Update on purchase age support
August 31st, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarThe Herald updates:
The Green Party caucus last week decided to have a conscience vote on the alcohol purchasing age and their positions are not all undecided as reported yesterday in a poll of MPs.
Seven of the nine MPs support the purchasing age being 18 for on- and off-licensed premises.
They are Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty, David Clendon and Gareth Hughes.
Yay. Go the Greens!
Labour MPs Jacinda Ardern and Charles Chauvel support the age of 18 for both.
Good. I was surprised when yesterday it was reported Labour’s Youth Affairs Spokesperson was effectively favouring 19 year olds being banned from being able to buy a bottle of wine, but good to see Jacinda (and Charles) are in fact supporting 18.
This now means twice as many MPs are supporting 18 over 20 – 27 MPs to 14 MPs. The split age still has the most support with 37 MPs leaning that way.
Related posts:
- The split purchase age
- Again why a drinking age not an incresed purchase age is needed
- 10 reasons why making it illegal for 18 and 19 year olds to purchase alcohol is the wrong thing to do
- Why it is wrong to raise the purchase age
August 31st, 2010 at 10:42 am
Does anyone know Phil Goff’s conscience position on this issue?
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:49 am
Another reason to never vote Green.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 10:53 am
18 is fair.
sign contracts die for your country.
have a beer with mates.
simple isn’t it?
get rattarsed in public and behave badly – go to jail, go directly to jail and do not collect $200 but have to pay it out the next court date.
If you’re an adult you need to behave like one.
Vote:simple isn’t it
August 31st, 2010 at 11:11 am
They don’t agree with this Academic and me then.
“Professor John Toumbourou, chair of health psychology at Deakin University, said there was clear evidence that a higher drinking age reduced deaths and accidents by 12 per cent.
“It reduces violence by at least the same percentage and other alcohol-related harms,” he said.
“It also reduces the age at which parents give children alcohol because the message becomes clear that they should delay the introduction.”
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 11:30 am
backster…
Vote:Easy for that academic to state. But harder to substantiate.
SO, WHERE ARE HIS REFERENCES?
Sounds like a media driven sound-bite/quote to me.
But lets not go there it is a waste of time ands energy.
August 31st, 2010 at 11:33 am
IMHO the off-licence drinking age should be raised, even if it is just to 19. My reason on this is that, like I was myself, a lot of students are 18 at school. This creates easy access to alcohol for just about anyone at school; you don’t exactly check ids at parties and I am sure there are a few entrepreneurs who would gladly purchase alcohol for school mates for a fee. This is makes it far easier than relying on family or friends out of school.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 1:48 pm
FLIP…………I took the quote from this morning’s Australian the matter is being considered in Adelaide…Actually I thought the consequences he quotes self evident.
Vote:August 31st, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Only spineless morons believe that changing the law now is right. Will be interesting to see what ACT mp’s vote for. Those greens might be morons but at least they’re not spineless. No matter how you try to justify it, it is morally wrong to target one group of people based on an arbitrary cut-off point.
There are so many better ways to reduce alcohol related crime that don’t require punnishing a whole demographic.
Vote:September 1st, 2010 at 12:04 am
@Bullion from what I experienced in highschool (a year ago) the majority of underage drinkers are actually given alcohol by their parents.
Vote: