governments will look at the proposal next month.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Really? Are those who think this the same people who think the under class should be stripped of their right to be parents?
Actually it seems like there are still a lot of parents parenting. It’s up to those parents to be good parents, it’s their responsibility. No point wimping out and saying that it is all the government’s fault if your kids misbehave.
Laws trying to sort out behavioural problems wouldn’t be necessary if more parents taught more responsibility. By example.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
November 15th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
BULLSHIT. And I substantiate that by pointing out that the vast majority of 18-19 year olds do not make fatal decisions – otherwise all of us would have been dead before 20. Some do make bad decisions – most don’t.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Just ban alco-pops. Only teenagers drink them because they taste like fizzy, cheap and quick to drink.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
“The Salvation Army is calling for the tax on alcohol be raised by 25 per cent to match the cost of the social harm it causes.”
That’s why I stopped donating money to the Sallies years ago. They not only protect paedophiles but are a pack of wowsers too. Good grief.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
If he wasnt pretty pissed (ie: about 3 bottles of wine equivalent – thats a LOT of alcohol) then its almost certain that he wouldnt have done all the other stupid things – like driving.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I got my driver’s licence as early as I could, the moment I passed my 17th birthday. I have only occasionally broken the law with regard to the speed limit. None of the other things you list. In my sixty years of driving I have had one speeding ticket due to being mislead by a supervisor at work, I was driving the firms car, and five parking tickets. Obviously I’m a wimp
However this wimp was brought up by guardians who taught me to respect and obey the law.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:40 am
barry (429) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
If he wasnt pretty pissed (ie: about 3 bottles of wine equivalent – thats a LOT of alcohol) then its almost certain that he wouldnt have done all the other stupid things – like driving.
He was too high to walk and broke from buying all those drugs.
How else was he to travel?
November 16th, 2009 at 8:43 am
@ 10:50am [DPF: So you think then that 19 year olds should also be banned from marrying, having sex, driving a car, voting, joining the Army?]
Weird logic DPF – I’m not aware that voting, marrying and having sex are potentially fatal activities. Do you know otherwise?
And joining the Army is a very safe occupation – more die from accidents at home (like driving Unimogs over cliffs), than fighting abroad.
And regarding driving, well the Government during your absence overseas has all but declared it intends raising the driving age.
[DPF: The driving age is going from 15 to 16 - something I support. By your logic it would be 20. And joinging the Army can be very fatal. And so can sex - ever heard of AIDs. And marriage is a life long commitment. How can you possibly say a 19 year old can be mature enough to decide to get married, but not to purchase a bottle of wine]
November 16th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I think it makes sense to creep the driving age up, move it to 16 and re-evaluate after a year or three.
Drinking is a problem that won’t be fixed by regulating more. And it is not just a teenage problem, getting pissed and make a joe hunt of yourself is commonly seen to be “normal” here across a wide age range. Laws are not going to change adult attitudes to alcohol, so teenagers will keep getting many wrong messages.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:57 am
I think 15 is to young to drive without an adult. Also, 18 is too young of a drinking age. Both should be increased to 17 and 21. But my point is is not the age, there has been a 70 year old woman who killed a young father. She was back on the road in 28 days. This is surprising. The laws should be changed to only able to drive to and from work if your convicted of drunk driving. If you don’t work, you don’t drive for 6 months. 3 offenses, you loose your license permanately and start taking a cab or bus. If you kill someone under the influence of anything it’s manslaughter and you permanently loose your license and take a cab or bus. The victim’s or families of victims lives means nothing to the legal system. I don’t know why these politicians don’t get balls and change it. They have been talking about it for years.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:19 am
mt_tinman: check out tauranga then. every time i go out there seems to be fights. to me they look under 20.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:21 am
The crux of this discussion is that it is right and proper for society to seek to restrict people from behaviour that can potentially harm themselves and others, and as a group. young people are more likely to be overly represented in such activities. This is particularly evident with NZ having the lowest driving age in the world, and a drinking age of 18.
The result is that the single biggest cause of death for young people in this country is motor accidents – 33.5% in fact. Logic suggests that if you raise the driving and drinking ages, than fewer young people will die on the road, and they will be less likely to wipe out innocent motorists in the process.
It is unhelpful in this discussion to throw in the irrelevant distraction of age restrictions for marriage, sex and joining the army. The issue is about limiting the ability of young people to kill themselves, and especially others, by driving pissed.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Wouldn’t it be hypocritical of adults to regulate teenagers more
while adults keep buying vehicles far powerful than necessary,
while adults keep speeding and complaining about “revenue gathering” tickets,
while adults keep getting proudly pissed,
and while adults keep glorifying violence?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:51 am
You hit it on the nail Pete George … Another idea … coral these youngsters in say two years National Service between 18 and 20 … would help with the unemployment problem too.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I think one LARGE and important factor that is missed when comparing the current dring age limit of 18 to the old limit of 20 is this:
Many 18 year olds are still at college and socialise with mainly college kids. They generally do not socialise with adults over 18. Whereas 20 year olds are either working or attending tertiary education institutes. They generally associate with those their own age or older; especially if working. Those you socialise with, and spend time with hugely influence your world view and patterns of behaviour. Surely this is born out by the blow out in youth drunkenness statistics, and the relatively recent development of a youth drinking culture of those under 20, since the age was dropped to 18.
Why are we arguing about this – the stats speak for themselves.
Put the age back up to 20 – the experiment has failed, and failed badly!
November 16th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
DPF – we know you are overseas so you wont be aware that today details were released of the Auckland Police having busted a fake Driver Licence forgery ring centered on an Auckland Grammar School pupil who manufactured and sold hundreds of forged Driver Licences to students from Auckland to Whnagarei, at $100 a time, to use as phony ID to get into pubs.
When are you going to accept that the drinking age, at 18, is too low, and that under 18 year-olds are queuing up to pay $100 to buy fake ID’s, for the sole purpose of getting into pubs?
Your support of the current 18 year-old drinking age is as flawed as you support of the people who wanted to use cellphones whilst driving. I’m glad you are not in Parliament.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I have to agree with Chris2’s comments on this topic, and specifically with his view that you are way off base on this DPF.
Chris’ post above at 8:08 pm highlights the problem and mindset of those 18 year olds still at college. A 20 year old has usually well and truly left college life behind, and is unlikely to manufacture false IDs for college kids. A different story when you are 18 and most of your mates and peers are still at college with you.
We are doing neither society nor ‘kids’ under 20 a favour by retaining a legal drinking age of 18.
This was another social engineering experiment gone wrong which the previous Labour government brought in – and we need to chuck it out ASAP!
November 17th, 2009 at 10:31 am
If we’re going with nanny-state solutions to drinking, I quite like the drinking age at 20 for liquor stores and 18 for going to bars (where drinking to excess is theoretically far more difficult).
November 17th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I laughed so much I now need a drink. The places that I have got most trashed in have always been bars.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:05 am
This is hardly new – I remember in the 70s drinking in bars at about 17. At one stage some bars got you to sign a form saying you were 20, it was supposed to remove the responsibility from them.
Yeah, I got trashed in bars too, then we would look for parties to go to afterwards. But that has now reversed, young people often get trashed on cheap plonk at home/parties and then go out clubbing, I think many intend to save on bar prices by tanking up first but I don’t know how successful that is.