NZPA on Keep It 18
April 29th, 2010 at 4:13 pm by David FarrarThe four youth wings had a joint press conference at Parliament today on the Law Commission report. NZPA report:
Keep it 18 spokeswoman Jenna Raeburn, 22, said today it was a contradiction that 18 and 19-year-olds could work in a bar, vote, get married or become a prostitute and politicians were considering taking away their right to drink alcohol.
There were also benefits of drinking, which were not mentioned in the Law Commission report, she said.
“The fact that people like to drink speaks for itself.
“Going out and drinking, and even going out and getting drunk, can be a lot of fun.”
Ms Raeburn said raising the alcohol purchase age would punish the majority for the actions of a few problem drinkers.
There were quite a few questions about what is meant by “getting drunk” and “binge drinking”. Jenna was differentiating between what many of us have been – tipsy type drunk, and heavily drunk, where you cause damage to yourself or others.
The Law Commission report I’m told defined binge drinking as four or more drinks in a night for a woman, and six for a man. Jenna rejected that definition, and some journalists were asserting you can’t disagree with the science quoted.
That got me thinking. If four drinks or more in a night represents binge drinking, then I would say 95% of people at the annual press gallery party are binge drinkers.
If you have six drinks in an hour, that is probably binge drinking. But six drinks over a six hour party, with plenty of food, is not – well to me anyway.
ACT on Campus president Peter McCaffrey, 22, said Members of Parliament who wanted to raise the drinking age should reject any votes they receive from 18 and 19-year-olds at the next election.
“If an 18-year-old is not rational enough to be able to have a beer after work with their workmates, how can they possibly make such an important decision as to who should represent them in Parliament?”
Heh that was a great point.
Young Labour spokeswoman Nicola Wood, 17, said the Government would do better to enforce current law rather than punishing the majority of the 140,000 18 and 19-year-olds who were responsible drinkers.
“Creating a culture of responsible drinking only comes from policy which better enables young people to make positive decisions about how they use alcohol.”
There is some clear evidence that existing laws are not enforced. Off memory only one conviction for serving an intoxicated person and 27 for serving under age.
Young Greens spokesman Zachary Dorner, 20, said many older people also drank excessively.
“Eighteen and 19-year-olds are not the problem — drinking is.”
Raising the purchase age of alcohol was a “discriminatory solution” and could not address the cultural issues around drinking in New Zealand.
The law was also likely to be flouted, he said.
Mr Dorner proposed restricting alcohol supply and advertising, increasing education and treatment accessibility and community control as the best ways to improve the drinking culture here.
Solving the cultural issues around binge drinking are not easy, but making it illegal for a 19 year old to have a glass of wine, with their parents, in a restaurant will just make things worse in my opinion.
Young Nats president Daniel Fielding, 23, said an 18-year-old has the responsibilities of adulthood so there was no justification for restricting their right to consume alcohol.
Young people were a “convenient scapegoat”, he said.
“Solutions need to focus on problem drinkers, not punish all drinkers.
“A blanket measure of raising the drinking age will not change the drinking culture.”
It says something when all four of these parties have their youth wings in agreement on the age issue.
Scoop also has a story, plus audio.
Tags: alcohol, Daniel Fielding, drinking age, Jenna Raeburn, Keep It 18, Nicola Wood, Peter McCaffrey, Zachary Dorner
April 29th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Age is no benchmark for responsibility. I know some 10 year olds who are mroe responsible that some 30 year olds.
This dickering over the sake of two years is an utter waste of time and effort.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
If the Law Commission have unrealistic definitions like that for binge drinking they lose credibility straight away.
Tinkering with the laws is lawmakers trying to be seen to do something, but avoiding the real problems.
It is a social problem that needs social solutions.
Vote:It may also be a policing problem under the existing laws that needs solutions from the police.
April 29th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
What is the science quoted? Maybe if we knew that we could have a useful discussion..
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Huh? What happened to Rick Giles? If he’s been there the argument against raising the purchasing age would have been so powerful they wouldn’t have had to talk about it.
Good point. I’ve been in bars where there are punters who are so pissed that they stumble and fall over on the way to the bar, and still get served. I’ve even seen someone who passed out for half an hour, and when he came to staggered to the bar to order another drink and was served.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Young Nats president Daniel Fielding is right on the money in observing yoof drinkers are scapegoats.
Remove rights from 18-19 year olds, they’re only a small group and their ire won’t hurt us too much.
Similarly:
Increase revenue by taxing smokers even more, they’re only a small group and their ire won’t hurt us too much.
PS – Toad: I think Giles has been replaced by someone who not only *has* arguments, but doesn’t consider them too powerful to need discussion
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I agree, ban anyone under 20 from voting, they obviously don’t have the appropriate degree of maturity since they can’t be trusted to drink. Same goes for driving, sex, and working for other than youth wages…Let’s at least be consistent.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Is drunk in public still an offence, And I dont mean offensive.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“Is drunk in public still an offence, And I dont mean offensive.”
I’ve no idea but it should be. If only we could define drunk. Does it me slurring, staggering, spewing or just laughing loudly.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
@gravedodger 5:07 pm
Only if you chunder on a police officer. The summary penalty is a good hiding and a night in the cells.
Seriously though, disorderly and offensive behaviour are offences under the Summary Offences Act, and people who are drunk to the extent that they are disorderly or offensive can and should be charged.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Yes but the public will be looking and thinking “the clean cut young folk who join political parties aren’t the ones urinating in my shop doorway and hurling bottles at my car, so their ‘look at us, we’re responsible’ message means squat”.
The Keep it 18 movement should instead look up the BOSCAR study, carried out recently in NSW. There, there was a crackdown on all drunken stupidity and excessive drinking, regardless of age. The State Liquor Administration Board imposed restrictions on 14 hotels in the Newcastle area. Some were:
- a 1 am lockout (no one allowed in after 1 am)
- bringing forward closing time from 5 am to 3 am
- prohibition on the sale of shots and similar mixed drinks after 10pm
- prohibition on the sale of more than four drinks, ensuring there was no stockpiling of drinks
- employment of a supervisor on the premises from 11pm whose only task was to monitor the responsible service of alcohol
In the year that followed assaults after dark fell by 29 percent and incidents of disorderly conduct fell by 46 percent.
And that’s with 18 and 19 year olds drinking alongside their elders.
OTOH the Law Commission’s logic reminds me of the hand-wringing of one “expert” who testified before a Queensland inquiry into the same topic, who said (in all seriousness):
With high-falutin’ sounding wowerism like that “informing” the debate, no wonder the question of what actually works is lost in all the noise.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
“Going out and drinking, and even going out and getting drunk, can be a lot of fun.”
How refreshing is it to read somebody say that in public. She is absolutely 100% right. And it matters.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
I say lower the drinking age to 11 but put the tax up by 700 percent.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Wowser world! 6 beers is a binge ! What utter bollocks.
Too right keep it 18. If you’re old enough to fight for your country .you’re old enough to go to the pub and buy a beer or 6!
The anti booze brigade clearly need to get the Maori Party on board,that seems to be the only way to get anything out of parliament these days,sadly.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Well, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to vote until they are 20 either. Teenagers have got less and less responsible over the years.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
““If an 18-year-old is not rational enough to be able to have a beer after work with their workmates, how can they possibly make such an important decision as to who should represent them in Parliament?”
There is no logical reason why the voting age and drinking age must be the same. The consequences of one person voting for the wrong candidate are much smaller than drinking oneself into a coma or death
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
You got it Fletch. Teenagers have become less and less responsible. Why? Because they can blame everyone and everything except themselves
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Haha, I hope you’re being ironic Steve!
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Don’t remember being a teen, must have happened during a blackout
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
It’s not the age but the attitude which is the problem.
Getting tough on anti-social behaviour associated with drunkeness at any age would be better than raising the purchase age.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
# Fletch (1016) Says:
April 29th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Well, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to vote until they are 20 either. Teenagers have got less and less responsible over the years.
Hogwash!
The only thing that’s changed for most teenagers (I leave out the uncontrolled slum-dweller scum) is that the slime feel it’s their duty to over-publicise every bloody minor indiscretion so the halfwit anti-fun dick-heads can tut-tut over them.
The vast majority of teenagers I meet are a damned sight more responsible than I was <20.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
# homepaddock (316) Says:
April 29th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
It’s not the age but the attitude which is the problem.
Getting tough on anti-social behaviour associated with drunkeness at any age would be better than raising the purchase age.
Yes but the only thing that will change any drinking problem (if there is one) is to make being out of control in public socially unacceptable as has been done with drunk driving.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Yes but the only thing that will change any drinking problem (if there is one) is to make being out of control in public socially unacceptable as has been done with drunk driving.
Yes, there is a problem. And I don’t think it’s one for politicians to fix, except for ensure the police have sufficient resources to deal with the laws we currently have as effectively as possible.
The rest should be up to us. How do you get the message out and to stick without sounding like do-goody agenda pushing control freaks? It needs to come from various levels, the young should deal with the young, and older age groups should address it at their own level.
Getting tiddly, getting pissed, even occasionally too pissed, shouldn’t leperise anyone.
It’s easy to drink reasonably, it’s easy to drink too much, it’s not difficult to drink far too much. Can’t do a lot to stop that, although people can be encouraged to care for themselves beter. But anyone who drinks and then shits on others should be seen as an arsehole. Alcohol is far too often an excuse for being an arsehole. That’s the biggest problem.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Toad
” I’ve even seen someone who passed out for half an hour, and when she came to staggered to the bar to order another drink and was served.”
How is Comrade Bradford doing these days anyway?
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
…some journalists were asserting you can’t disagree with the science quoted.
Which is the depressing thing about journalists. The science quoted? Slapping the label “binge drinking” on an arbitrary number of drinks you pulled out of your ass isn’t “science,” it’s “opinion.” It would be nice if dumbass journos learned to figure out the difference.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
In 2006 it was 49, 72 against. It’ll be a shit of a lot closer than that this time – Note that other main proposals are givens (BA levels, off/on licence changes)…
Found Dave’s story about having 6 Joseph Kuhtze’s in six hours at his Uncle’s barbie a little tangential….
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Ben,
What? Her comments are ridiculous. Of course drinking is fun for most people, but that is not a valid point in this discussion of alcohol abuse. Cocaine is a great time too…most drugs of abuse are.
Why do we have this inane conception that alcohol abuse is something like drinking more than dozen beers in a few hours? The biological reality is that the threshold is far, far lower.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
According to the WHY 21 site, the U.S drinking age is now 21 in most States and has saved many lives….
Sounds like good reasoning to me. At least the U.S saw that lower ages were causing problems and did something about it. This govt seems too afraid of offending a group and losing votes.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Psycho Milt,
The figures are not arbitrary. They’re based on studies of use over time and later health problems. This is not a conspiracy by the government, and the numbers are not randomly thought up by some policy wonk.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
A “Myth” from that same site –
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Boozers can relax. The Maori Party isn’t interested, and when the booze barons call the tune, National dances.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Man they REALLY want to be able to drink, which is reason enough for us to deny them one.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Of course drinking is fun for most people, but that is not a valid point in this discussion of alcohol abuse.
No, it would be invalid if the Law Commission was promoting measures targeted at abuse – however, it’s highly relevant when the Law Commission is promoting measures targeting ordinary drinking.
The figures are not arbitrary. They’re based on studies of use over time and later health problems.
In other words, it’s social science – finding correlations involving more likely/less likely and thinking up ways to account for them. “Science” it ain’t.
And the numbers are arbitrary. What’s the definition of “health problems?” Where’s the threshold between minor inconvenience and a health problem? What’s the precise amount of alcohol per kilo of body weight over what period that will push someone over that threshold? What is it about drinking from their 20th birthdays that will prevent people crossing that threshold, as opposed to drinking from their 18th birthdays? You bet they’re arbitrary numbers – they’re chosen for convenience and political effect rather than on any scientific basis.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Since that time, the 21 minimum drinking age law has saved about 900 lives per year as estimated by the National Traffic Highway Administration (NHTSA). (9-11) In short, there are more than 25,000 people alive today since all states adopted the law in 1988.
Fletch – ever considered how many lives would be saved if we reduced the speed limit on all roads to 5 kph? The answer is “shitloads.”
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Is the “binge drinking” culture the real problem? It seems to me to be a scapegoat for bad behaviour. I would argue that our “blame culture” is more at fault, we blame everything but the individuals that commit the crime.
Instead of raising tax on alcohol or increasing the drinking age wouldn’t it be better to enforce bans on alcohol for criminals who blame alcohol on their exploits? Or come down hard and enforce severe penalties on the extreme minority of drinkers that break the law?
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
School children should not be allowed in bars or be able to drink, fullstop. That is why lowering the age to 18 has been a disaster – 18 year old students have 16 and 17 year old school friends and it follows that an 18 year old will buy alcohol for their younger friends.
The main reason to return the age to 20 is that there are not may 20 years olds still at high school and so the opportunity for school-age children to have access to alcohol is consoderably reduced reduced.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Fletch
FACT – If you eat too much food you can develop obesity, increasing the chance of death. – Lets ban 18 year olds from mac donalds
FACT – Serving in the armed forces in a war zone increases the chance of death – lets ban 18 year olds from joining the armed forces
if the person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s, then perhaps we should still consider them a minor as they are not mature enough to be an adult. lets strip all under 20′s with the right to vote or be elected
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Chris2 – “That is why lowering the age to 18 has been a disaster – 18 year old students have 16 and 17 year old school friends and it follows that an 18 year old will buy alcohol for their younger friends.”
I remember reading somewhere that the most common supplier to under-18′s are the parents of the children…. lets ban all parents from drinking.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Oh, Charlie Brown, that would be much too sensible and the government then wouldn’t be able to say it was doing something about the pernicious influence of drugs and alcohol on the moral fabric of society by making a token gesture which won’t really target the problem.
(I do happen to think the problem is twofold: there’s the aspect of personal responsibility but there’s also the aspect of the acceptability of binge drinking in our culture, neither of which these wonderful solutions likely to be embraced by the glorious National Party, may its reign last 1000 years, will deal with.)
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
“if the person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s, then perhaps we should still consider them a minor as they are not mature enough to be an adult”
And that also is a key point, if they have the responsibilities of an adult, they should have the rights.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Just like we are what we eat, we are what we drink…Harsher penalties, everyone has a choice, so it goes without saying, with every action, comes a reaction. If you abuse the privilege, then face up to the consequences. At the end of the day this is not kindergarten. We are all adults.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
JiveKitty – You are probably right on the twofold problem we have. But I think the “binge drinking” culture could shrink if the government took a more grown-up approach to alcohol and drugs. I’m pretty sure that banning every drug under the sun must increase “binge drinking” in nz, I’m sure alot of ppl would choose to have a toke over going to the pub.
Also, is NZ’s “binge drinking” culture very different from others? Especially other english speaking cultures? Would it be a problem if people still binged drinked if there was near to no alcohol related crime or injuries? If we made people accept responsibility both alcohol related crime and injuries will decrease.
Vote:April 29th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
>>>Fletch (1018) Says:
. Teenagers have got less and less responsible over the years.<<<
That is becuase Fletch is getting older and unlike me has not reached his second childhood I suspect.
I like the idea of lowering the drinking age and raising the duty on it, with exceptions for people with the Gold Card.
I think most young people are just as responsible as they ever were … just that the one who are not have greater exposure? And more people are running bars and things to make money out of them than in the days of six o'clock closing and no licenced restaurents in the country. When Wellington had the only semi-legal restaurent club in the country, "Ms Robert"s place in Thirndon, frequented by the business leaders of the country entertaining overseas guests, apart from Bastille Day. Can you imagine that .. just one place to drink with your meal in the whole of New Zealand. Then places such as the Majestic and The Pines where you kept the bottles hidden under the women's skirts [ long evening ones ] when the Police did their 'walk around' to 'see' there was no liquor being consumed. Men got rotten drunk at private parties celebrating 21st's etc, probably the occsional woman too.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 8:06 am
ha ha Key is as much of a toss-pot as Clark was in his hypocrisy and selectiveness.
When politicians offer one reason for not putting up prices (booze) and then completely ignore that reason and put up prices (fags) it goes right to heart of credibility.
Key has become like Clark and Cullen were.
(at least David Carter admits to lying and being a crook)
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 8:09 am
….Is drunk in public still an offence, And I dont mean offensive.
No its not. The police can only act on public drunkeness if one is likely to do harm to oneself or others, or likely to do substantial property damage. (or words like that)
As a result we see bans on drinking in public to stop the problem. Hamilton is discussing a total 24 hour ban on drinking in public right across the city. That will mean the end of street cafe’s and all that.
The council are obviously getting a bit pissed off with all the problems that have arisen since the age was lowered.
Its not just the age thing, but all the other stuff that has come with it – open all night, outlets everywhere (and again we see the result with the rules being changed to incorporate locals in decisions to allow outlets – and I can see more dry areas being voted in next election)etc, etc.
Personally I would leave the lower age, but would make all those who normally cost the taxpayer anything due to being pissed directly liable for the costs. So hospital costs would be on the person turning up pissed – and put it back on the outlet. Id make all outlets install cctv – and when anyone turns up at the hospital requiring treatment – then if the patient cant pay – the outlet(s) who sold him/her the alcohol would have to carry the cost. It might be costly for a start , but after a few bars and outlets got saddled with the costs, things would slow up really quickly – especially after a couple of costs and court charges for the result of a pissed driver. A couple of $50,000 (or more) bills for the result of hospital costs and wrecked cars and hospital costs for several others caught up in a car accident as a result of the drunk driver would concentrate the minds of the outlets.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 8:35 am
“Hamilton is discussing a total 24 hour ban on drinking in public right across the city. That will mean the end of street cafe’s and all that.”
Shouldn’t do. The street-side cafes and bars should be licensed for the footpath area as well, so punters will be drinking on licensed premises, even if they are sitting at a table on the street.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Correct. and that is because there is actually no ‘drinking age’ per se. It is perfectly legal for ma and pa to buy their 14 year old child some vodka cruisers, and for that child to drink them either in a private home, or even on public land so long as they are supervised by a parent or guardian.
What we do have are laws that govern the sale of alcoholic drinks. Our consumption laws relate specifically to licensed premises and driving.
Which is the way it should be.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Fletch
Thanks for citing the US experience. I’m not surprised to hear chirping crickets from David and others on this site about this evidence.
The US Department of Transportation has a huge database of statistics on this subject. The results were unequivocal and with little state to state variation. When the drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18, alcohol related deaths and accidents increased for the age cohort concerned. When the age was raised again, the alcohol related deaths and accidents returned back close to the same rates for this age cohort on a per capita basis as prevailed before the drinking age was lowered. It’s not rocket science.
NZ society has to decide what is more important – allowing 18 to 20 year olds the freedom to drink and for us all to feel good about how sophisticated and modern and European we have all become about alcohol and young people or having fewer alcohol related traffic deaths and accidents in this age cohort. Then there are the social costs of having the de facto drinking age drop by 2- 3 years to effectively 15 since it is so much easier for some 15 year olds to look 18 than 20.
There are a suite of laws that could be introduced to combat the effects of keeping the lower drinking age that could mitigate some of this harm but NZ shows little stomach for their introduction. Any attempt to even propose them is met with howls of “wowser” and the usual snide references to the Puritans or the Prohibition era. The reason why raising the drinking age is under serious consideration is because it is a simple and blunt fix that is proven to save lives.
Since I have done considerable volunteer work in the area of adolescent drug and alcohol abuse in NZ when I lived there, I was at the coalface of the effects of NZ’s drinking culture. Many (but not all) parts of America have a far less of a powerful drinking culture and that, combined with the higher drinking age and stricter minors in possession laws and more consistent policing of underage drinking, means a vastly lower level of discernable teenage binge drinking. I live in a city twice the size of Christchurch and aside from an area with a strip of bars near a large college campus, I rarely witness the levels of youth drunkeness that are apparent every Friday and Saturday night in central Christchurch nor do you hear of the numbers and size of out-of-control drunken high school parties in the suburbs that are common place across New Zealand on the weekends.
Many schools in the US back the State underage drinking laws with mandatory stand downs from sports teams if caught even in possession of alcohol and drugs. When a high school football coach and I were comparing notes on this subject (I coach and ref youth rugby here), I mused that if the rules in our school district here were implimented in NZ there would be almost no high school rugby played in NZ!
Adult NZers must face the reality that we live in a alcohol soaked society. It is so obvious when you move to another country where drinking is not elevated to the level of a national religion as it is in NZ. Until NZ moves past its national obsession with alcohol and find ways to integrate alcohol into its culture as say the Greeks and Italians do (2 countries where you rarely see teenage binge drinking), this issue will never be taken seriously. For this reason I predict that Parliament will not raise the drinking age.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 11:36 am
I’m not surprised to hear chirping crickets from David and others on this site about this evidence.
Well, I pointed out that we could save a whole lot more lives simply by reducing the speed limit to 5 kph on all roads. Like it or not, safety is a trade-off against convenience and individual freedom. Just pointing out that a particular measure would save lives does not in itself mean anything – you’ve merely stated one factor of the equation.
All the people now over-20 who’d like to save under-20s lives by banning them from drinking should consider why they aren’t so keen on reducing the speed limit to a level where it would be difficult to kill anyone. The answer essentially is that one restriction wouldn’t apply to them and the other would – we should be a lot less keen to restrict others’ freedoms while trying to bullshit them that it’s for their own good.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
In America society believes that 900 lives saved per year is worth the infringement upon the desire of 18 – 21 year olds to drink. There has been little if any pressure to amend the law at the Federal level regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. Opinion polls show almost all states strongly in favour of the 21 year old drinking age.
If this issue was put to a referendum in NZ I believe a majority would support raising the age to 20.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Kiwi in America
- Well said, and a good display of patience…Sometimes I like to think these fellows are just looking to go toe to toe and will say any old shit to kick it off. Other times I do worry that they’re real people with real small, itty brains who can somehow type….
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
If this issue was put to a referendum in NZ I believe a majority would support raising the age to 20.
I believe it too. As I pointed out, many people seem to have no problem with imposing an unreasonable restriction on freedom in the name of safety, as long as said restriction isn’t going to be imposed on them. More relevant is, do you believe a referendum of 18- and 19-year-olds would support raising the age?
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Kiwi in America — thank you for a very good post. I think we should raise the age to 20 and accept there will be inconsistencies, but seriously our 18 to 19-year-olds have shown that binge drinking is a major problem. Unfortunately we have had a number of decades of liberalisation of everything and for some people the solution to any problem is to make it legal. This is manifestly the wrong approach. We need to become less liberal in my view.
As you point out the American experience shows that having a legal drinking age of 20 or 21 has significant benefits. I think we should move ahead on this issue and return the drinking age to what it was.
I am still against raising the price of alcohol by raising taxes. This government appears to be far too keen on raising taxes — Tobacco, GST and now alcohol. This should not be a revenue generation exercise for the government in my opinion.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
In other words, you’re keen on measures that will affect other people, but not keen on measures that might affect you.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
There were quite a few questions about what is meant by “getting drunk” and “binge drinking”. Jenna was differentiating between what many of us have been – tipsy type drunk, and heavily drunk, where you cause damage to yourself or others.
The Law Commission report I’m told defined binge drinking as four or more drinks in a night for a woman, and six for a man. Jenna rejected that definition, and some journalists were asserting you can’t disagree with the science quoted.
There are two meanings of “binge drinking”. In *common* parlance it’s the drink quickly until you’re plastered mentatility – the kind of drinking that puts you at immediate risk from your drinking.
The 6/4 drinks per occassion meaning of “binge drinking” is a health and policy indicator for being at greater risk of both *long* and short term effects of alcohol. You may not be drunk, fall over and break your arm on 6 drinks (or you may!) but you are at much higher risk of becoming addicted, getting alcohol related brain damage, liver diseases et al.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Thank you Psycho-you name yourself well.
No the issue affects the whole community. The issue affects me and my whole family and the whole community.I want to see NZ’s binge culture addressed and I honestly believe that lowering the drinking age was a mistake and so that mistake needs to be corrected.
The tax issue is to do with a wish to see lower taxes generally including not raising GST,not increasing taxes on alcohol and fuel and even tobacco, and not adding any new taxes. I believe in limited government and lower taxes.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
(the html lost the quotes, hopefully it make more sense now)
There were quite a few questions about what is meant by “getting drunk” and “binge drinking”. Jenna was differentiating between what many of us have been – tipsy type drunk, and heavily drunk, where you cause damage to yourself or others.
The Law Commission report I’m told defined binge drinking as four or more drinks in a night for a woman, and six for a man. Jenna rejected that definition, and some journalists were asserting you can’t disagree with the science quoted.
There are two meanings of “binge drinking”. In *common* parlance it’s the drink quickly until you’re plastered mentatility – the kind of drinking that puts you at immediate risk from your drinking.
The 6/4 drinks per occassion meaning of “binge drinking” is a health and policy indicator for being at greater risk of both *long* and short term effects of alcohol. You may not be drunk, fall over and break your arm on 6 drinks (or you may!) but you are at much higher risk of becoming addicted, getting alcohol related brain damage, liver diseases et al.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I believe in limited government and lower taxes.
Unless we’re talking about late-teens, in which case a hefty dose of govt intervention is in order for the good of the community?
…you are at much higher risk of becoming addicted, getting alcohol related brain damage, liver diseases et al.
No doubt. Presumably the studies showing this are reasonably well constructed, and so on. What isn’t obvious is why the govt has a responsibility to step in and prevent people taking such risks if they feel like it, given that it taxes the risky behaviour at a sufficient rate to cover the costs involved.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
fishe
Of course drinking is fun for most people, but that is not a valid point in this discussion of alcohol abuse.
Actually it’s directly valid. Policy aimed at cracking down on abuse needs to take account of lost enjoyment. Palmer simply does not take the tremendous benefits of alcohol into account. Either he should, or he should limit his advice to policy that hits harm but not benefits. Ignoring benefits and then cracking down on everyone who drinks regardless is, but for some very good luck, going to be bad policy.
Vote:April 30th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
There is a problem that needs fixing, it is as simple as that.
Vote:In my town almost all the court deals with is petty damned crime from drunken idiots, mostly in the 16-22 age bracket- especially assault.
I am sick of the vandalism and the broken glass everywhere.
They have had their chance, and they have blown it in spectacular fashion.
WE HAVE A BLOODY PROBLEM!!!!
April 30th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
And on that note I shall pour a glass of red and watch a video with my wife while drinking responsibly.
Vote:Then after the movie I shall skull the remainder of the wine and run amuck down town.
ITS THE KIWI WAY!!!
May 1st, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Shunda: there are tradeoffs. No point saying there’s a problem without thinking about the lost benefits of trying to fix it.
Vote: