10,000 and growing
August 26th, 2010 at 1:26 pm by David FarrarThe Keep it 18 page on Facebook has been gaining members at a massive rate. It hit 10,000 overnight and is now at 10,550. Join up, if you support the cause.
You can also follow the campaign on Twitter.
Related posts:
- Follow the Campaign
- Culture change is what is needed
- Purchase age not drinking age
- MPs Social Media Details
August 26th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
The Keep it 18 campaign is fine, but I’m still waiting to hear their views on the other 152 recommendations.
[DPF: I would expect the youth sections will make submissions to the select committee on the other recommendations - some jointly which they agree on, and some which they have different views on]
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
***The Keep it 18 page on Facebook has been gaining members at a massive rate. It hit 10,000 overnight and is now at 10,550.***
Teens want to drink non-shocka. Plus if friends join there is some degree of bias in wanting to support them. How many teenagers are there in NZ?
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Bob, I agree. Teens are the ones who are more likely to use social media as well. It would be mostly the young people who want to keep on drinking who would join.
Still, someone needs to start a 20/Up campaign and page.
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
ps, I just had a look at the facebook site and I see the page was started by ACT on Campus (ie, youth), Young Greens, Young Labour and the Young Nationals. So, it’s all young people of course, who don’t want to give up their drinking. No surprises there then.
And the image used by the person who started the page of the prohibition poster is just stupid. Raising the age has nothing to do with prohibition. It’s because young people abuse it and make themselves sick binge drinking.
I note that the age in all 50 States in America to drink is 21 years old.
[DPF: very few of those involved with KI18 are 18 or 19 years old so it is not self interest. They just believe it is wrong to say a 19 year old is mature enough to be elected to a City Council and set alcohol policy, yet be deemed not old enough to buy a bottle of wine]
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Hang on… you’re saying we shouldn’t listen to them just because the law would have an impact on them?
Vote:Slightly warped logic in my opinion, I doubt you would want to apply it to any law changes that might impact you.
Re the other recommendations, independently the youth wings probably disagree on a lot (i.e. excise tax = left wing and no ACC for drunk injuries = right wing), but it says a lot they can come together to prevent the government trying to look strong by picking on the easy targets.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
“Raising the age has nothing to do with prohibition. It’s because young people abuse it and make themselves sick binge drinking.”
Yup just those young people. No one else.
Wowsers
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Kiwigreg, if “young people” weren’t an issue then neither would deciding on the drinking age of 18 or 20 be the issue; the fact that it is points toward there being a problem in that area; however, I’m not saying that it’s only young people that binge drink.
DPF, just because someone can be elected into city council at 19 doesn’t mean they are old enough to drink safely. Different activities have different age restrictions attached to them based on what society thinks is safe – that doesn’t mean that 18 should be the blanket age in which a young person should be able to do anything and everything. One does not equal the other.
As the Why 21 site says –
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
***Re the other recommendations, independently the youth wings probably disagree on a lot (i.e. excise tax = left wing and no ACC for drunk injuries = right wing), but it says a lot they can come together to prevent the government trying to look strong by picking on the easy targets.***
Bullshit. What youth wing is going to argue in favour of an age restriction that disadvantages its members?
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Bob, ACT on Campus regularly argue against our members self interest. Student loans for example.
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
10,000, whoopdie poop.
Wheres the raise it to 30 page?
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Raising the age has nothing to do with prohibition. It’s because young people abuse it and make themselves sick binge drinking.
What a load of utter tripe, horseshit at it’s finest.
Raising the drinking age is about old, humourless farts being concerned that others are out there having fun and stopping young people from doing so is easier than stopping everyone from doing so.
It has EVERYTHING to do with prohibition.
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I was drinking in the pub at 15 alongside the local cops and robbers. Them were the days before Fingers Fahey made a big issue of drink driving.
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
“As the Why 21 site says –
And these minimum ages are set for a reason. In the case of alcohol, 21 is the minimum age because a person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s. Drinking alcohol while the brain is still developing can lead to long-lasting deficits in cognitive abilities, including learning and memory.”
Blah, blah, blah. Undeveloped brain. Yet with that undeveloped brain it’s perfectly fine for them to be able to elect to join the armed forces and go to war if they so choose at age 18, something that can be seen as a complex moral/ethical choice and even dangerous depending upon circumstances, but their brain means they’re not mature enough to have a drink. I see. With that still developing brain it’s perfectly fine to consider them adults – with requisite responsibilities – under the laws of the land, but not the rights. I see. This is all totally consistent thinking and law then?
You’ll also note that at 21 a person’s brain is still developing, so is the point they’ve picked arbitrary in that sense as well?
Vote: