Keep It 18 press release

April 27th, 2010 at 1:28 pm by David Farrar

YOUTH WINGS CALL ON PARLIAMENT TO

The youth wings of the National, Labour, Green and ACT parties have joined forces in the Keep It 18 campaign, to tell their MPs that increasing the purchase age for to 20 is the wrong thing to do.

“Parliament has twice voted for the purchase age to be 18, and it is disappointing that the is trying to turn the clock back again,” said group spokesperson Jenna Raeburn.

In 1999 Parliament voted to change the age of purchase from 20 to 18 by 59 votes to 55. The previous law had numerous exemptions to it, so in fact 18 year olds had been able to legally drink alcohol in licensed premises for many decades.

In 2006 a move to change it back to 18 was defeated 49 votes to 72. The members of Keep It 18 urge MPs to not spend time on trying to reverse history, but instead to focus on measures that target problem drinkers, rather than seek to punish all 140,000 18 and 19 year olds.

“While primarily focused on the purchase age, we also are concerned over the proposed nationwide setting of closing times, and mandating a one way policy for bars after 2 am. In our opinion, these also fail to target problem drinkers, and again will disadvantage the many responsible young people who enjoy a night out dancing and drinking with friends.”

Young Nationals President Daniel Fielding said “Let’s not have a return to nanny state policies, a blanket measure of raising the will not change the drinking culture. This can only be achieved by introducing measures that places responsibility back onto the individual“

Nicola Wood, Young Labour spokesperson for Keep It 18 said “Young Labour feel a higher drinking age would serve only to exacerbate the harms caused by alcohol. If we want to create a culture of responsible drinking, we need policy which better enables young people to make positive decisions about how they use alcohol, while at the same time acknowledging that this broad problem cannot be pinned on one sector of society. We will oppose any change to the law which discriminates unfairly against young people “

Zachary Dorner, Young Greens spokesperson said “Raising the drinking age has more to do with pointing the finger at young people than solving the real issues. What we need to do is to take a look at ourselves and start treating alcohol as the harmful drug that it is”

ACT on Campus President Peter McCaffrey said “Politicians have no right to tell New Zealanders what they can consume and when they can consume it. The government’s role is to protect you from others not from yourself. The government should focus on targeting people who are causing harm to others rather than act as a nanny-state, telling everyone how much fun they can have “

Jenna Raeburn continued “All our political parties have 18 and 19 year old members who are allowed to vote, allowed to marry, allowed to have sex, and trusted enough to go out and do volunteer work for their parties. Saying that these same members can not be trusted to purchase a bottle of wine from a supermarket or a pint of beer at a bar is hypocritical and insulting, and we urge all MPs in Parliament to reject an age change.”

“We accept the problems caused by alcohol abuse in our society, and are happy to work with MPs in identifying which proposals put forward by the Law Commission are worth supporting. But increasing the purchase age is not one of them. Criminalising 140,000 18 and 19 year olds is the wrong answer,” concluded Miss Raeburn.

Tags: , , ,

58 Responses to “Keep It 18 press release”

  1. peteremcc (341 comments) says:

    Join the Keep It 18 facebook group here: http://www.facebook.com/keepit18

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. wreck1080 (3,725 comments) says:

    little kiddies should be at home in bed, not roaming the streets drunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. peteremcc (341 comments) says:

    I agree.

    What’s that got to do with 18 and 19 year olds?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sean (299 comments) says:

    No one should be roaming the streets drunk but that will happen to anyone that drinks too much. I support maintaining the present age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RightNow (6,646 comments) says:

    I don’t really care too much whether the age is raised back to 20, but certainly some changes need to be made to address our drinking culture. I am in favour of a massive tax increase on alcohol, basically index the cost to the alcohol content. I don’t understand why it’s not already taxed as much as cigarettes (except I do understand the cronyism going on between the booze barons and the politicians).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Why not just enforce the numerous laws which already exist to deal with dickheads and leave the rest of us decent people to enjoy a few sherbets at reasonable prices?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. JeffW (320 comments) says:

    I struggle with any law or regulation which infers that young people are sufficiently responsible to vote but not to undertake other activities. Voting should require the highest level of responsibility.

