But what about the cost
June 2nd, 2011 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarClaire Trevett in the NZ Herald reports:
A report from the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser says raising the drinking age to 21 and increasing alcohol prices are two of the most effective ways to address youth drinking problems.
Professor Sir Peter Gluckman yesterday released a paper on social problems facing young people, which Prime Minister John Key requested after the death from alcohol poisoning of King’s College student James Webster in May last year.
Si Peter’s report is here.
I’d make the initial point that the tragic death of James Webster would not have been affected by a change in the alcohol purchase age. That is very clear.
Secondly I’d concede that raising the drinking age and increasing the price of alcohol is likely to reduce harm from alcohol. If you made the purchase age 25 and made the cost of a glass of beer $20, then there would be far less harm from alcohol.
Likewise if you really wanted to lower the road toll, you’d engineer all cars so they can not go faster than say 40 kms/hr.
So why don’t we do these things? Because while it reduces harm for some people, it also imposes costs and removes choice from other people.
The 318 report from Sir Peter is a very useful piece of work. You need good science to tell you what may and may not work. But the science is only an input.
Science could tell you that if we banned fast food outlets from New Zealand, we might be a healthier country. If we passed a law making it mandatory for people who weigh over 95 kgs to go to the gym twice a week, then we might also be a healthier country.
But most people don’t want to live in a country like that. They want a country where responsible people are not punished for the decisions of irresponsible people.
Related posts:
- Purchase age not drinking age
- The cost of alcohol
- NZPA on Keep It 18
- Public Forum on Alcohol Reforms
June 2nd, 2011 at 12:12 pm
A point very clearly made by Sir Peter last night in a speech he gave about the report and the use of evidence in the policy formation process.
The evidence is clear that folate fortification in wheat would have positive effects for some and negative effects for almost no-one. But that doesn’t mean we should have done it then. There are other considerations to weigh against the science.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I love this idea.
Drinking is out of control in this country.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Gluckman not only a warmist, but a wowser too. Just what we needed: the scientific equivalent of the hopeless Palmer.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 12:41 pm
So why don’t we do these things? Because while it reduces harm for some people, it also imposes costs and removes choice from other people.
Vote:……
Choice not to have roaming bands of drunks in the neighborhood.
June 2nd, 2011 at 12:45 pm
All good points DPF!
So if you want to live in a country where you don’t want the the Prime Minister to borrow from your children, you need to vote for a different party.
If you want to live a country where borrowing hasn’t risen from 26% in 2009 to 33% in 2011, you should not vote for John Key.
Because that man is not a responsible Prime Minister.
[DPF: Off topic 10 demerits. Use general debate for your obsession]
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Some what off topic but:
Is there a name for the syndrome that berend shows evidence of ?
Poor barstard, it must be awfully grey in the world that he/she lives.
db..
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
“Secondly I’d concede that raising the drinking age and increasing the price of alcohol is likely to reduce harm from alcohol. If you made the purchase age 25 and made the cost of a glass of beer $20, then there would be far less harm from alcohol.”
By that logic banning it would also reduce harm from Alcohol. We’ve found that not to be the case with ANY Drug.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Cheap Booze will always be cheap. These kids causing the problems aren’t drinking pints of beer at the bar, they are swilling cheapo premix and any dodgy imitation spirits they can get their hands on….They don’t even drink the same booze that responsible grown-ups drink (Yet you know who is going to get taxed for all this)!
Vote:I resent the possibility that my quiet beer after work could double in price because a couple of spotty teenagers are stupid enough to drink themselves to death- There I said it!
June 2nd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
“Secondly I’d concede that raising the drinking age and increasing the price of alcohol is likely to reduce harm from alcohol. If you made the purchase age 25 and made the cost of a glass of beer $20, then there would be far less harm from alcohol.”
There would probably be a booming black market for alcohol I imagine.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Changing the law would not have saved the life of James Webster but raising he legal drinking age to 20 or 21 may make Courtney Place a more tolerable place to be on a Friday night.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Couldnt agree more. Good post
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:40 pm
With the backlash in the general population against bludgers, I was thinking that instead of drinking age, we could have a drinking right. It is your right to drink – if you are not sponging off the country. If you feel this is unfair, you can forgo your dole and live off savings or get a job.
The main disadvantage (other than crap like “it unfairly targets tangata whenua”) is that it would require everyone to carry around an ID card.
Basically, if you’re not on the dole, sickness bene, DPB or student allowance you can get this card. The enterprising 19-year-old running his own business is then free to have a beer, but the dope-smoking 27-year-old on the benefit who blows his dole on mag wheels cannot buy alcohol at a bar or liquor outlet.
Now obviously this would create a black market for alcohol/smokes amongst the scum of this country – but (as the wowsers say) it’s about risk reduction. Make it strictly illegal to serve someone without a “worker card” (too communist sounding?) and apply the same penalties as serving under-18s. Make it a “jailable” offence to use someone else’s.
I think this is fairer, as it’s not ageist. If someone contributes to society, then they get the rights that we enjoy. If they don’t – well they know the options. The majority of alcohol related crime/accidents likely come from non-workers anyway.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I really do appreciate the argument, but I’m also conscious that if you follow it you often end up ruling out anything likely to work.
You’ll probably find a decent chunk of the law punishes responsible people for the actions of irresponsible people. (You’ll probably also find most irresponsible people don’t consider themselves such.)
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Wow, Sir Peter and his team found that raising prices and the legal drinking age would reduce harm? Gee, never heard that before; or has similar advice from the Law Commisison and many other experts simply been ignored. We have a terrible tendency in the country to commission experts to study ‘problems’, but then ignore the advice. It must be that studying something is a substitute for doing something.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Secondly I’d concede that raising the drinking age and increasing the price of alcohol is likely to reduce harm from alcohol. If you made the purchase age 25 and made the cost of a glass of beer $20, then there would be far less harm from alcohol.
I think there is a good chance that is wrong. At those prices and restrictions then a black market will be in play. It would be controlled by gangs and criminals. Market share will not be decided by price and quality, as it is in legal markets, but by violence. Being underground, product quality problems may emerge leading to health problems, as is the case in drugs. The history of prohibition and the war on drugs is that illegality tends to increase costs rather than reduce them, and it isn’t clear why severe taxes or outright bans now should be expected to produce a result that is any different.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:52 pm
mikenmild: there is a strong likelihood Gluckman is wrong, actually, once the likelihood of black markets is acknowledged.
Research shows the heaviest drinkers respond least to price hikes, so price hikes poorly target where the problem is. It is the moderate drinkers who cut back the most in response to price increases, and there is a J curve in alcohol consumption, in which moderate consumption is actually beneficial in terms of life expectancy. Because a tax hike most affects those drinking at healthy levels, it is likely to be counter productive.
As a first approximation, the socialists are always wrong, and here Gluckman is no exception.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:53 pm
ben
I think you are drawing a false analogy. Banning something creates huges incentives for a black market. Rasing the price may encourage some illegal activity at the margins (under-age drinking), but will definitely reduce demand. See cigarette prices for an example. If harm reduction was our aim, then we would legalise any substances under a similar regime to alcohol and tobacco.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
I’m not advocating it but if you want to get into price driven incentives why not increase the costs from liquor stores and reduce the cost for on-licenses so that young people are more likely to drink under the supervision of a licensed bar manager and in the presence of security.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
James Webster drank his own vodka and shared Jagermeister with Alex Banks (according to Alex). James got his alcohol from a fellow student and Alex got his from his older brother who was 18.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/58776/tearful-mayor-makes-apology-at-teen%27s-inquest
Unless the alcohol was stolen, putting up the purchase age to 21 would have meant these teenagers couldn’t have obtained alcohol. It’s quite apparent that James’ parents and John Banks did not supply the alcohol.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:57 pm
This always needs to be considered in these kind of discussions:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Most published research is wrong, at least in medical areas, but I think some of the causes transfer to all research.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 1:59 pm
DPF said:
Secondly I’d concede that raising the drinking age and increasing the price of alcohol is likely to reduce harm from alcohol. If you made the purchase age 25 and made the cost of a glass of beer $20, then there would be far less harm from alcohol.
ben (1,771) Says:
I think there is a good chance that is wrong. At those prices and restrictions then a black market will be in play.
But that is not a change that anyone is advocating anyway so there’s not really much sence bringing up the argument or arguing with it. It’s just meant as a diversion from the real issue.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Someone said:
Research shows the heaviest drinkers respond least to price hikes, so price hikes poorly target where the problem is. It is the moderate drinkers who cut back the most in response to price increases, and there is a J curve in alcohol consumption, in which moderate consumption is actually beneficial in terms of life expectancy. Because a tax hike most affects those drinking at healthy levels, it is likely to be counter productive.
As a first approximation, the socialists are always wrong, and here Gluckman is no exception.
~~~~~
Teenagers are pretty responsive to price because they have very little money.
The J shaped curve is pretty speculative and the hint of any effect is only seen in a small subgroup of people – males over 50 who drink 1 or fewer drinks per day. I believe the general recommendation is that, even if you are a male over 50, don’t take up drinking if you haven’t done so as the risks outweigh the benefits.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 2:28 pm
I tried to go out in Chch recently. Damned difficult. I suggest an emergency CERA regulation to raise the drinking age to 25 to try and free up some bar space.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Sonny Blount (1,207) Says:
This always needs to be considered in these kind of discussions:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Most published research is wrong, at least in medical areas, but I think some of the causes transfer to all research.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are levels of testing in science that range from exploratory to confirmatory. Confirmatory experiments tend to be well designed, have a large sample size and, if possible, are randomised controlled trials. There are well known “standards” to make a trial of this kind run well.
But, these cost a lot of money so people only run them if they have some prior evidence that they are worth doing.
To get this prior evidence they often run cheap and highly speculative experiments which get more and more rigourous as the evidence increases. Sometimes this means that false hypotheses get shown to be true when a larger confimatory trial would show them wrong but then that is the point of a confirmatory trial and why trials are published so that others can replicate them.
The other ways that studies can go wrong are the same things that any person making an argument can go wrong – their world view and personal interest can interfere with their objectivity.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Advertising is another part of the solution. Eliminating tobacco advertising and sponsorship has had a huge effect, and there is no reason to suppose that similar restrictions for the alcohol industry would not be similarly beneficial.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 2:37 pm
DPF said
They want a country where responsible people are not punished for the decisions of irresponsible people.
~~~~
Vote:I think some people would like a country where the benefits to teenagers were considered over the profits of alcohol producers and sellers.
June 2nd, 2011 at 2:37 pm
mpledger
DPF said
Secondly I’d concede that raising the drinking age and increasing the price of alcohol is likely to reduce harm from alcohol
Even if DPF didn’t mention black markets, its no use ignoring it if its going to happen. Yes, ok, we can debate whether it will at $20, or $25, or $30. I am personally surprised black markets in tobacco are not more prominent at current prices. But black markets are relevant to the question of harm from regulation, since they are produced by regulation made sufficiently heavy.
The J-curve is emphatically not speculative. It has been repeatedly found in the data and survives ontrolling for possible confounds (see Castelnuovo and Donati 2006 for a meta study confirming this, there are others), but is played down by health advocates who are apparently so convinced they already know what’s good for everyone else that data doesn’t matter. See http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/08/j-curve-science-versus-politics.html
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 2:56 pm
While the emergence of a black market is a possibility, it would be tempered by the fact it is legal to produce your own beer, wine and spirits at home for your own consumption. I’ve got my cost per dozen (4 litres of 4% beer) down to $3, or 75c/litre (excluding cost of equipment and bottles), and it has the added bonus of being a fun hobby.
IMO this government will ignore Gluckman’s advice and leave the age limits as they are, not because they disagree with his findings but because no government wants to piss off the 18-20 year old voters.
And then of course there’s the case made by the Young Ones:
TEENAGER #1: I’m sixteen, I’m old enough to marry and have children, but I can’t drink in pubs. When will the government wake up and realize that young adults are mature and responsible people?
–EXT: STREET
TEENAGER #2: I’m sixteen, right? I can join the Army, the Air Force and the Navy… but I can’t drink in pubs. When will the government, right, realize that young adults have a valued contribution to give to society?
–EXT: STREET
[This TEENAGER is sniffing glue. He reacts visibly before speaking.]
Vote:TEENAGER #3: A lot of people say that young adults are violent, right? But how would you feel if you were old enough to have… intercourse with the partner of your choice… and yet you could not drink in pubs?
June 2nd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Young Ones rule!
Seriously, a combination of sponsorship and advertsising controls, price hikes and age changes are the way to go, but I don’t expect the political calculus to reach that result.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Wouldn’t all of the responsible people be within a healthy weight range?
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 5:02 pm
“mandatory for people who weigh over 95 kgs to go to the gym twice a week, then we might also be a healthier country”
“Wouldn’t all of the responsible people be within a healthy weight range”
As an aside the ‘BMI’ concept of a “healthy weight range” is utter rubbish. By BMI index I have been ‘obese’ since I was about 17. Yet I’m relatively fit and healthy….
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 5:55 pm
If we enforced any rules around alcohol that we have now we would not be having this debate. Why do we still have cops doing nothing when you have people throwing up and passing out in the street because they are so drunk? In come countries, being drunk and disorderly is enough to get locked up overnight. We have good laws around booze, no one enforces them.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 5:58 pm
“But most people don’t want to live in a country like that. They want a country where responsible people are not punished for the decisions of irresponsible people.”
The laws on drugs seems to contradict that. We are a country where most people like to drink a little so we currently find alcohol ok. However once all the social engineering being done to ban smoking is done, alcohol will be the next on the chopping block, that is unless we stand up and tell the government and do-gooding green commies to f*ck off out of peoples private lives and let us make our own decisions.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 7:26 pm
This is a global problem in many not all but many western first world countries is it not. The Nordic countries are the only countries where it doesn’t seem to happen.
Face it.
Drugs are popular. I mean who knows why. I can’t understand it myself but feeling good via chemicals seems to be popular. Go figure.
What we need is a universal strategy to accommodate in society the universal desire for chemicals, in the least harmful way. Why is it society puts alcohol into a different category, both policy-wise and attitude/belief-wise, than other narcotics?
When ya think about it, if you want to reduce harmful effects, it’s attitudes toward consumption you need to direct. And you don’t do that by adjusting the supply dynamics. Nor do you do it by pointing toward the harmful health effects because fuck it, who doesn’t like getting tiddly, pissed or even completely smashed sometimes, even though one knows it’s probably not so good for one in all sorts of ways. I mean hello, human nature and all. So why do we always play only at the margins, all the time, in every first world society, over this issue?
Disclaimer: the fact I’m
Vote:getting quietly smashedenjoying a good Pinot right now, has nothing to do with the above.June 2nd, 2011 at 8:09 pm
I’m with Manolo, I’ve never heard Gluckman say anything sensible outside of his professional field.
Why stop at 21? Next they’ll want to raise the legal age to 25 …, and raise alcohol prices further, … and put more barriers on its advertising ….
As usual, if something bureaucratic doesn’t work, do more of it. The police are the most expert of all at this strategy.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 9:05 pm
I’m sure stopping all alcohol advertising and strictly enforcing a drinking age, and properly penalising those who supply underage drinkers would have some effect. None of that is unreasonable.
But yes, the government should be looking at legalising the sale of relatively safe feel-good drugs like Ectasy and maybe Cannabis – and taxing the profits from sale. I see this goes against some of your international trade agreements but no one follows those fully.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Hey how about we lift the age to 21 this year, 22 next year, 23 the year after that etc till we get it to 99. Within about 20 years the alcohol related roll toll and drink related violence will have dropped significantly as all people 41 and under won’t be drinking.
Vote:June 3rd, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Just make it an offense to be drunk in a public place – and define this by a blood alcohol level (nuetral standard of assessment) this allows hosts to restrict access to drunks and police to manage behaviour of those who have been drinking – no one drunk would want to attract their attention.
Vote:June 3rd, 2011 at 8:02 pm
SPC
I think it would be better to define it by breath alcohol level. I don’t that imagine blood testing is a viable method to test eligibility for entry into a bar. Well not unless all bars had to do it!
Vote:June 3rd, 2011 at 8:11 pm
” If we passed a law making it mandatory for people who weigh over 95 kgs to go to the gym twice a week, then we might also be a healthier country.”
We passed a law that banned smacking children to stop our horrendous child abuse stats. That worked well.
Vote:June 3rd, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Burt
Sure breath alcohol level testing would be used to indicate it by both bars and police – a bar would use the breath test to show they had cause for denying either access or further access to drinks on sale to those inside already. It’s just that usually blood alcohol tests are done if/when there is legal follow up.
If breath tests alone were the final legal determinant, then police might raise fine money by the simple process of randomly breath testing people each evening, so a blood test criteria before a fine would cap the extent to which this happened and leave them focusing on behaviour issues.
Vote: