A unique joint submission
March 9th, 2011 at 12:52 pm by David FarrarThe Keep it 18 campaign is appearing before the Justice and Electoral Committee at 5.20 pm today in Select Committee Room 2 in Bowen House, to do an oral submission on the Alcohol Reform Bill.
The Presidents (or nominees) of Young Labour, Young Nationals, Young Greens and Act on Campus will appear together to talk to their submission, on why 18 and 19 year olds should be able to continue to buy a bottle of wine or a six pack of beer when they do the shopping.
It is the first time the four youth wings have done a formal joint submission to a select committee. Most or all the youth wings have also done individual submissions on the wider issues in the bill.
Their Facebook page has around 17,500 fans.
What strikes me as pertinent as that the voters of Botany have just elected 25 year old Jami-Lee Ross as the MP for Botany. And it is the fourth time he has been elected to office. He was elected to Manukau City Council at the age of 18, and did a good enough job that he got elected twice more – and then to Parliament.
This law would say that Jami-Lee, as an 18 year old, can not be trusted to buy a bottle of wine in a supermarket. However he can be trusted to sit on a City Council, where he would vote on Council spending, by-laws and policies – including the local alcohol policy for a district.
Related posts:
- Alcohol Law Reform Submission
- Keep It 18 press release
- 10 reasons why making it illegal for 18 and 19 year olds to purchase alcohol is the wrong thing to do
- Ross v Wood
March 9th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Maybe Jami Lee can have a bottle of wine from the supermarket.
But, can the dopey kids down the road be trusted?
I would say, that most under 20 year olds cannot be trusted to handle alcohol wisely.
Just take a look at the number of under 20 drink driving convictions. Do you trust them?
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
What has sitting on council got to do with the ability to purchase alcohol?
Vote:For that matter what does the ability to vote, drive, legally have sex, hold a fire arms license, or any of the other tired old lines that get trotted out have to do with the right to purchase alcohol?
Are we really saying that we can only have one age at which all these things become possible?
That just makes no logical sense.
The age should be set based on it’s own merits, if 18 makes sense then 18 it is, but don’t drag all that other dross in to it.
March 9th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
In other words young people with a vested interest in not having their fun spoiled. I wonder if they’ve actually looked at the stats, or are putting self-interest ahead of lives.
Vote:Personally I think the age should be raised again to 21, the same as in the US.
March 9th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Wreck, teenagers have been drinking alcohol since the first fellow picked up a rotten apple.
I had my first beer in a pub when I was 15. By 18 I was a regular pub goer.
I’m now fucking old, have never been done DIC, never been charged with a crime, never killed anyone and, Wreck, I drove, for much of my youth, cars damned near as fast and powerful (although with much bigger engines) than the kids do now.
the U20 DIC figures reflect a fucking stupid alcohol level set for kids and the fact that young people are an easy target for traffic police needing to hit their targets.
Nothing else.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The Keep it 18 campaign is appearing before the Justice and Electoral Committee at 5.20 pm today in Select Committee Room 2 in Bowen House, to do an oral submission on the Alcohol Reform Bill.
What’s kinda cool – to a parliamentary nerd like me – is that the committee has split itself into two subcommittees to hear evidence on this bill – I’m guessing that doesn’t happen very often!
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
In other words young people with a vested interest in not having their fun spoiled.
Right – why don’t the people to whom the law will actually apply just keep out of it? It’s none of their damn business…
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Anyone who thinks the “we’ll just pass a law against it and that will solve the problem” approach will work with alcohol – or anything other drug – is a moron.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
The drink genie has been out of the bottle for a long time.
Our young people have been drinking a long time.
They have been bombarded with ‘information’ and ‘education’ for a long time. I believe they stopped listening a long time ago.
Egged on by health professionals, wowsers, do-gooders and sundry others, MPs are trying to figure out how to get the drink genie back into the bottle.
Laws get proposed. Laws get passed. The genie is still out of the bottle.
Temperance was before my time. Did it work? Don’t think so. I was old enough to take advantage of the end of The 6 o’clock Swill in 1967. Remember the Swill? It was supposed to have been a symbol of a society that was restrictive and socially stifling. The ‘sophisticates’ apparently scoffed at us. By being able to drink on licensed premises until 10pm we would take a step to being civilised.
The most compelling case against putting the age of purchase back to 20 is the illogic of it all. At 16 they can get a driver’s licence. They can have sex together legally and even get married; but must wait until they’re 18 before they can prostitute themselves.
Worse, with the connivance of counsellors and health professionals they can legally be prescribed contraceptives and helped to get abortions without their parents knowing. That’s really treating them like adults.