    From another angle, the approach of blocking the majority for the sins of the minority needs to be consigned to the collectivst dustbin into which Labour was turfed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (22,754 comments) says:

    There have to be far better targeted methods han slapping on taxes and blanket age bans and closing times.

    Isn’t it time to look at this in a mature way? Like the youth wing spokespeople are doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Jeff83 (770 comments) says:

    Acts spokesman got it spot on

    ACT on Campus President Peter McCaffrey said “Politicians have no right to tell New Zealanders what they can consume and when they can consume it. The government’s role is to protect you from others not from yourself. The government should focus on targeting people who are causing harm to others rather than act as a nanny-state, telling everyone how much fun they can have “

    However I would apply this to nearly all substances, its individual responsbility for ones actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Jeff83 (770 comments) says:

    In saying the above I have no problem with the tax on alcohol what soever (to a reasonable extent). It helps pay for some of the indirect costs which could not be recovered in other ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. big bruv (13,217 comments) says:

    “ACT on Campus President Peter McCaffrey said “Politicians have no right to tell New Zealanders what they can consume and when they can consume it.”

    Simplistic bullshit.

    In a perfect world that type of thinking may be OK, however we live in NZ which we all know is far from perfect.

    These idiots who want the right to take as many drugs as they like or drink as much piss as they like are the same fools who expect the tax payer to pick up the tab for their rehab or hospitalisation.

    We need laws and restrictions not to protect people from themselves but to protect the rest of us and our tax payer dollars from their idiotic behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (13,327 comments) says:

    “We need laws and restrictions not to protect people from themselves but to protect the rest of us and our tax payer dollars from their idiotic behaviour.”

    Yes, and you get a horrible and oppresive Nanny State. Is that what you want?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. big bruv (13,217 comments) says:

    Of course that is not what I want Manolo.

    I want a country were we all take personal responsibility for their actions, however, as I said we live in NZ and the people of this nation seem happy to let fuckwits take as many drugs as they like or drink themselves into a state where they are incapable of working, then to make matters worse we go and give these losers a benefit for life.

    Sadly nanny state is a reality, I do agree that she should not intrude into our lives as much as she does but on issues like drugs and booze she is needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    I’m not surprised by such press releases,

    The fact of the matter is that if young people were drinking responsibly, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.

    Now is the time to get tough on this petty ‘binge drinking culture’ and I can’t wait to see some credible changes.

    We all know that youth crime and its overall relationship with the influence of alcohol and illegal substances is significant, it is about time that we help facilitate its decline.

    If they won’t be pushed, make the state push them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. KiwiGreg (3,169 comments) says:

    It’s not an exclusively “young” problem. Laws arent the answer, preventing voters from enjoying legal substances is definately not the answer. I have 4 teenage daughters, I have to deal with teen drinking every time they have friends over, the last thing we need to do is criminalise more people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. KiwiGreg (3,169 comments) says:

    And “Fale” just replace “young” with “maori” and see where you go with your special laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (22,754 comments) says:

    Young people learn “accepted” drinking habits from older people.

    It’s not surprising the Law Society have come up with law changes as options. Maybe the report should have come from the Policing Society and the Self Harm Prevention Society and the Not Behaving Like Stupid Arseholes Society.

    Booze is just used as an excuse for crap behaviour. It’s possible to get quietly drunk and show little if any sign of a change in behaviour. It’s also possible to have one beer and become a violent bastard (or no beers). Alcohol may be a lubricant for stupidity but it isn’t the reason for it.

    Blaming booze for the problems is a cop out – on a society level and an individual level.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. GJ (329 comments) says:

    I have never objected to younger people having a drink if they are sensible. However the behaviour I have witnessed from them is anything but. The evidence is overwhelming in my opinion. Raise the drinking age back to 20 with a zero tolerance for drink driving and a zero tolerance for consuming alcohol in a public place until reaching the same age. Would it make a difference? Absolutely it would and our streets would be a lot safer for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Yes, and you get a horrible and oppresive Nanny State. Is that what you want?

    Would you rather have anarchy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    Special laws?

    One would argue that all laws are ‘special’ Greg, they are afterall created from an immediate need. The origins of most laws will be embedded with a social need for their initial creation.

    My particular argument that relates to this discussion is simple: there is a social NEED for laws to help facilitate changes in the way alcohol is being consumed by young people.

    That need is now, we have waited long enough for young people to sort it out themselves and quite frankly, this hasn’t happened.

    Laws in place are better than no laws in place, if you recall John Key’s famous line on the removal of section 59: ‘CYFS and the NZ Police will have the ultimate discretion.’

    Wouldn’t such law changes work in a similar capacity, where the NZ Police are given the ‘discretion’ to lay charges?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Muzza M (290 comments) says:

    Totally agree with big bruv. I dished out methadone to 70 clients. Only 5 of them were in employment. Some of them had been on benefits for over 20 years. Why should we support these cretins who have made themselves by thier own piss poor choices unemployable. If they were farm animals we would put them down. I personally would be prepared to line them up against a wall and shoot the fuckers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. thedavincimode (6,528 comments) says:

    Raeburn’s comments raise a very good point. We should increase the legal rooting age as well.

    Should shave a few mill off the bludge spend and help make supermarkets a much more tolerable experience. Crusher better get cracking and order up mega large on her containers.

    And as far as the drinking age itself is concerned, even more importantly, we might then be able to go back to taking a few chilled bevvies and a sandwich to the cricket rather than getting ripped off by Corporate Crap Greasy Shit Cooking and Warm Weasles’ Piss Beer Corp Inc.

    And as far as the parliamentary “Youth Wings” are concerned, they should perhaps just fuck off and get focussed on learning something useful, or getting a job so that they can actually be useful. Looks like the next generation of professional troughers is hard in training.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Manolo (13,327 comments) says:

    “Why should we support these cretins who have made themselves by thier own piss poor choices unemployable.”

    Precisely my point. We should not prop these losers at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,427 comments) says:

    “ACT on Campus President Peter McCaffrey said…”

    That was quick. I hope his arguments are not too powerful to need talking about.

    Anyway I agree with him and all of the others. If only the grown-up politicians could learn to think (and talk) about issues like this without resorting to default partizan positions all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. James (1,338 comments) says:

    “Simplistic bullshit.

    In a perfect world that type of thinking may be OK, however we live in NZ which we all know is far from perfect.

    These idiots who want the right to take as many drugs as they like or drink as much piss as they like are the same fools who expect the tax payer to pick up the tab for their rehab or hospitalisation.

    We need laws and restrictions not to protect people from themselves but to protect the rest of us and our tax payer dollars from their idiotic behaviour.”

    And yet again Bruv fails to realise hes missed the point again is is miles behind the adults in thinking….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Muzza M (290 comments) says:

    “And yet again Bruv fails to realise hes missed the point again is is miles behind the adults in thinking….”

    Please explain James, what is wrong with bruv’s comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. GPT1 (2,087 comments) says:

    Raising the drinking age will do nothing but piss off 18 and 19 year olds – but it will souds like the government is “doing something”. This will be a good test of politicians who put logic ahead of populism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    This just goes to prove this younger generation is smarter than the last… who make the laws and recommendations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Raising the drinking age will do nothing but piss off 18 and 19 year olds

    GOOD! They have been pissing the rest of us off for far too long – bout time they got a piece of their own medicine!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Heard the expression… Laws are made to be broken.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rex Widerstrom (5,254 comments) says:

    malcolm asks:

    Why not just enforce the numerous laws which already exist to deal with dickheads and leave the rest of us decent people to enjoy a few sherbets at reasonable prices?

    A perfectly reasonable question, but one you won’t hear John Key, Phil Goff or anyone else answering – at least not in an honest way. Criminalising vast swathes of the population for minor offences has several beneficial effects (if you’re a politician, that is):

    1. It raises easy revenue.
    2. It wins votes from the curtain twitchers, who never go out and think that anyone on the streets after dark is bent on rape and murder.
    3. It plays to the “society is increasingly lawless, you need us to protect you” meme, which in turn opens the door for laws which allow all sorts of snooping and other breaches of our civil and human rights.
    4. It earns the gratitude and loyalty of the police hierarchy, who’ll then do their very best to avoid prosecuting your friends for any crimes they commit unless it becomes untenable for you to keep protecting and you cut them loose. Then they’ll throw the book at them to demonstrate how “clean” your administration is (e.g. Taito Phillip Field).
    5. It adds to the divide-and-conquer us-and-them mentality upon which lazy politicians rely for votes.

    The fact that vast numbers of law abiding citizens out for a “few sherberts” become criminals at the stroke of the Governor General’s pen is just collateral damage insofar as our rulers are concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Tauhei Notts (1,602 comments) says:

    In a democracy the most important thing that citizens do is vote.
    It is so important that we consider people under the age of 18 too immature to exercise that most important right.
    Now some people are saying that people who are too immature to drink piss are mature enough to vote.
    That is absolutely bloody stupid.
    If the age at which people can be considered mature enough to buy grog on licensed premises is to be raised to 20, then it follows that the voting age must be increased to 20.
    I think a threat to increase the voting age to 20 would remind young adults that voting is a damned sight more important than drinking grog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. topherthegreat (14 comments) says:

    Rising the drinking age is a terrible, idea. It’s not the drinking it’s how we’re drinking. This youth binge drinking culture that people talk about, bollocks! It’s a not a youth issue, it’s an issue for the entire country, for all age groups. Middle aged, and older people are just as big binge drinkers as young people. This is just populist bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Steve (4,491 comments) says:

    These Youth Wings are of course on their best behavior. They want to see what it takes to become a Politician or Public Servant and suck on the tit forever.

    Drinking age can be lowered or raised with little effect. Taxes will only rake in more money for the Govt with little effect.
    There is one thing that will have an effect. Make those who cause the damage responsible. DIC at 19? 3 years cancellation and $3000 fine. Family violence, go directly to jail, do not pass a social worker and do not collect any money. Damage to property, same thing. The of course the “don’t care” people. Jail,jail,jail, spend your life in jail, so that you can’t harm others.
    Putting up tax to cover damage is unfair on those who are responsible.

    That way the fuckwits will learn and the rest of us can have a wine or beer

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. big bruv (13,217 comments) says:

    “Rising the drinking age is a terrible, idea. It’s not the drinking it’s how we’re drinking. This youth binge drinking culture that people talk about, bollocks! It’s a not a youth issue”

    The comments of a person who has been walking around with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears for the last five years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (13,217 comments) says:

    Rex

    You really are a strange fellow, first of all you want us to go soft on criminals scum, you tell us that conditions are harsh for these poor souls, you strongly suggest that cuddling these low life is the best way to make sure they do not bash, rob, rape or murder any of us when they have been let out, then you blame us when these pieces of human waste commit further crimes.

    Now you want us all to turn a blind eye to drunken kids spewing, fighting, vandalising and creating havoc all over the place, in typical fashion you even suggest that we are the ones with the problem for having the temerity to complain about these pissed up kids.

    We just cannot win with you soft on crime types can we.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    They should ban 30-40 year olds from drinking at pubs. A percentage of this group have young families at home, and letting them drink deprives their children of both time and money, and increases the risk of family violence.

    And ban 50-70 year olds from having drinking in town. These people have a high risk of stroke and heart attack, and drinking is a risk factor for these conditions which shorten and worsen their life. Many 50 year olds are divorced and see prostitutes when drunk, which increases their risk of STDs.

    And ban >70 year olds from drinking anywhere. They have brittle bones and increase their risk of life-changing fractures, plus many are on blood thinning medication. When they fall over drunk, they can bleed into their brain and lose their independence and cost our health system thousands.

    Or the alternative is to let adults choose to use alcohol how they like. Arrest and lock up violent bastards. And let people have the freedom to make their own decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Steve (4,491 comments) says:

    Oh Great One,
    It is a youth issue, go read some graphs. The younger element is sexually mature at 15, but not mentally mature until 30.
    They do not have the capacity to control alcahol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Steve (4,491 comments) says:

    Here’s a greenie “tristanb” ban everything. How will you explain the drop in tax?
    Bait
    Ban stupid people from blogs!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. big bruv (13,217 comments) says:

    ‘Or the alternative is to let adults choose to use alcohol how they like. Arrest and lock up violent bastards. And let people have the freedom to make their own decisions.’

    More simplistic bullshit.

    First of all you if you want to be treated like an adult then you have to act like one, drunk 18 year olds act like idiots most of the time, their behaviour is far from adult.

    Secondly, I note that your rant did not include anything about these ‘adults’ taking responsibility for their drunken actions, you are all for letting people have the freedom to choose but you seem to gloss over the part about them being responsible, you cannot have it both ways, either you are adults and act like it or the drinking age goes up because the rest of us are sick and tired of pissed up teenagers and the cost them impose on the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    I have to agree with you Big Bruv,

    This youth ‘binge drinking’ culture is one of the leading contributors to this country’s “brain-drain”. If they want to be treated like valuable citizens than they must contribute to the wellbeing of society.

    Filling your guts up in intoxication and sitting in a police cell over night is not entirely ‘constructive’ nor should it be tolerated. My primary concern here is the future of New Zealand: we can not give it to dogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. reid (15,917 comments) says:

    This and all other drug prohibition debates boil down to what is the actual cause and effect and several writers above have skirted but somehow missed the real cause: e.g.

    My particular argument that relates to this discussion is simple: there is a social NEED for laws to help facilitate changes in the way alcohol is being consumed by young people. That need is now, we have waited long enough for young people to sort it out themselves and quite frankly, this hasn’t happened.

    OTOH some writers hit it square on: e.g.

    Booze is just used as an excuse for crap behaviour. It’s possible to get quietly drunk and show little if any sign of a change in behaviour. It’s also possible to have one beer and become a violent bastard (or no beers). Alcohol may be a lubricant for stupidity but it isn’t the reason for it.

    See it’s not the drinking, it’s the behaviour. And what’s the cause of behaviour? Beliefs and attitudes. And where do they come from? Parents and other significant familial and peer influences. And where do those people get their beliefs and attitudes from? THEIR parents and other significant etc…

    Fix that, you fix the problem. Unless and until you fix that (and it’s been getting worse and worse in terms of both degree and ubiquity over the years), then no matter what you do with regulating the supply of any drug e.g. alcohol; the problem will remain.

    Maybe therefore, there is a social NEED for laws to help facilitate parents to start behaving properly toward their children, giving a shit about them, teaching them decorum, moderation, respect etc etc.

    You know, the things that used to be taken for granted in past generations because almost everyone apart from a tiny minority always got that kind of upbringing, no matter what the family’s material circumstances were. And guess what lefties, everyone and I mean everyone, was MUCH poorer back then, so does that maybe give you any clue that maybe what we’re seeing can’t be tied back to income disparity? Of course it doesn’t. It’s all those rich pricks isn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (22,754 comments) says:

    Interesting point on poorness Reid. I see various references to research that suggests that the income gap between “rich” and “poor” is one of the biggest problems in society. But that fact is that most of the “poor” in the country today have heaps more junk they don’t need, and use more discretionary income than middle class families had back when I grew up.

    I’m in it as much as anyone. I could do with half as much land, half the house, half the cars, half appliances, half the extras, half the wine, and half the entertainment expenses, no debt, and still live very comfortably.

    I know a young family supported by WFF that has more than twice as many clothes and toys and young family paraphernalia that my family with the same number of kids had (and I don’t think they were deprived).

    It reminds me of a quote – the best things in life aren’t things. And most people seem to have forgotten that. Maybe if they could spend more thought and time on “not things” then the gold old values (that weren’t always there as much as we would like to think) get the attention they deserve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Rex Widerstrom (5,254 comments) says:

    big bruv says:

    first of all you want us to go soft on criminals scum, you tell us that conditions are harsh for these poor souls, you strongly suggest that cuddling these low life is the best way to make sure they do not bash, rob, rape or murder any of us when they have been let out

    No, I say shoving people into a prison system which is not resourced to rehabilitate them puts society at risk when they’re released. I say that shoving non-violent criminals in with the violent creates a new set of victims on which the violent can prey. I say that people who’ve committed non-violent crimes would be better off repaying their victims, and repaying society, rather than being kept at our expense.

    I say that some of those who’ve committed violent offences, but don’t have that sadistic streak we see in some offenders, would benefit from having to front victims (not their own victims though) and be made to face the results of the type of actions they’ve committed – for instance by cleaning up in an A&E.

    And I say that we should be much cleverer about separating the sociopaths from the rest so that the former are never released while others get the rehabilitation they need so as to make society a safer place.

    With which parts of that, specifically, do you disagree?

    then you blame us when these pieces of human waste commit further crimes.

    No I don’t. Unless you mean insofar as some people vote for the Garretts of politics – the people who dribble on about how their “get tough” policies will work whilst knowing they won’t.

    Now you want us all to turn a blind eye to drunken kids spewing, fighting, vandalising and creating havoc all over the place, in typical fashion you even suggest that we are the ones with the problem for having the temerity to complain about these pissed up kids.

    Your reading comprehension is really lacking today, bruv. I was responding to malcolm’s comment and posing the rhetorical question that yes, why shouldn’t anyone of any age who’s prepared to have a quiet and civilised drink be allowed to do so? And, conversely, why should anyone of any age who gets drunk and behaves like a lout not have the book thrown at them.

    Again, what part of that do you disagree with?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. big bruv (13,217 comments) says:

    Rex

    I disagree with the rehabilitation part, always have and always will.

    I find it interesting that you say that Garrett’s policies will not work, they have not yet been tested here so I am at a loss to understand how you know this for sure, but if you can see into the future can you email me the winning numbers for this weeks lotto please.

    Rex it is this type of liberal thinking that has resulted in the explosion of crime, by telling these criminal scum that they will be rehabilitated we are immediately shifting the blame from them and onto something else, I want these wankers to think about nothing else but the crime they committed while they are doing hard time.

    That goes for the so called white collar criminal scum as well, stealing the life savings of retired folk is right up there with the very worst crimes in my book, I am also disappointed that you suggest we give violent crims a second chance if they are not sadistic, who takes the blame when they commit another violent crime Rex?…who is going to say “opps, looks like I fucked up” because we sure as hell know that there will be a bloody army of liberal toss pots running around making excuses for the crim, blaming society for his crime, meanwhile, virtually nobody does anything for the victim.

    There is only one aspect of crime and punishment that you and I are every going to agree on and that is the immediate removal of all (and there are hundreds of them) the poor bastards who are mentally ill and find themselves locked up because the last government (and this current one) could/can not bring themselves to admit that “care in the community” does not fucking well work.

    I do not mind if some of my tax dollars go to building new secure mental health facilities where these poor bastards can receive the full time care and help they need, prision is NOT the place for the mentally ill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    These fantastic new laws are somehow going to change the perception of a lot of people that a good time is getting as fucked up as possible? No? So they don’t deal with the actual problem then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Chuck Bird (4,667 comments) says:

    John Key is not stupid. He will thoroughly poll the issue and have a few focus groups before he decides whether he will lose more vote than he will gain by changing the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Chuck Bird (4,667 comments) says:

    Maybe we should outlaw prostitutes – political prostitutes. How many MPs would we have left in Parliament?

    It would be nice to have MPs vote for what is good for New Zealand not just what is good for themselves or for their party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    The government doesn’t solve social problems Kitty, it provides the means to destroy them.

    Through justice we can promote discouragement and through a knowledge-based education system we can provide a more prosperous future.

    At the end of the day, a government that tries to do too much, it eventually sinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Crusader (275 comments) says:

    Bevan (2114) Says:
    April 27th, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Yes, and you get a horrible and oppresive Nanny State. Is that what you want?

    Would you rather have anarchy?

    Are those the only two options?

    (Ruductio ad absurdam is not a strong argument, mate.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Haiku Dave (273 comments) says:

    sheesh… and some of you
    have the gall to call yourselves
    libertarians?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. kiki (425 comments) says:

    I find it interesting that you say that Garrett’s policies will not work, they have not yet been tested here so I am at a loss to understand how you know this for sure, but if you can see into the future can you email me the winning numbers for this weeks lotto please.

    But it has been tested in California where a drop in crime was noted which was similar to other states who did nothing. It did result in large numbers in jail looked after by 50000 government employees.

    Just enforce the current laws.

    And if the police want more resources then decriminalize several types of drugs so they can concentrate on the real criminals.

    finally look at the hypocrites in power who are folding to the drug pushers over the RWC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Are those the only two options?

    (Ruductio ad absurdam is not a strong argument, mate.)

    Just going by his now quite standard knee jerk reaction for any regulation proposed no matter how minor, I can only guess he would favor none at all.

    And neither is quoting latin to make yourself sound smarter…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. kiki (425 comments) says:

    Ban all advertising of alcohol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Rex Widerstrom (5,254 comments) says:

    big bruv:

    Rex it is this type of liberal thinking that has resulted in the explosion of crime, by telling these criminal scum that they will be rehabilitated we are immediately shifting the blame from them and onto something else, I want these wankers to think about nothing else but the crime they committed while they are doing hard time.

    I think part of the issue here is that you assume by “rehabilitation” I mean some sort of hand-holding exercise involving lots of tissues and talk about how their mummies and daddies done them wrong, bb.

    I’m talking about them confronting the consequences of their actions – on victims, on society, on their own families – and accepting blame… not in a fake way, to get a lesser sentence or early parole, but genuinely. And not being released tillt hey do. I’m talking about them repaying society (neither sitting round watching TV all day nor breaking rocks does that).

    Renabilitation means one thing and one thing only – an offender who won’t reoffend. There are any number of paths to that end, and we need to use whatever works. But that is what I mean when I say rehabilitation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Tauhei Notts (622) Says:
    April 27th, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    tristanb (94) Says:
    April 27th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
    I concur

    Why are we becoming more lawless and rebellious as a nation?
    Maybe it’s partly because of the role models our leaders are?
    you know parents, mayors, councillors, Politicians, high court judges and Qc’s and mustn’t forget the celebrities like the Ab’s et al.

    Personally, if you can vote, sign a contract and die for your country no one should be taking the right to buy a beer off of you.
    they should be in jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Fletch (6,004 comments) says:

    Just saw Mike King on the Good Morning show talking about his addiction to alcohol and depression. They had a whole discussion panel on it as well. I’m sure it will be up on the TVNZ site later.
    I think there is a very good case to be made for raising the age to 20 and (as Mike said) “pricing the younger people out of the market” regarding raising the price of alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. James (1,338 comments) says:

    “…pricing the younger people out of the market” regarding raising the price of alcohol.”

    And of course pricing INTO the market criminals and the like to supply the still existent demand….Jesus!… its called the “failure of prohibition” people ….google it sometime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.