The split purchase age
The Herald reports:
MPs given a conscience vote on the legal drinking age would probably allow 18-year-olds into bars and pubs but return the off-licence purchase age to 20. …
Asked how they intended to vote on the alcohol purchase age, many MPs, including Mr Key and Opposition leader Phil Goff, said they were likely to vote for a split age which would keep the purchase age on licensed premises at 18, but raise the purchase age at liquor stores, supermarkets and other off-licence premises to 20.
This would be a better outcome that having the age for both at 20, but it would still be a flawed decision which will be not just ineffective, but possibly counter-productive.
Mr Goff also said it would be up to each Labour MP how they voted on the drinking age, but he supported a split age because it was better to have 18 and 19-year-olds drinking under supervision rather “than out of the back of a car in a reserve somewhere”.
The reality is this is not the choice for 18 and 19 year olds. The ones who drink in the backs of cars are the 16 and 17 year old, or even younger.
What 18 and 19 year olds do is they have a few drinks at home, before heading into the bars around midnight. And it is naive to think that they will not access alcohol to drink at home, and only drink when out in bars.
Even worse, a split age may actually work against engendering the culture change we need to change drinking habits amongst under 18 year olds.
Culture change is difficult, but not impossible. An example of a successful one is around youth drink driving. 30 years ago people would boast about driving smashed. Today the response from most young people to a revelation that a mate drove while pissed is to abuse the crap out of them for being a moron and risking lives. Drink driving has largely become uncool.
Now what we need is to make it uncool to supply alcohol to minors uner the age of 18. At present this is not even illegal. We need to both make it an offence to supply alcohol to under 18 year olds, but also make it very uncool to do so – to point out all the deaths that have occured from 16 and 17 year olds etc who drink themselves to death.
But this is where the problem occurs if you have a split age, with an age of 20 needed for off licenses. You see while I think you can get a culture change to make it uncool to supply alcohol to 16 and 17 year olds, there is no way NZers will buy into a culture of not allowing a 19 year old to buy a bottle of wine or a sixpack of beer. There is no way 20 year olds will feel some sort of moral obligation not to pass on alcohol to a 19 year old who has been voting, working etc for a couple of years.
However if you keep the age at 18, I think one can work towards a culture where 18, 19 and 20 year olds can be taught it is wrong to allow 16 and 17 year olds alcohol, and start to make it “uncool” as has happened with drink driving.
So I would urge those MPs who think 18/20 split age is a smart compromise, to consider what messages it will be sending out to young people.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:23 am
The 18/20 split drinking purchase age is a move in the right direction, but it is not the solution in isolation.
We need a drinking age of 18, but we also need penalties for supplying alcohol to minors, and we need to increase those penalties.
But most of all, we need to put measures in place that are not punitive to the majority of kiwis who enjoy alcoholic drinks responsibly.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Dpf. I’m surprised at you.
You are on the right track, however if a real culture shift was what you were after, you’d be lobbying to find ways to make it uncool for anyone to get absolutely smashed.
Much the way its uncool to not believe in anthropogenic climate change.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Agree with you cabbage. Though I am impressed with DPF this morning. He seems to be wanting to take a very responsible attitude to drinking and the booze culture. Perhaps all that time in Austria looking at churches has done something good in him.
Hear what you’re saying about having a drinking age. However I would make the drinking age 20. I think 18-year-olds being able to drink is affecting school life. The seventh formers are drinking and this is filtering down to the younger ranks.
I also think the change to lowering the age from 20 to 18 was negative and harmful and should be reversed by Parliament. Whether they will or not is a different thing. My understanding is that the National party is in the grip of big alcohol and will dutifully succumb to that group of lobbyists.
I remain hopeful that I am wrong and the drinking age will go back up to 20 where it rightfully belongs in my opinion.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:39 am
This appears to be a contradiction to yesterday’s post where you said : A law change is not culture change – that lowering drink drive limits would not change the behaviours associated with alcohol abuse. Once you start wondering about being cool or uncool, I think you’ve lost the important issue.
As I recall, there wasn’t any conscious thinking of what was cool or not, when I was a teen. We were pack animals – behaviours were replicated and amplified in some sort of wierd discovery of what could be done rather than what should be done and there wasn’t good and bad/right and wrong but what felt right for the moment. And if the moment went bad, then how to either get away from it or lose yourself in it. A strange mix of hedonism and sadism. Now how do you legislate for that? It’s like D.I. Quinn saying we should be more pragmatic over social use of weed. Why? You can’t reason with irrationality.
Legislators should just make up their mind on what they think is best for creating a relatively stable market and leave social issues to sort themsleves. Cool and uncool are not questions for government.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:44 am
The lowering of the purchasing age has been an unmitigated disaster. I believe this move (if voted on) will go someway to addressing the imbalance.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Good news to see Labour will conscience vote on the issue, rather than block vote to their whim. Its hilarious that the split age could potentially be the favourite, when only last Parliament it was a distant third behind 18 & 20. What has changed in a few years? Or is it politicians wanting to be seen to do something…
August 18th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Say Goodbye to Hollywood, can you please show me your evidence to support your assertion…I would argue that nothing has changed but at least the majority of 18-19 year olds have the freedom to have a few drinks in a bar and buy a few beers at their local. The minority abuse this freedom, but so do those younger than 18 and much older than 20.
The answer is that NZ’s booze culture needs changing, but not through punitive means and knee-jerk reactions.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:56 am
“We need to both make it an offence to supply alcohol to under 18 year olds”
Thats the solution right there.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:09 am
“We need to both make it an offence to supply alcohol to under 18 year olds”
So a parent can’t have a glass of beer or wine with their 16 year old? Try and force teenagers not to drink at all until they are 18 or 20, then unleash them?
I have my doubts about whether this will be anywhere near a solution. All it will do, again, is restrict the responsible population and those that couldm’t give a stuff will continue to not give a stuff. Making it illegal has hardly stopped pot smoking.
Attitudes to drinking need to change, not just delaying the onset of open slather.
[DPF: You would obviously have a parental exemption - but only I suggest if the parents remain present. ie of course you can have a glass of wine with your 16 year old over dinner, but no you can not give them a bottle of vodka to take to a party]
August 18th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I would have tougher penalties for serving people who are intoxicated. A licenced premises serving people who are under age and drunk should have their licence suspended immediately for 7 days, and drunk could be defined as a breath alcohol reading of 800 m/gms – which is TWICE the driving limit. If in doubt the licensee has the discretion to refuse anyone alcohol. For people over 18 and intoxicated and in posession of alcohol the licence could be suspended for 12 hours.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:26 am
What about making the drunks face responsibility for being drunk in public?
August 18th, 2010 at 9:33 am
tvb How would you define a drunk or work out if that person has a reading of 800 m/gms or more.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:36 am
DPF probably your most sensible post on the drinking age yet.
Only a change in “culture” will work and restricting drinking alcohol to over 18s will work against that change.
Making public inebriation socially unacceptable and, as MikeNZ asked, making those who are drunk in public responsible for their actions are the only long term actions that will work.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Breath test before you allow the purchase of a drink to go through.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:49 am
The answer to the drinking problems is there is no answer,
August 18th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Do we really think kids will stop drinking because we tinker with the ages? I was trying to get into pubs when I was 16 and that was back in the 60′s when you were supposed to wait till you were 21. I used my cousin’s licence. We could get very merry on cheap bottles of Dubonnet and jugs of beer. For a while we could buy a very strong screwdriver mix in a cask that had us all smashed in no time. We recklessly drove, unlike kids today who are generally far more responsible. I remember seeing pupils aged 13-16 pickled in Cuba Street in the 70′s so it’s nothing new.
Kids drink. Some kids drink far too much. Some kids drive when they shouldn’t. The same applies to adults.
Rather than fussing round the with age every few years, we would be better increasing penalties when drunk drivers are caught. I would say that if there is an accident, then having any drink (or illegal drugs) at all in your system should be penalised.
It is interesting that most of the cases in the media at the moment feature drivers who are way above the legal limit and a sad young woman who was clearly an alcoholic. What the law says has no relevance at all for drinkers like these.
It’s a behaviour and attitude change that’s needed not just more laws.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:14 am
What BeaB said.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:14 am
“So a parent can’t have a glass of beer or wine with their 16 year old?”
Yes.
16 is too young to drink.
Might be ok in France but here in NZ we do not have the culture to be able to trust 16yos with alcohol. Or the parents with the skills to excercise correct judgement.
Sad isnt it.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:17 am
1. I am sick of it being called the drinking age. There is no drinking age – it is the purchase age.
2. 18/20 is better than the alternative although it still stinks of the “we have to be seen to do something syndrome. It will not change anything.
3. To be fair I think we are kidding ourselves to suggest most young people have a “few” drinks before heading out. At $8 plus for a beer in town a “few” simply isn’t going to cut it.
4. Perhaps illegal to supply to under 18s unless parent or guardian and illegal to drink unless under parental or delegated authority? It would be an ass to enforce but would still provide a legal out from covert drinking – where there is no control or support if things go wrong.
August 18th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Will achieve nothing.
It’s time the bollocks notion that drunk people can’t control themselves or make good decisions is put to bed. Dumb, unthinking acceptance of that is the problem.
My suggestion:
“I was drunk at the time” should be an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one, at sentencing for any conviction.
Plus plenty of publicity. “Today in the district court Freddy Fuddpucker had his sentence for criminal damage increased to two years after it was revealed he was a drunken idiot at the time of the offending….”
August 18th, 2010 at 11:35 am
BeaB, have you considered that a small amount of alchohol or drugs in someone’s system may have nothing to do with their crash? Its nothing more than pure ideology and assertion to suggest that after having one-three drinks you should be penalised for driving. There is nothing wrong with the 0.08 limit, lowering it would simply be another knee-jerk reaction.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:41 am
RRM, why dont you leave it to the Judges in each individual case, rather than suggesting your own arbitrary rules that will inevitably lead to unfairness. ie while being drunk may not alter someone’s culpability for the crime, it could well be worth less in terms of a sentence than a cold premeditated offence.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:41 am
The hospitality industry want drinkers to be personally responsible for their drinking by wanting laws for public drunkenness.
How about the suppliers taking responsibility for the amount of alcohol that is released into the community. They can keep pouring it into the community without comeback for the harm they are doing – it’s all about money. No wonder some of NZ’s richest people are booze barons.
Companies that produce harmful products should have an extra tax levied on them – any alcohol producers, fast food producers. Tax that hurts the producer, not as a penalty on the consumer (directly).
August 18th, 2010 at 11:56 am
glubbster – there are already all sorts of sentencing rules, why would one more be a problem?
If a few fuckers are seen to have been made to pay, really pay, for their sh!t behaviour while drunk, maybe people in general will start to think more about how they behave while drunk.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:58 am
There is no “drinking age” in NZ, there is only a purchase age. The premise that raising the purchase age will mean that those younger will not drink is about as sound as a belief that revoking a drivers licence will physically stop a person from driving.
I imagine there are very few people who do not have a story about themselves either consuming alcohol or being on a licenced premise, despite being under the purchase age, what ever the age was at the time. I did it myself. From time to time I consumed a bit too much. However, I did not commit any crime (either sober or intoxicated!) or cause any other problems (well, other than assault on others hearing due to a misguided belief that after a couple of drinks I can sing).
As many people have commented above, the issue is not age, it is culture i.e. irresponsible drinking. 16 year olds who drink and commit crime, or kill themselves with alcohol poisoning, manage to do so without currently having the legal ability to purchase alcohol. Changing the age will not change this. Attaining the purchase age is nothing magical. Being 18 or 20 does not make you any less likely to drink to excess, drive drunk, drunkenly assault people or even just behave like an idiot. What makes you less likely to do these things is the attitude of the individual. Some people are responsible, others are not. What we need to do is work towards changing the attitude of those who are not, rather than punishing those who are.
Found a great quote on a Wikipedia entry regarding alcohol in ancient Egypt (not the most reliable source I know, but does sum it up nicely) “After reviewing extensive evidence regarding the widespread but generally moderate use of alcoholic beverages, the nutritional biochemist and historian William J. Darby makes a most important observation: all these accounts are warped by the fact that moderate users “were overshadowed by their more boisterous counterparts who added ‘color’ to history.” Thus, the intemperate use of alcohol throughout history receives a disproportionate amount of attention. Those who abuse alcohol cause problems, draw attention to themselves, are highly visible and cause legislation to be enacted. The vast majority of drinkers, who neither experience nor cause difficulties, are not noteworthy. Consequently, observers and writers largely ignore moderation.”
August 18th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I was proud of NZ for lowering the drinking age to 18 instead of all the idiotic things that occur in the USA because the drinking age is 21 (no one actually follows that, they just break the law because there’s no justification for an adult not being allowed to drink). If 18 is the age of adulthood, then there is no reason why 18 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to drink. If they screw up because of it, then they should be fully accountable for their actions, again, like adults. Raising the drinking age is just another step to draw out childhood and dilute what being an adult really means, which is being fully accountable for your actions. I simply cannot support calling people adults at 18, and yet not allowing them to drink until they are 20.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
RRM, 3-strikes does exactly the same and I oppose it on the same basis.
RRM, you never said how you would reconcile my example above ie should a drunk person who causes an accident by his own criminal stupidity get a higher sentence than a sober calculating offender?
The government is already introducing harsher penalties for drunk driving offences. There is a rational basis for this move.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4036517/Victims-family-satisfied-with-sentence
August 18th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Tell ya what glubbster, why don’t you tell me what the positive effects have been of lowering the purchasing age. I see none based on my assertion.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Why not a 16/25 split?
In part the issue is someone is supplying 14 year olds alcohol. I was walking down my street on Saturday and was approached by 3 young teenagers who asked me to buy them alcohol. I told them no and left them.
There are people out there that buy this for kids. Kids consume it in public and cause trouble. Making it harder (higher age, fewer premises, less sweetened drinks aimed at kids, more enforcement aimed at illegal sales to kids) to purchase off license booze is a sticking plaster solution, however it is one that is worthwhile trying. It certainly won’t solve all the problems as the problems have social roots. However making it harder to get might prevent a kid from being damaged.
I like a drink, in fact I had just set off on my 6 km walk to the pub when approached by the teenagers. I also drank when I was 16-19 (back when the legal age was 20). However that was always at someone place where parent knew where we were (mostly) and occasionally in a bar at a local pub (that sometimes used to empty about 2 minutes before the local police used to arrive). In the bar we were well-behaved because if we weren’t then they would not serve us. Then that was many years ago in a much smaller place and on a Friday or Saturday nights pubs closed at 11PM (well mostly)
August 18th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
@Say Goodbye to Hollywood: “The lowering of the purchasing age has been an unmitigated disaster.”
“Tell ya what glubbster, why don’t you tell me what the positive effects have been of lowering the purchasing age. I see none based on my assertion.”
No, that’s not how it works. You make the assertion, you have the burden to back it up.
I’ll give you one positive effect. Lowering the purchase age meant the law as a whole was more coherent. 18 is the age of majority. As such, rights should be accorded in full.
I really hope you’re not one of those here who buys into the whole “mainstream media is out to get us” because this is all hype by mainstream media to sell stories that you’re buying into here. I don’t believe the mainstream media is out to get anybody, however, I do believe they are there to make a profit and if that means sensationalising, stoking knee-jerk reactions out of individual’s tragedies, ignoring shoddy methodology in reports which back their cause, even ignoring a lack of evidence for their cause and so on, then I believe they’ll do it.
Oh, an assertion, shall I give something to back it up? Well, 1) The BERL report was shoddy yet this was mainly ignored, 2) there have been highly publicised stories over the year about young people drinking alcohol to excess – many of whom are not able to purchase under the law as it stands – yet these have been linked to changing the purchase age by those in the media, 3) these stories represent a minority of drinkers, yet it is approached as though it is the majority, 4) this ignores that the major problem is the drinking culture – in terms of acceptability rather than in terms of what they majority of drinkers do, but that’s not as juicy a target, is it? Someone must be made/seen to do something and it must be seen to have immediate effect because our fucking attention span is miniscule and we won’t link it back if something that’s not reactionarily knee-jerk and gives instant gratification is done. 5) these are profit making organisations and they need to do what’s most effective at grabbing attention.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:16 am
What does the Hospitality Association make of this split age proposal. They wanted a drinking age of 18 (ie a 17 cannot have a Christmas drink at home unless their parents approve) and a purchase age of 18. HANZ have even put up a council candidate in Wellington Adam Cunningham to run on a more drinking ticket. He’s a HANZ board member and has owned pubs and breweries http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1003/S00457.htm.
Adam Cunningham wants the inner city drinking ban to cover the whole city, mimimum prices for beer in supermarkets and pubs to be open 365 days a year, 24/7 if they want. Talk about self interest. All these guys think about is more profits from alcohol consumption. Reading their submission to Parliament, they don’t even think there is a drinking problem, accept for the competition.
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/84F78C3E-8FA6-4519-A70C-FC7C61C166D6/150003/49SCTIR_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL9642_1_A52319_HospitalityA.pdf