We treat them like children selectively: we make them wait until they’re 18 before they can legally buy cigarettes or alcohol. At 17 they may enlist in the armed forces.
It’s too late to start treating these adults like children again.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
DPF – can you share with your readers which, if any, liquor-related busineses you’ve worked for recently?
[DPF: I blogged on Monday my personal submission which revealed work I had done for a business. They became a client late last year. I've been supporting a purchase age of 18 since around the late 1980s and helped form the Keep It 18 campaign back in 2006.]
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Hear, hear.
Didn’t the then misnister Mahuta promised no more dog attacks after microchipping legislation was passed? Didn’t Helen Clark and Sue Bradford did the same with child abuse after S59?
Did the imbecile Jim Anderton curb alcohol comsumption when he hiked the excise tax on fortified drinks, i.e., sherry and port? (Sorry, that was another tax grab.)
Vain attempts by despicable politicians.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
I’m sure the politicians will be receiving oral submissions on the bill ’til well into the early hours. On the taxpayer of course …
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Maybe Jami Lee can have a bottle of wine from the supermarket.
But, can the dopey kids down the road be trusted?
Whatever argument that wowsers adopt, this will always be the crux of it. “Sure, me and my friends can be trusted with alcohol. It’s those OTHER people that can’t be trusted. We need a law to stop them!”
I’d rather we stopped trying to restrict the freedoms of the responsible majority, and just arrested people for committing crimes.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
DPF
You run Curia and still you use a single person or a few examples to prove your point ?
Surely you know better. Your bias is blatant.
This is like the climate change debate — objectors use one exceptionally cold winter year to say there is no warming, and the warmists use rare weather events to justify their climate change position.
Come on….more intelligent debate and leadership please befitting the Kiwiblog’s pre-eminent position in the blogosphere.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
So Blair you think it should just be open slather? No age limit at all?
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
From a CNN Report.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Right – why don’t the people to whom the law will actually apply just keep out of it? It’s none of their damn business…
Not when they are the ones abusing the law. Why don’t we just invite all the pot smokers to make submissions on changing the law to allow smoking of illegal substances. Let’s make it a real “joint submission”.
Makes the same amount of sense.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
The stuff that really makes you laugh is the very serious submissions from the “Hospitality” trade on how the evil old grocers are undercutting them and need to be banned.
I personally think (from intimate knowledge) that Foodstuffs and Progressive are a bunch of thieving bastards but they are mere pikers compared to the attempted profiteering of the Pub owners.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Er, hello… 18 and 19-year-olds aren’t “abusing the law,” either by purchasing alcohol (because it’s entirely legal for them to do so) or by objecting to people wanting to deprive them of the ability to do so. The onus is on those who’d like to pass laws restricting other people’s behaviour, but not their own, to provide a compelling reason why it’s just these other people who need to have their behaviour restricted.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
So Blair you think it should just be open slather? No age limit at all?
As I say, the focus should be on the crimes committed by the drinkers, not the drinking itself. It should be open slather for adults, as long as there is clear accountability for one’s actions. In the case of children/teenagers, the responsibility for any crime committed should rest on the supplier of the alcohol. If a supplier is afraid of being sued, they will be a lot more circumspect about sales to minors. But we do not have that.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Well said Psycho. I don’t agree with you often but on this occasion I do.
When I was eighteen 43 years ago I spent many a happy hour at the St. George drinking up large and buying the War Cry from the Sallies. (Regarded as Insurance).
We all drove off and played silly buggers in our really hot Mini’s.
None of us died. Some of us could have but I guess we were lucky.
The world seems to be filled with wankers today.
ps: We all went round to that grotty burger shop in Oriental Bay.
Fucken amazing that I haven’t died of a heart attack.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
But the question here is not what regulation we should apply to adults but are 18 year olds adults?
I believe there’s now ample evidence to suggest the brain is not fully developed at 18 and that alcohol can damage that undeveloped brain.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Personally I think everyone over 40 should be barred from alcohol and smoking as it is bad for their well-being, and costs the country millions in healthcare.
Drunk, disgustingly ugly, 50 year olds are killing our young people. (see http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/driver-found-guilty-murder-3116176 ). I say ban them from drinking, and instate a curfew. Over 50s should be arrested if out past 9pm. Compulsory annual driving tests for all over 40s, and random drug-screening and breathalysers at workplaces would also be beneficial.
Many people of 40s are refusing to accept treatment for their high-blood pressure and cholesterol. The burden of heart attack and stroke is crushing this country. I support compulsory & observed dosing of men over 40 and women over 50 with statins and antihypertensives.
Of course – when I have the pleasure of reaching 40 I want all these rules changed.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
There is a simple answer its called Carousel.
Vote:
March 9th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Alcohol can damage any brain. Have you ever met an old alkie? It’s obvious in them, but there’s more subtle changes in everyone who drinks excessively.
The other side is that after the age of 25 (or somewhere around there) your brain function starts to decline. The reason many 50 year olds find it difficult to learn new things is because they are slower in the head – albeit with more knowledge and experience.
Most 18 year olds can drink and have a good time with no ill effects. Some are disruptive, but if you go out in town you’ll see people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s pissed out of their mind, some of them starting fights.
When I was 18 working as a glassie, some 50 year old grabbed my tray of glasses, walked up to his friend/enemy and smashed them all on the ground in front of him. (Both rich businessmen/professionals)
It just seems that some old people are irrationally scared of “teenagers” – even though most of them are pretty nice people. Those old people are sad fucks.
Vote:March 9th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
I have a better idea than Carousel. I will drink tristanb under the table. Last man standing gets to live.
“Have you ever met an old alkie? It’s obvious in them,”
Fuck!!!!! You have snapped me.
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 8:39 am
Yes, raising the drinking age to 21 would save lives and reduce crime. So would raising the drinking age to 25, or to 30, or banning alcohol entirely. (The reduction in the road toll, violent assaults and domestic violence alone would far more than make up for any potential organised crime.)
So if you’re going to argue on these cost/benefit grounds, go all the way.
Or just face the fact that with freedom comes risk.
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Johnboy (4,412) Says:
March 9th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Well said Psycho. I don’t agree with you often but on this occasion I do.
When I was eighteen 43 years ago I spent many a happy hour at the St. George drinking up large and buying the War Cry from the Sallies. (Regarded as Insurance).
ps: We all went round to that grotty burger shop in Oriental Bay.
Fucken amazing that I haven’t died of a heart attack.
Not before playing a couple of games of snooker underneath the St George I hope.
Always went to the (Greek I think) burger bar just up from the St George (they did deep fried corn cobs) before wandering up Manners Street or driving the old DeSoto down to Oriental Bay but then I was only 17 when I frequented the St George.
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 9:49 am
I’m in favour of putting the age back up to 20 or 21. Too many young people are ruining their lives with alcohol. I’m sick of it! I’m sick of young lives being wasted. I’m sick of the tragedy of drug abuse and alcohol abuse and our permissive culture.
Most of all I am sick of Liberals. The sky is falling, our culture is disintegrating before our very eyes. Teenagers now have no morals, no self-control, no respect for law or authority. Why should they? The children of the 1960s, most of whom are on this blog, are like that too.
So I say no to liberal permissiveness. Yes to Christian morals, yes to giving our kids a hope for the future, yes to self-control, yes to moral guidance and yes to making the hard decisions of actually caring and doing something about it. Let’s put the age up to 20 or 21 and let’s actually enforce it.
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Wouldn’t the morals of a teetotaling religion be a bit more useful in this matter?
And if you’ve got some way to imbue teenagers with self-control, wouldn’t the age limit be irrelevant?
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Scott, exactly.
MIlt, no drinking isn’t illegal, but nor are guns illegal. You wouldn’t put guns into the hands of young children unsupervised though.
Vote:You have to be responsible in allowing things to those at a certain age so they won’t harm themselves.
March 10th, 2011 at 10:31 am
35-year-olds harm themselves with alcohol. Why don’t we ban 35-year-olds from drinking?
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Too often unfortunately.
The evidence points to alcohol damage in a young brain taking more than it’s fair share of responsibility for alcoholism in later years.
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 10:40 am
If we used the same justification we use for regulating recreational drugs, alcohol would be banned.
And then of course the gangs would have a further method of earning their money.
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Yes, and if we used the same justification we use for regulating alcohol, other recreational drugs would not be banned.
Yes, though the harm caused by alcohol greatly outweighs the harm caused by gangs.
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Well I’m rather sick of Christians whose faith in God is so weak that they think that, instead of preaching the gospel and living their lives in a way that would make dissolute people want to change their behaviour, they need to petition the government to make laws to force people to be moral instead.
You are small men who worship a small God.
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
“Not before playing a couple of games of snooker underneath the St George I hope.”
Funny you should say that Tinnie I did but I never was much good at snooker so kept a low profile there.
Used to buy my condoms from the weird old chemist at Perretts Corner in the mandatory brown paper envelope.
Was never in Dime’s class though!
Did you ever go to the Downtown Club?
Bachelors balcony?
Remember this mob?
http://www.sergent.com.au/music/quincyconserve.html.
Vote:March 10th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
PS: You could get a fucken good feed in the Seven Seas bar for 50cents in those days!
Jugs were 33cents!!!!
Vote: