Nanny Rudd
February 10th, 2010 at 10:50 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Kevin Rudd would like to see the drinking age in Australia raised from 18 to 21 years.
The Prime Minister said he would prefer an increase, given a recent series of tragic accidents involving P-plate drivers.
Since the start of the year 12 teenagers have been killed in cars driven by P-plate drivers in New South Wales and Victoria.
In one crash that killed five teenagers in Melbourne the 19-year-old driver had a blood alcohol level almost four times the legal limit.
I love the logic here. Because some young Australians break the very serious laws about drink driving, Kevin Rudd thinks the solution is to lower the drinking age, as if that would make a difference.
The sort of people who drive pissed, are not going to change their behaviour because it is technically illegal to purchase the alcohol, as well as drive after drinking it. It won’t affect the problem drink drivers, but will criminalise a million or so young Australians.
Tags: drinking age, Kevin Rudd
February 10th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Having heard him on the radio, he said he would like to do that, but he also said he would be wanting to see evidence that it would make a difference before he did it.
Evidence based policy is what he cited as his way of doing things.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 10:56 am
raising from 18 to 21 = lowering?
Guess your political bias got to your counting ability. How many National Party MPs have recently also exprerssed a view of raising the drinking age in NZ?
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 11:00 am
And don’t forget, because one defendant was accused of abusing the defence of provocation, Nanny Key ran right in to have it abolished.
And because some women complained about the subsidised herceptin treatment being to short, Nanny Key ran right in, and against all the evidence, against the advice from Pharmac and oncologists, wasted squillions by over-funding Herceptin for a year.
And back to Rudd for a moment, he is only exressing an opinion as drinking ages are decided (with the exception of ACT and NT) by state governments, not federal.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 11:08 am
“I believe in something called evidence-based policy, which is if the evidence is there and it’s capable of being proven that it works, we take a look and these things and make a decision.”
An internet poll on http://www.news.com.au yesterday showed 54.9 per cent support for lifting the drinking age, with 45.7 per cent opposed.
Looking at the internet poll, I bet that would fly at the Nat Caucus here!
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 11:12 am
DPF how about you come to Brisbane and I’ll take you out in the Valley. WHen you see the behaviour of some of these so called adults who think drinking responsibly is getting as shit faced as possible then starting a fight, I’m sure you will see why the vast majority want the little shits banned from drinking until they are older.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 11:14 am
I’m not sure about raising the drinking age to 21, but at least Rudd is doing something about drinking problems.
As a veteran tippler, I’m still appalled by the devastation teenage drinking is causing in New Zealand.
NZ wankers pursue tobacco smokers even outside, but ignore what teenage boozing is doing to the country, and seem merely to tut tut at the P epidemic. The new wowsers would also legalise cannabis-smoking lung damage while hunting down the last of the cigarette smokers.
In the short term, libertarianism doesn’t work with drugs, including the one which causes most damage in NZ – alcohol. The long term, in which the vulnerable die out, takes too long and is barbaric.
So good on Rudd for at least looking at the problem.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Doesn’t separating the drinking age from the driving age by as much as possible make some sense?
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 11:17 am
What are you actually saying here DPF, is he rasing or lowering it? Your quote does not match your commments.
Missread, misstype whats up?”
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 11:22 am
But this is typical of lazy governments looking to punish the good citizens for the actions of the bad citizens.
Case in point,Until our local council banned drinking at the local beaches I and my wife and a group of friends would take an evening picnic to one of the local beaches complete with beer and wine and quietly enjoy ourselves.
Not any more These bastards have now banned our quiet enjoyment.
What they should have done is told the bad bastards if they played up they would be locked up and the key thrown away.
Do that a few times Ignore the PC culturally stupid brigade and the problem would go away.
But no they punish the majority for the actions of a small minority
We need to stand up to both the Pollies and the bad bastards. Tell them unless they fix the problem the citizens will take direct action. In the case of mine a citizens enforcement group would soon sort the problem out.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Then let them be criminalised. Young people and drink and some older people even as old as 40 cannot manage alcohol and think it is fun to get drunk and be a social nuisance. They even brag how great it is to talk about imbibing huge quantities of drink. If I had my way I would ban the stuff completely.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 11:49 am
You are wrong here DPF.
Come visit Tauranga or New Plymouth, and check the late night carnage the under 20′s cause.
Sure, the over 20′s get up to trouble too, but, 18 is just too young.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
You mean like this one ; age 22
Vote:http://www.sunlive.co.nz/12421a1.page
February 10th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
These are symptoms.Symptoms of a feckless and irresponsible element in society. Hammer the bastards that need hammering.People need to start being held accountable for their own actions.
I wish people would stop calling alcohol a drug,its part of the 1984, PC language /control ,wowser thing.
You can marry at 16 ,join the military at 17 (I think) vote at 18,so I reckon going to the pub or having a drink at 18 is OK. But if someone does commit a crime then deal with it. We’re all about rights and entitlements and nothing about good old common sense ,decency, duties and responsibilities.
In the NZ case I understand someone did away with the offence of public drunkenness ,well how stupid is that. Now the cops have to baby sit these pricks instead of arrest,lock up and charge. That would make some of the little shits and their largely useless parents think twice before getting hammered or supplying cars and money and refuges for them.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Here is the lack of logic in those who opposes the lifting of the drinking age. It is simply a matter of access.
Will lifting it stop SOME young people drinking , driving and killing themselves and others? Absolutely not.
The same way that making burglary illegal has not stopped SOME people breaking in and stealing things.
What it does do, is stops MORE people doing it. Humans are, as a rule, a fairly straight bunch, and the majority sticks to rules. It is when you make it okay for people to do things that more will do it.
One can argue the politics of interference etc, or nanny state etc. however we are talking about young and for a large part a slightly less experienced and/or responsible group (Not all, I know that there are people in their 50′s less responsible than teenagers and teenagers that are more responsible than adult – I know a young man who had been looking after his ill mother and his young siblings from the age of 14….)
Here is the thing. I and many others used to be accosted outside liquor stores by underage people wanting us to buy them booze… Have you noticed in NZ how that has changed? (Well it had when I left 18 months ago.) Now it is 14 year olds asking 18 year olds to buy them drink.
You will never stop people abusing alcohol, you will never stop people taking drugs. You can however make it more acceptable, easier to access and therefore more damaging to society. (The one thing that I cannot agree with Libertarians over). The same way as making murder or theft or rape an offense will never stop those who are inclined to commit those crimes. However I would hazard a guess that if it was legal to walk into a store and just take an item you felt like, there would be a hell of a lot more people doing it, than there is now.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
“You will never stop people abusing alcohol, you will never stop people taking drugs. You can however make it more acceptable, easier to access and therefore more damaging to society. (The one thing that I cannot agree with Libertarians over)”
You fail to add that Libs would also hold people personally responsible for their actions.Unlike theft,rape and murder, getting sloshed is not a crime…no-ones rights are violated by someone pissed as a newt.Its when that person then commits an act that infringes on someone elses rights theres an issue.
Also the failure of prohibition re drugs is beyond doubt…..it has worsened things,not improved them.People who still support prohibition are a danger to us all,especially children and should be outed.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Rudd is just the tip of the Australian nanny state iceberg.
In Western Australia, young drunken louts have caused no end of problems at Australia Day celebrations. So this year the Police Commissioner appeared on telly and radio beforehand, angrily promising a crackdown… on mums and dads “sneaking” a bottle of wine down to the foreshore to have a celebratory drink during the fireworks.
End result – hundreds of thousands of people stayed away from what used to be an all-day celebration. Those putting on entertainment and selling food and drink suffered hugely as a result. Then people jammed the roadways just prior to the fireworks, coming down just to see that and go home, but still around 100,000 stayed away.
And the Commissioner said the reduction in arrests (from just over 140 last year to somewhere round 80 this year) “proved” he’d done the right thing. Somehow, deterring hundreds of thousands of families and criminalising those who wanted to drink responsibly so as to deter a handful of thugs was seen as an intelligent solution.
Even the (Liberal) Premier said he thought it was nonsense, and received a telling off from Nanny Commissioner for his trouble.
As tvb (and others) have said, the solution is simple – punish, and punish severely, those whose drunkeness infringes on others. And get the hell out of the lives of everyone else.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
And then James manages to miss the point completely…
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
On that “Libs would hold people responsible…” I am constantly amazed at the narrowness of that view.
You see james, sometimes, just sometimes, holding some-one accountable afterward, is just that. Afterward.
Yes prohibition does not work, controls though has an influence.
Prohibition will never stop something, however tighter controls can lessen the impact.
The fact that I have insurance when my house burns down, does not mean I walk away without costs when it happens, it just means that I do not lose as much.
Holding some-one accountable afterward is such an afterthought is it not?
Here is a question I would like you to answer. Just down the road from you is a P House. The gangs run it and in the last couple of years there has been some serious sexual assaults happen there. From the Lib point of view, your daughter who is 14 is more than welcome to associate with this group, hang out there and party as hard as she wants. After all, when these guys get her hooked, you will hold them accountable, and if they manage to assault her then again they will be brought to answer.
Now I know that that was one cheesy and banal example, so dont shoot me for that, just consider the argument.
You see with stuff like P and drugs (including cigarettes) your arguments fall absolutely flat. Because cigarettes are legal, more people smoke than do any other drug. (That number is slowly falling because it is cooler to do other drugs)
The problem you have is that legal or not, providing something that gets another hooked will always mean that the criminal element will be involved. Have a look at the drug trade in Holland. And not the meaningless stats that various groups throw about. Go and sit in a coffee shop and see who really runs it. Eastern Euros. Yep that hotbed of old hippy peace and love.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Isn’t it ironic that Rudd is suggesting raising the drinking age to 21 to reduce anti social behaviour (drink driving), when the previous NZ Labour led government, after dropping the drinking age from 20 to 18, and then observing a resultant increase in anti social behaviour (drink driving, etc) in the 18-20 age group – refused to raise the drinking age back to 20.
Good on Rudd for suggesting it.
Let’s hope our National led government seriously considers reinstating the drinking age back to 20.
Dropping the drinking age was one of the (and there were many) dumbest things the previous Labour government did – and once again with absolutely no mandate from the people (no surprises there).
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Even better – the p-platers were more than 4 times the legal limit when they crashed. The legal limit for a p-plater is a lot less than the legal limit for someone not on a p-plate.
So, to put it another way, a p-plater had an accident and killed 5 people. He was at close to the legal limit that most drivers have. He illegally had friends in his car? The answer here is to make it illegal for all Australians under 21 to drink.
Now do we see the problem?
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Why does this seem EXACTLY like Steven Joyce wanting to COMPULSORILY put hideous polycarbonate shields in all taxis because one or two taxi drivers are attacked very occasionally? (Not to dis the terrible recent murder in Mount Eden).
This seems like rampant populism.
They used to have these things in many taxis in Australia too and they make riding in those car distinctly unpleasant for us law abiding types.
Nanny Joyce…?
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Kris K, I guess you missed my post up top – Rudd can say what he likes, because with the exception of NT & ACT, he has no legislative power here. Alcohol licencing and control is a state government responsibilty.
Vote:February 10th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
“Dropping the drinking age was one of the (and there were many) dumbest things the previous Labour government did – and once again with absolutely no mandate from the people (no surprises there).”
Vote:Haha. I know you think you are more ‘enlightened’ than the rest of us Kris, but you might want to avoid rewriting history. Or you might want to check a few dates.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Short Shriveled [February 10th, 2010 at 9:06 pm],
You’re correct.
It was a conscience vote of MPs back in 1999 – how quickly we forget.
I think I had in my mind the more recent opposition of the previous Labour led government to the reinstatement of the drinking age to 20.
I still hope the age is reset to 20 after 10+ years of this failed experiment.
Vote: