NZ Herald on Drinking Age
July 4th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald editorial:
When an overwhelming majority of people say they want the legal purchasing age for alcohol raised to 20, there is reason to pay attention.
Attention may be, but not deference.
It is no surprise that lost of people who are not aged 18 and 19 want to take rights away from 18 and 19 year olds. Just as once upon a time lots of men did not think women should have the vote.
July 4th, 2011 at 10:13 am
As I posted on GD, 58% doesn’t seem like an overwhelming majority.
In 2008 a more “overwhelming majority” of 66% voted against Labout being in government, but we still let them participate.
Excess drinking is a major problem in New Zealand. Excess drinking by 18-20 year olds is only a part of that problem.
I’d prefer to see the “overwhelming majority” do something positive to change the drinking culture that prevails, by example for a start. More restrictive knee jerk laws are seen as a quick fix mentality that often doesn’t fix anything.
Most teenagers turn 18 in the year they finish school, if they get to 7th form. That seems a logical age for the purchasing age to me, in bars at least but in reality in priovate homes and flats it also makes sense, otherwise we’re trying to herd behaviour.
Most first and second years at uni are < 20 years of age.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Woman have the right to vote?!?!?!
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 10:26 am
What absolute crap David. Equating the “right” to get drunk with voting equality.
What the hell lets make it 14. Its “more” people having a “right” so it must be a good thing yes?
I’m used to the media and politicans having utter contempt for our intelligence but et tu Brutila?
[DPF: There is no right to get drunk. In fact it is illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk - a law sadly not applied often. I believe there should be a right to purchase alcohol though once you are an adult]
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 10:26 am
When I hear talk of buying or drinking alcohol referred to as a “right”, I’m always reminded of this sketch from the young ones
Vote:
July 4th, 2011 at 10:43 am
I’d like to see the voting age and age to fight in war lifted to 20. These are always spouted by pro-youth drinking mob, even though they’re very different and perhaps totally unrelated.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 10:44 am
What absolute crap Murray. Equating the “right” to vote with drinking equality.
What the hell lets make it 14. Its “more” people having a “right” so it must be a good thing yes?
I’m used to the media and politicans having utter contempt for our intelligence but et tu Brutila?
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 10:46 am
And look at how western nations have gone to hell in a hand-cart ever since the weaker sex got the vote.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 11:08 am
I get sick of hearing the argument that if you are old enough to fight for your country you should be able to drink. According to Professor Doug Sellman, director of the National Addiction Centre there are 20 alcohol related deaths per week in NZ. Since the Second World War NZ has suffered 116 combat related deaths. More lives have been lost through drinking in NZ in the last 6 weeks than in combat in the last 62 years.
Here’s a thought, if you actually fight for your country then you should be allowed to drink, otherwise a more sensible age should apply.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 11:09 am
And look at how western nations have gone to hell in a hand-cart ever since the weaker sex got the vote.
Ironic then that one of Kate Shepherd’s main motivations for universal suffrage came from her involvement in the Temperance Union, as women (in those days) tended to favour “moderation”.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Those arguing for the drop in alcohol purchase age argued that it would not lead to more bad behaviour.
No serous person who has looked at the results can disagree with the fact that *has*.
Yes, it’s nasty to the poor little dears, but sometimes you have to earn the right to stuff. I say they’ve been the creators of their own destiny.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 11:11 am
Ironic then that one of Kate Shepherd’s main motivations for universal suffrage came from her involvement in the Temperance Union, as women (in those days) tended to favour “moderation”.
Yes, having drunk husbands coming home time after time will do that.
(Starts thinking about how that works with gay marriage
)
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 11:33 am
What a load of cobblers!
Utter cobblers!
There should be no “drinking age” and, probably, no purchase age.
A sensible use of alcohol where ALL people are required to be responsible for their own drinking activities and being under the influence of alcohol is socially unacceptable is the only way forward.
To ban something, any-bloody-thing, is only going to make it more desirable to those unable to obtain it and, in the long run, will result in situations as happened in Auckland not that long ago where a young man stole a bottle and then drunk the contents far too fast, killing himself.
Please also note the Temperance crowd, then as now, had no interest in moderation. To suggest they did is simply lies.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Most of those, DPF included, who oppose raising the drinking age have not actually tried to manage teenagers themselves and have not seen first hand the problems that have been caused by lowering the drinking age. In an ideal world people would behave themselves and we therefore wouldn’t need a police force. Unfortunately we do not live in a libertarian paradise where everyone behaves responsibly. There is no doubt that youth alcohol problems have increased since the drinking age was reduced to 18. I actually supported the reduction but experience has taught me that I was wrong. Simple as that.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Raising the purchase age will have little deterrent effect on alcohol abuse. But doubling the price will. People are still quite immature at 20 and indeed Sir Peter Bluckman’s report on youth suggest people do not reach maturity until they are about 30. So uplifting the purchase age top 20 will achieve very little. But a significant increase in the cost of alcohol, and a ban on deep discounting especially alco-pops will have a good effect. There is no reason for people to get drunk, absolutely none. But making alcohol very expensive will help stop that. I also think there should be much tougher penalties on bars and liquor outlets serving intoxicated people, essentially making it a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment to do so. I consider alcohol to be the equivalent to a class B drug and it would be tempting to make supply of liquor to intoxicated people to have similar penalties as supplying a class B drug – i.e. 14 years imprisonment.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
DPF have to disagree in part. I have no issue with 18 year olds going into a pub and having a drink. In a pub there is supervision and some degree of control. It is the ability to buy alcohol from supermarkets and off liquor stores etc that is the issue. The troublesome 18 – 20 year olds I have seen at the pub are often pissed before they get to the pub.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
MT_Tinman at 11.33 is right, very right.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Don’t agree with you, David. This is nothing to do with the ‘rights’ of our kids but more to do with ‘what is right’.
This root cause of this issue goes way back to when the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18. Remember, both major breweries (and HANZ) were against this concept because, even when the drinking age was 20, we had 16 and 17 year olds drinking – some to excess. But the recommendations were ignored and the legislation was passed anyway.
At the same time the age was lowered to 18 (it was supposedly a conscience vote but was voted along Party lines), the trend toward drinking RTDs was gathering pace. So, for the first time ever, we had teenagers ‘learning to drink’ not from Mum and Dad, but from drinking full strength RTD alcopops – many of which were manufactured in NZ. Not only did we witness 18 year olds getting hammered from full strength spirit based drinks, but we sadly saw 16 and 15 year olds gaining access to alcohol – without any ability to handle it.
Wind forward to 2011, where now we have the disastrous situation where kids as young as 12 and 13 are getting access to full strength spirits and ending up totally plastered / out of control… each and every weekend. Many of our kids don’t have an “off” button that was instilled in us when we grew up.
As unpalatable as it sounds, we have to stop this idiocy and if that means that we wind back the clock and raise the drinking age back to 20, then so be it. It will be a sound start…. to be followed by greater parental influence.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Throughout Europe and in many other countries, the purchase age is 18 years. It’s unclear why the age allowing someone to purchase alcohol should be 20 here, and what effect (if any) that raising the age will have.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
> we have the disastrous situation where kids as young as 12 and 13 are getting access to full strength spirits…
So raising the age to 20 won’t have any effect on these kids…
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Ditto on MT_Tinman at 11.33 being spot-on.
Adults, i.e. those over 18, have the absolute, unconditional right to injure themselves however they please.
But no adult has the right to injure others.
We should thus be looking at outcomes, i.e. behaviour that injures others, not inputs, i.e. the age at which one may legally purchase alcohol.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
It’s nice to argue this from a ‘rights’ perspective and say that adults should be able to purchase alcohol and their subsequent behaviour is their own responsibility.
Unfortunately, life is not like that. Raising the purchase age to 20 is a simple measure the reduce harm. Allowing 18-year-olds only to drink in controlled environemtns seems an acceptable compromise.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Lift the age to 20 will reduce the profits of some of David’s Clients. Who can blame him for arguing against it.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
For the first time ever teenagers didn’t learn to drink from their parents? I guess everyone learns to drink from their parents to an extent, but teenagers also do a lot of self tutorials.
I learnt off my parents that sitting around for hours drinking flagons was “normal”, as was going to the pub for hours. But my self learning started in earnest away from home when I went to boarding school, age 15. That was in the says before alcopops.
Wine was a rarity – we went to a pub for Christmas dinner when I was 16, the only family meal out we ever had. I claimed a knowledge of wine, no one else seemed to know, so I chose what we had – Nederburg. My wine experience had been drinking a bottle of Cold Duck before a school formal and ending up not very flash.
Things have been much worse since the drinking age lowered to 18? Maybe for some.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Peter George
Like you first experience of alcohol was at boarding school, in my case in the mid 60′s. As the purpose behind my attendance at said school (according to my parents) was to save me from borstal I gravitated to getting half pissed before college socials real easy.
Trouble was that being miles from any pubs & the chance of being served in any pub being extremely small we had to make do with what was available. Kiwi ingenuity shone through. Apples from the orchard, sugar from the dining tables & small packs of raisins as a basic yeast all stuffed into Fanta bottles & buried under pine needles until needed was our answer.
The result tasted vile & probably contained bugger all alcohol but we were happy to get “pissed” on what we produced.
The black market in cigarettes is a story for another time.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
@ross – “So raising the age to 20 won’t have any effect on these kids…” Quite possible – but I agree the horse has bolted. But ‘status quo’ cannot be an option if we want to reduce the binge drinking mentality that is prevalent amongst teeny boppers these days. The real key is actually parental guidance and influence. But we haven’t seen it to date. There’s a suggestion that kids are maturing earlier today than they did on ‘our’ generation. But I don’t see it where alcohol is concerned.
@Pete George – For generations, kids learned to drink from their parents. Boys used to sip beer from Dad’s glass and girls would sip shandy / Pimms, sweeter sparkling wines or sherry from Mum’s. As their palates matured, boys would keep drinking beer but girls would move to drier wines. But spirits were not normally consumed until around 23 years of age. Then enter RTDs – at the same time the drinking age was lowered to 18. Instead of a ‘gradually maturing drinker’, we now had kids drinking spirits – without the benefit of any parallel development of their social / life skills.
We can see the results. Ask the Police how many kids require ‘help’ as a result of being smashed. Ask staff at any A&E clinic on the weekends how many kids arrive pissed off their faces. Ask the poor buggers that have to clean up the mess from car accidents involving pissed teenagers.
Would you put a kid in charge of a 600hp Ferrari? No – of course not. Why? Because they haven’t developed the driving skills to handle it. The same applies with alcohol.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Nasska, unlike you I did not have a boarding school education.
I had to put up with buying booze at a pub’s back door at age 15 and drinking in (selected) bars as a 16 year old – as did most of my mates.
We got pissed, happily drove in that condition, thoroughly misbehaved had heaps of fun and, surprisingly, survived.
The only thing different about today’s youth compared with us is the current lot are a damned sight more responsible (if louder) than we were.
As an aside, the alcopops being blamed for todays supposed wayward youth are a damned sight weaker in alcoholic content than the port, sherry, gimlet, screwdriver etc. many of us were partial to, being in main only beer strength.
I’ve been involved in this carry on, as a parent of teenagers, a supplier of booze and therefore policer of drinkers, young and old and, now as a cabbie taking young people to and from their socialising.
The young of today are considerably better behaved than I or most of my mates were in our young days.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Many of these are men in their 40s, 50s and 60s. It’s normal to go drinking when you’re young, the problem is the losers who just don’t get over this phase and drink themselves into a cirrhotic and red-nosed early grave.
For example, look at this piece of shit:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/national/3002608/Car-murder-trial-begins
I say ban alcohol from men 40 years and older – it would definitely reduce the harm caused by alcohol.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
MT_Tinman
Not at all unlike my early life experiences but as “Elaycee” notes, I doubt that that we were any more responsible than todays & probably worse. The only thing in our favour was that if you were still well underage & in a public bar you were desperately trying to show that you could handle the piss without going off your head & if you didn’t you’d be out the door with the publican’s boot in your backside. I reckon we were far worse when it comes to drunken driving & our behaviour at parties probably left much to be desired.
The amazing thing is that a fair few of us survived so that we could bitch about how bad the current generation of prospective pissheads are.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
It’s ridiculous to blame raising the drinking age on teenage binge drinking as it would still be happening anyway under the old drinking laws that were pretty lax about the supply of alcohol, and of course the real price has fallen. I agree with DPF that there needs to be a drinking age where it is illegal to supply alcohol.
Stop advertising alcohol, tighten the supply, raise the price a little and the binge drinking problem may gradually reduce.
The total consumption of alcohol has actually been reducing for years so how do all the supporters of a higher drinking age explain that?
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Anthony
Agreed, the drinking/purchasing age is only one aspect – maybe not the most important.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
@Anthony says: “ridiculous to blame raising the drinking age on teenage binge drinking…” Perhaps you meant ‘lowering the drinking age’, but I take your point.
That’s not what I said – rather, I wrote: “I agree the horse has bolted. But ‘status quo’ cannot be an option if we want to reduce the binge drinking mentality that is prevalent amongst teeny boppers these days. The real key is actually parental guidance and influence. But we haven’t seen it to date”.
The issue is two fold – firstly, teeny bops of 12 and 13 are drinking (they didn’t used to) and when they do, they currently lack the social / life skills to handle it; and second, they are now drinking high octane product from the outset (rather than go through any palate maturity experience and any development of their social skills in parallel).
Parental guidance is the primary key. (Just as it used to be when kids started drinking beer from Dad’s glass). But in the absence of any parental guidance, we’re behind the 8 ball before we even start to address the issue of kids as young as 12, binge drinking.
And yes, the combination of drink strength / lack of parental guidance / an unworkable drinking age have combined to deliver the social disaster we have on our hands today. And we saw it coming….
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Back in my underage days (the 80′s) kids were using alcohol but it was mostly through going to nightclubs. They tended to behave well because they didn’t want to draw notice to themselves because they’d be kicked for being underage. There were ratbags getting into trouble but they were 17/18 on and a small minority.
Nowadays, good kids from good homes are getting themselves into trouble through alcohol intoxication at 15 and 16. And their parents, being my age, haven’t realised how much things have changed.
Just as their is a difference between being 3 years old and being 5 so their is a difference between being 16 and 18. Just because 16 years olds look physically mature and can appear mature when things are going smooth, when things get rough they can get out of their depth very quickly.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Some elitists with generous levels of discretionary income claim that raising the price will reduce drinking.
You bet your bloody house it will. It will slow me down a bit but the risktaking young, many of whom only get into the gutter once or twice as it aint that great tomorrow, it will make absolutely no difference at all. What part of Bad = something we have to do misses their reasoning powers.
My once a week to the Paradise Grand Chancellor for “happy hour” on Friday night that costs around $20 bucks will change at what level?
Even if I am forced to pay $40 ( and every socialist will have a wet dream adding up the windfall and how many votes it will purchase), exactly what F**king difference will that make to a bunch of teenagers raiding good ole auntie May’s liquor cabinet and going to a beach and poisoning themselves.
Until those teenagers are convinced that there are real consequences for getting shit faced and acting like a complete twat in public, raising the bloody price will only impact on the law abiding.
Do the wowsers really think it will make a difference unless they make a liter of whiskey cost about $500 and have everyone install a freeking “safe” to store it in.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
What is the issue guys?
The age of drinkers or the way they are drinking?
Clearly if they weren’t drunk in public, no one would notice.
Will putting the price up solve the problem as they’ll find a way to get booze or a substitute surely.
MT_Tinman at 11.33 is right, very right.
A sensible use of alcohol where ALL people are required to be responsible for their own drinking activities and being under the influence of alcohol is socially unacceptable is the only way forward.
Just throw them before a magistrate for being drunk in public and 2nd time take away their driving, firearm liscences (and make them resit them) and any security clearances (teachers and public service unions will love that!)..
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I like it gravedodger – a liquor safe! Just as dangerous as firearms, eh. Maybe we should have to get ‘drinking licenses’ to prove we can drink responsibly.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Elaycee
I accept that some kids are going off the rails but it certainly isn’t all of them. The way I see it is that a number of parents are giving into their demands too easily & sanctioning & even supplying alcohol for unrestricted consumption but as MT_Tinman states above not all teenagers are irresponsible.
How do you see the problem panning out long term? Will the 12yr olds currently binge drinking see the light & settle down later or will the early exposure send them down the path to alcoholism?
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
You’re getting sillier by the minute, mike. It seems there is no problem you cannot solve but by imposing more controls and regulations.
Do you fancy a one-way trip to North Korea, that bastion of personal freedom?
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
@manolo – don’t worry about milkmilo – he’s simply a moron. He just confirms it with each, intellectually challenging post!
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Manolo/Elaycee
Vote:Don’t get too upset. BTW, Elaycee was it ‘challenging’or ‘challenged’?
I’d be happy if the Law Commision’s recommendations were adopted.
July 4th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
@nasska: “How do you see the problem panning out long term? Will the 12yr olds currently binge drinking see the light & settle down later or will the early exposure send them down the path to alcoholism?”
I mentioned earlier that adults were (on average) around 23 before they experimented with spirits. That wasn’t all to do with a maturing palate because there was also an element of experimentation that came along with their own maturity. Now we have stuffed that pathway – what’s the next step for a 17 year old who has consumed spirits for a few years or so and wants to drink something different? There isn’t actually anything… it only leaves different mixes (but the same spirits) or drinking more and more in terms of volume (but still without the life skills to handle it)! Can you see the problem emerging?
We have created a new sub-class of drunken, teenage piss heads. Natural maturity may help some, but IMO the number of alcoholics that will emerge from this sub-class, will be high compared to existing numbers. Unfortunately, only time will tell.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
@MicMac – “What is the issue guys? The age of drinkers or the way they are drinking?”
Apologies – just scrolled back and saw your post. IMO, the two issues are inexorably linked – I’ve tried to explain it in my previous post to nasska.
BTW – you’re correct (and so, too MT_Tinman) – society seems to tolerate antisocial behaviour nowadays. Sadly, the horse has long since bolted…
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Elaycee, I agree we have an underclass of “drunken teenage pissheads” but the drinking age has nothing to do with this.
Alcohol (as long as they are fast or cunning enough to steal it) has always been available to this underclass created by nil-parenting, nil-responsibility, it’s everyone else’ fault upbringings.
Which is why, once again, a certain section of society is over-represented in this group.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
What’s next? No sex before you get to 20.
No drivers License until 20
Don’t leave school for work until 20
No DPB before 20
No benefits of any kind before 20
and best of all no Vote.
Why don’t we just hatch kids at age 20.
FFS
What good idea’s we have in this country.
All about going back to the future is it not?
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
@MT – agree 100% with the lack of parental influence / lack of personal responsibility etc. Could also include a lack of quality teaching in there…
IMO, this slide was accelerated by the lowering of the drinking age to 18. Reason? When the drinking age was 20, it was known that many 18 year olds were drinking but as long as they were well behaved, a blind eye was turned. But when it was lowered to 18, there was a fear within the liquor industry that 15 – 16 year olds would start drinking and few had the life skills to handle it. However, we were wrong – we never envisaged kids as young as 12 and 13 would (a) be allowed out at midnight Saturday and (b) eventually coming home pissed (like we see today).
Times change. Not always for the better. There are sometimes unexpected consequences. And even predictable ones.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Viking2 says: “All about going back to the future is it not?”
Not really. Ideally, we need an immediate improvement in parenting skills / a rejection of antisocial behaviour in public / a sudden elevation in the quality of teaching being indoctrinated to our kids and our kids to receive a reality dose of discipline. But that won’t happen, will it?
But I’d love to hear how you’d deal with it – what do you suggest?
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
If alcohol consumption isn’t a right then the 85% of New Zealanders who consume alcohol will not mind giving it up. But it’s always easier to restrict someone else’s freedom on the spurious basis that it will minimize harm to society.
The reality is that problems associated with drinking are a consequence of culture. A 16 year old is just as capable of consuming alcohol in a manner that harms no one else as is a retired pensioner, and most of them do. Indeed when I was in high school in the 90s a large portion of the student body started drinking at about age 13-14 with or without their parents knowledge and/or consent. It is merely selective memory which allows people to believe that these things have become commonplace as a consequence of lowering the drinking age.
The problem with kids is less that they are drinking and more that they are poorly supervised and have access to powerful machines which can travel at speeds in excess of 100km per hour. Raising the drinking age will not change this.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Weihana
Just as lowering the drinking age has led to more harm, raising the age will reduce harm.
The argument that we should not impose further restrictions is only superficially seductive. On that argument we should have no restrictions at all and leave everything to personal and parental responsibility.
Back in the real world, we know there are three things that will reduce alcohol-related harm:
Vote:1. restricted access to alcohol
2. higher p[rices for alcohol
3. restricted advertising of alcohol
July 4th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
That’s because you’re a staunch socialist and Labour supporter, mike. You are a proponent of nanny-state, and one of those who know best what’s good for the peasants and how to protect them from their own stupidity.
I despise enemies of freedom and busybodies of your ilk.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Manolo
So would you be comfortable with no minimum age for drinking and no restrictions on any other substances as well – that being the logical corollary of having no ‘nanny state’?
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
I agree with Murray on this. Why are the so-called “rights” of 18 and 19 year olds so special? The reason that there is a drinking age at all is because some people aren’t mature enough to handle drinking. One may argue about exactly what age is suitable, but there is no such thing as a “right” to drink for specifically 18 and 19 year olds, or younger.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Hi David
On your first photo you ara spitting imaqe of the Governor What are you going to do about that -:))))))) ?
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
mikenmild – I do not agree that lowering the drinking age has led to more harm. Culture is the driving force behind our drinking habits and legislation cannot change culture by decree. Moreover, the problem with our culture is not primarily our drinking habits, it is the way in which we have teenagers drinking under poor supervision and with access to powerful motor vehicles.
The problem with the drinking age is not that it is too low it is that it is unrealistically high. The vast majority of people drink before they turn 18 and our culture accepts it because it is usually harmless fun and we acknowledge that we all did it when we were that age. By restricting alcohol to under 18s we create a situation whereby teenagers usually drink without adequate adult supervision. That doesn’t mean I’m against any restrictions but the restrictions we do have should be logical rather than based on idealistic fantasy.
With regards the three things you claim reduce alcohol related harm:
1. Restrictions do not necessarily reduce harm. Prohibition proved that to be wrong.
Vote:2. Rising the price also does not necessarily reduce harm because that is effectively the same as prohibition for those who can’t afford the inflated prices and thus this may encourage black market production. Moreover the inflated prices encourage addicts to commit crime (e.g. theft) to obtain their drink.
3. Restricting advertising – yes I agree that is a reasonable course of action to take but I’m not sure how effective that is, but worth a go and there is no obvious downside to it.
July 4th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
mikenmild – further to the above I would make the drinking age 15, but I would raise the driving age to 17 or 18. Driving is far more dangerous than drinking yet we put teenagers behind the wheels of some very powerful vehicles. I would trust a 15 year old with a bottle of beer before I trusted them with a car.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Weihana
Given that we agree on a legal age, it makes sense to select one that is readily enforceable. Personally, I favour a split 18/20 age for being on licensed premises as opposed to purchase. I think your analogy with prohibition is wrong – total banning of substances only leads to uncontrolled, black-market supply.
Price controls have been shown to correlate well with reduced harm. This is the main approach that has been taken to tobacco control.
With all of these restrictions, there is a balance to be sought.
Vote:July 4th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
mikenmild
An age which is “readily enforceable” is my point exactly. An age that is readily enforceable is one which reflects the dominant culture. The dominant culture is one that tolerates alcohol consumption for teenagers under 18 years of age. This is demonstrated repeatedly across groups of differing socio-economic status. As such the legal age should reflect these community standards and thereby bring some of these minors into a legal framework that encourages supervised access to alcohol and monitoring of consumption. At the moment we simply hospitalize and/or punish people after the fact.
I don’t have any problems with alcohol price controls as such, but I’m skeptical that they would be very successful.
Vote: