Youth and Alcohol
September 12th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarCertain lobby groups and MPs would have you believe that since the alcohol purchase age was lowered in 1999, many more young people are drinking alcohol.
But an Auckland University study of 9,000 high school students has found the following changes from 2001 to 2007:
- Students who have never drunk alcohol increased from 18% to 28%
- Students who do not currently drink alcohol increased from 30% to 39%
- Of students who currently drink alcohol, those who have not had a drink in the last four weeks went from 22% to 24%
- Of students who drink alcohol, the proportion saying friends gave it to them dropped from 62% to 53%
- Those asked for ID when purchasing rose from 44% to 61%
- Those who were a passenger with a driver who has had over two drinks dropped from 29% to 24%
So remind me again why MPs are lining up like lemmings to increase the purchase age to 20?
The survey does show some negative increases, such as the proportion who binge drink, but that reinforces why the approach should be to target problem drinkers, not criminalise every 18 and 19 year old in the country.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Here here. An age limit on alcohol means that drinking is associated with maturity. That creates the wrong attitude. Remove the age limit entirely; then parents are able to teach their kids to drink responsibly before they leave home.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:17 am
And of course, no one ever lies about the amount of alcohol they drink, do they?
Alcohol and tall stories go hand in hand.
In my experience.
Just saying.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:21 am
We have a major problem with alcohol self abuse in some parts of our society but yoyo-ing the purchase age doesn’t address the real problems of culture and attitude.
I think 18 is the best balance and logical – most students turn 18 in their last year at school.
Parents should already be teaching their kids to drink responsibly, whoever that’s a major part of the problem, adults setting a poor example.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Yeah right, nice try!
And the report’s recommendations?
Oh, here they are:
– Increase the tax and minimum purchase price of alcohol.
– Restrict the sale, advertising and marketing of alcohol to young people.
– Limit the number of liquor outlets and their opening hours.
– Strengthen drink driving legislation, and increase safe, accessible transport options for young people.
– Provide age-appropriate services that can assist young people who are at risk of alcohol-related harm.
[DPF: None of those say increase the purchaase age to 20]
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Alcohol and tall stories go hand in hand.
Many alcohol stories are sadly very true, and more likely to downplay how bad things can be.
Skiting about how wasted one got, how bad a hangover one has, how one doesn’t remember half the night, how much piss one can keep down before one chunders. I’ve heard all that and many more and the stories being told are much more likely to downplay how much of a mess and embarrassment people make of themselves.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Well spotted Mikenmild
Verily the production of reports calling for increased the taxes and minimum purchase prices for alcohol etc is a growth industry in this country
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:36 am
“not criminalise every 18 and 19 year old in the country.”
They would not be criminalised if the alcohol age was raised to 20, UNLESS they chose to break the law and drink. Thats a bit of deceptive spin David.
“So remind me again why MPs are lining up like lemmings to increase the purchase age to 20?”
There is sufficient evidence that alcohol impairs the brain development of teenagers, plus, as you say, binge drinking is up. I have never heard a good reason why the age was lowered in the first place beyond liberal notions of “freedom”.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Nice try Mr Farrar. You conveniently fail to mention that the survey also found that of those who do drink, the proportion who drink to get wasted has risen hugely
[DPF: To the contrary I did mention that, and that is why the problem drinkers should be targeted]
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:39 am
From the statistics quoted in this study there seems to be a compelling case to reduce the age limit from 18 to 16 and so reduce the overall consumption even further./
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:40 am
“The survey does show some negative increases, such as the proportion who binge drink, ”
So what were the rest of those “negative increases” that your not telling us about?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:41 am
“DPF: To the contrary I did mention that, and that is why the problem drinkers should be targeted”
Anyone under the age of 20 who is drinking IS a problem drinker.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:42 am
I think what this illustrates is that when it comes to alcohol policy politicians are not taking an evidence based approach. We’ve got faith based policy which is founded on beliefs about a bad drinking culture in youth. I’d support increases in the prices of the bargain booze so that you don’t have $10 bottles of vodka but I oppose any increase in the drinking age.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:42 am
“Increase the tax and minimum purchase price of alcohol.”
There is a point when people start to make their own.
Causing unintended effects on Tax , health and crime.
People buying wine in supermarkets are not the major problem. The growth of liquor shops in suburbia is more destructive.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:42 am
DPF long ago learned that one can link to a report, but then make some claims about what it means confident in the knowledge that few people will actually look at what the report says.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Because under 20′s are not mature enough to drink.
Neither are many over-20′s , but , at least we can try to limit the damage by a bit.
You should perhaps go for a ride with the cops on a Friday night. Alcohol bingeing is a huge huge problem .
Age should be 21 like in the USA.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:46 am
mikenmild
I’m surprised there wasn’t more emphasis placed on responsible use and deglamourization of alcohol in the report’s recommendations.
I’d be happy to see advertising banned and packaging made neutral, but age restrictions removed, as that sends the message that the government doesn’t endorse the use of alcohol, but encourages its citizens to treat what is clearly a dangerous substance with caution.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:48 am
“You should perhaps go for a ride with the cops on a Friday night. Alcohol bingeing is a huge huge problem.”
Exactly right. Since the drinking age was lowered the the problem of large numbers of binge drinking, out of control teenagers has risen dramatically. You do not need selectively quoted stats to see this, you just have to go out on a Friday night. This problem has also brought all the associated problems with it, such as violence.
Now, while there was a problem BEFORE the age was lowered, ask any cop if that problem has increased since the age was lowered and the answer will be a resounding YES! But liberals refuse to see the obvious, because it interferes with their adolescent notions of “freedom”. So we get silly nonsense about “targeting the problem”. But clearly, the problem was lowering the age in the first place. So to target the real problem, raise it. And, more importantly, tell liberals to sop their failed excersise in liberal social engineering in everything from alcohol to marriage and family. IT HAS NOT WORKED.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:03 am
…”So to target the real problem, raise it.”…..
Sort of reminiscent of primary school discipline…..’all you naughty pupils can stay in class until someone owns up to throwing the duster’. I thought this crap left with Helen Clark.
You want to treat people like children & then get your tits in a tangle when they act accordingly.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:04 am
The report says
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In
2001 there were fewer male students than female
students (46% vs. 54%). In 2007 these proportions
were reversed, with more male students than female
students (54% vs. 46%).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That basically explains some of the differences.
At teenagers, young women tend to socialise with older males (rathen than same age males) so that they are more likely to follow the drinking behaviour of older males. And young women get alcohol from the friends and other people they socialise with i.e. older males.
When young males are the bigger proportion than binge drinking goes up (because that’s more typically male behaviour) but the number of non-drinkers also goes up slighly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other demographic difference is ethnicity which is probably a pure demographic change than a sampling issue
Prioritised 2000 2007
Ethnicity sample sample
Maori………………… 24.7……….18.7
Pacific……………….. 8.2………..12.4
Asian………………… 7.2………..10.2
NZ Euoprean………. 55.3…….. 52.8
Other………………… 4.6……….. 5.8
Unknown…………………………..0.2
Asians and Pacific People are more likely to be abstainers than NZE but Pacific People are more likely to drink higher amounts on average if they do drink.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:09 am
You can talk about all the research you want – the reality is this:
Vote:I ran a pub right through the period when the drinking age dropped. I had a nice clientle that stopped by for a drink or two, or three and to listen to the odd band that played. Hardly any problems. The age dropped then all my problems started, drunk little boys out to fight, drunk little girls out to shag and all the mess in between. I sold up and got out.
The age is an issue.
September 12th, 2011 at 10:18 am
“You want to treat people like children & then get your tits in a tangle when they act accordingly.”
No, I want to treat children like children, and stop pretending they are adults.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:25 am
“like children & then get your tits in a tangle when they act accordingly”
They act like children because they are not raised with any serious moral values. Instead they are raised on a diet of me-first liberalism, vile gutter music like rap and hip hop that promotes anti-authority rebellion, anti-social attitudes and extreme sexual and violent behaviour, and an ideology of “rights” and victimhood that creates a sense of entitlement.
Liberalism is the disease. Traditionalism is the cure.
“Traditionalist conservatism, also known as “traditional conservatism,” “traditionalism,” “Burkean conservatism”, “classical conservatism” and (in non-American English or Australian English-speaking nations) “Toryism”, describes a political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and the intersecting spheres of loyalty.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:30 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10750726
But the proportion of drinkers had dropped by more than 10 per cent since 2001 at all ages up to 15, and by 6 to 8 per cent at older ages. In 2001, 82 per cent of both 16- and 17-year-olds were drinkers, in line with the adult average of 84 per cent, but this fell to 74 and 76 per cent in 2007.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/education/news/article.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10750813
There are three times more drug incidents than ones involving alcohol at primary and intermediate schools.
social change away from alcohol?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Is anyone here with their wowser suit on able to tell us when the last case of a legless vomitting swearing person under the age of 20 was prosecuted for:
Vote:Drunk and disorderly.
Casting offensive matter.
Exposing themselves in a public place.
Causing affray. resisting arrest
Drinking on licenced premises
and had a conviction entered and done time in the big house.
Just asking.
September 12th, 2011 at 10:42 am
There would not be a problem with youth drinking if we lived in a radically different culture. A traditional agrarian culture would not need age restrictions. People are right to point out France’s different cultural attitudes, but neglect to look closely at WHY they are different (there are still strong remnenants of agrariansim in France).
So while I agree with those saying it would be better to change the drinking culture, that cannot be done in siolation or it will fail. The WHOLE culture must change, and the only way to do that is to reject social liberalism, socialism AND corporate crony capitalism.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Lee01
Seems that your social policies involve getting the De Lorean out of the garage & hitting 88mph. Your efforts to jam the genie back in the bottle are doomed much in the same way as prohibition was a screaming failure in the 20′s.
Yes, some teenagers will abuse alcohol but they’ll carry on at it whatever law is enacted. Fiddling with statutes will only penalise the teenagers who are acting responsibly now.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:47 am
“Your efforts to jam the genie back in the bottle are doomed much in the same way as prohibition was a screaming failure in the 20′s.”
I’m not arguing for prohibition, but for better regulation. Thats not the major change your claiming it is.
“Fiddling with statutes will only penalise the teenagers who are acting responsibly now.”
So what?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:47 am
The WHOLE culture must change, and the only way to do that is to reject social liberalism, socialism AND corporate crony capitalism.
How do you suggest that could be done successfully?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:52 am
“How do you suggest that could be done successfully?”
By encouraging a grassroots Traditonalist movement.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Why are MPs lining up?
That’s easy: because the modern-day wowsers have the ear of the media and are increasingly taking charge.
Just listen to Douglas Sellman.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:59 am
“gravedodger” is closer to it than anyone. Penalties for obnoxious behaviour caused by alcohol exist now. Let’s try enforcing the laws we’ve got before saddling everyone with yet more nanny state rules & regulations.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 10:59 am
The 18-20 year olds must be contributing seriously to the liquor industries bottom line. Or else why would this blogger continuously harp on about them missing out.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 11:08 am
redeye
Vote:And repeating the same argument, supported by (deliberate?) misrepresentation of the reports linked to.
September 12th, 2011 at 11:18 am
nasska
Less law enforced more?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Griff
You’re on to it…what’s the point of more law when no one’s tried to enforce what we’ve got?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 11:28 am
“You’re on to it…what’s the point of more law when no one’s tried to enforce what we’ve got?”
The problem is not one of law enforcement, but of a teen drinking culture created by the original change in the law. Of course they are trying to enforce the law, its daft to claim they have not. But they would not have the problem to begin with had the age not been lowered.
Liberals want to shit on society and then demand that someone else clean up the mess. It would be easier if liberals just stopped shitting altogether.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Lee01
There’s been a teen drinking culture for as long as anyone can remember. Somehow I think you must have been locked away in a seminary or something during your teenage years as my experiences wouldn’t allow me to pontificate on the subject with a straight face. It’s a stage most of us go through & surprise, surprise….most of us end up reasonable citizens.
What is missing now is not laws, regulations, morality or religion….we’ve got shit loads of them & you are the first to complain that they are not working. What is missing is any consequence to one’s actions.
A night spent sobering up in the drunk tank is usually a one off for most youngsters. So is the shame of a conviction for offensive behaviour or fighting. The police have fairly wide powers they can use to contain public drunkedness & prevent a youngster from putting themselves in harms way.
Get the civil liberties wankers out of the way & let the police enforce the laws we have.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Lee01
Good christian kids or the children of the righteous make up these statistics as well.
You may think it was better in some mythical time
looking back at my ancestors I know that this was not so.
Alcohol is addictive, dangerous and causes massive social harm yet we know we can not ban it.
Vote:The next logical step is to minimize the harm it does.
Education is the best way of dealing to this and other drug abuse issues not knee jerk reactive laws.
September 12th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Just how do you propose to target and identify problem drinkers.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 11:51 am
“There’s been a teen drinking culture for as long as anyone can remember.”
Yes and no. The kind of large scale binge drinking we are seeing now is new.
“Somehow I think you must have been locked away in a seminary or something during your teenage years”
Nope. I struggled with both alcohol and drug addiction in my teenage years.
“What is missing now is not laws, regulations, morality or religion….we’ve got shit loads of them ”
No, we have shitloads of laws because we have no religion and morality.
“What is missing is any consequence to one’s actions.”
I agree, and also a culture that creates responsible citizens and healthy, moral youth.
“Get the civil liberties wankers out of the way & let the police enforce the laws we have.”
I agree about civil liberties wankers, I’m totally in favour of extending boot camp style training into every high school in the country, but as I said I believe the problem is cultural and not just one of law enforcement. All the law enforcement in the world does not change the fact we live in toilet, culturally and morally speaking.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 11:57 am
“Good christian kids or the children of the righteous make up these statistics as well.”
Evidence?
I have no doubt there will be some, but I would happily bet a weeks wages that the children of genuinely conservative Christians are not well represented at all.
Oh and Christians are not righteous, just forgiven.
“You may think it was better in some mythical time”
The 1950′s and before was “mythical”?
“Alcohol is addictive, dangerous and causes massive social harm yet we know we can not ban it.”
I haven’t argued for banning it. Or do you think two year olds should have the right to drink as well? I have argued for a simple return to the previous law. Thats really no big deal. And you will note tha in one of my posts I said a lower drinking age would be fine IF we lived in a more traditional culture.
“Education is the best way of dealing to this and other drug abuse issues”
The problem is that your trying to educate morally ill-formed children.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Lee, there’s no way you can make everyone follow your beliefs, and even if you could you won’t stop some of them from drinking too much.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
“Lee, there’s no way you can make everyone follow your beliefs”
Who said anything about “making them”?
“even if you could you won’t stop some of them from drinking too much.”
Theres a diiference between a small problem and the large one we have.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
> Anyone under the age of 20 who is drinking IS a problem drinker.
I notice you provided no evidence to support your wild claim. Maybe we should extend your logic…anyone under the age of 20 who votes at the upcoming election is a problem voter?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Liberals captured the state, big business and the education system, and churned out large numbers of liberals, thereby changing society. Traditionalists can, and sooner or later will, do the same.
However, I am also arguing for grassroots change, one family at a time.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
“I notice you provided no evidence to support your wild claim.”
The evidence is there every weekend.
“Maybe we should extend your logic…anyone under the age of 20 who votes at the upcoming election is a problem voter?”
Actually, yes, although I would go further than that. Anyone under the age of 30 should not be allowed to vote. Mabey 25 at the lowest. And we should have ab upper house restricted to those 50 and over with veto power.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Good christian kids or the children of the righteous make up these statistics as well
Long ago in the seventy’s and eighties I “new” many a christian lass From Anglican to Jehovah witness also the daughter to prominent New Zealand missionaries. personal antidote but not that unusual.
!950 and before were not that great to live far better now
morally ill-formed children. Whose morals?
Vote:Many atheist children from liberal family’s do well
September 12th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
“personal antidote but not that unusual”
Not exactly evidence.
“!950 and before were not that great to live far better now”
Hardly. Our crime rates are shocking by comparison.
“morally ill-formed children. Whose morals?”
God’s.
“Many atheist children from liberal family’s do well”
At what? Being atheists and liberals? Define “do well” for me.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
> Age should be 21 like in the USA.
So if you get married at 18, you’ve only got 3 years to wait to toast the occasion?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
> Not exactly evidence.
Just like your claim that anyone under 20 that drinks is a problem drinker.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
“Just like your claim that anyone under 20 that drinks is a problem drinker.”
I simply meant that in the current culture the lower drinking age IS the problem.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
I don’t agree that the lower drinking age is a problem…you would be moaning if it was higher. If you don’t want to drink, that is your decision but please don’t impose your narrow views on others. I don’t go to church or believe in god but I would never oppose others going to church or following their faith.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
“I don’t agree that the lower drinking age is a problem…you would be moaning if it was higher.”
The problem in part is teen drinking.
“If you don’t want to drink,”
I do drink. As I said I’m not arguing for teetotalism. I’m a Traditionalist Anglican, not a pentecostal fundamentalist. We like wine, whiskey and fine cigars!
“please don’t impose your narrow views on others.”
My views are not narrow, and I wish Liberals would stop imposing their views on me. I do not want to live in a livberal toilet thankyou.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Lee, converting everyone unto your own idealistic image is totally unrealistic. We need solutions that will actually work, hopefully this decade, and that won’t happen by dreaming of some mythical non-alcoholic era last century.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Lee wants to stop having liberal views imposed on him, but wants to change the laws to force his views on to others. got to love religious hypocrisy so early in the week.
i worked in bars as security for 2 years before the change, and for 2 years afterwards (including running a bar for a year). the amount of drunk people and idiots to remove and people doing stupid things did not increase, it stayed the same ratio as it had always been (barring the first couple of weeks after the change, by which point the snot nosed 18 year olds who thought they were hot shit got put in their place and calmed down). the gang of 15 year old daughters of lifestyle beneficiaries still were not allowed in and still caused grief, the change in drinking age changed nothing except make me feel way to old to be in pubs.
But why should i pay more for the few drinks i bother to buy because some arseholes cannot contain themselves? explain to me why more tax is needed and restrictions on where alcohol is sold is needed to impinge on my ability to buy alcohol?
this is what is wrong with the interventionists/statists and conservatives.
the liberal says drink, don;t drink its your problem and you need to sort your own shit out if you screw up. the statist says 3% cause issues, so the 97% have to be penalised.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Pete,
“Lee, converting everyone unto your own idealistic image is totally unrealistic.”
Hardly, and its hardly that idealistic. Until very recently it was just THEW WAY THINGS WERE in the West.
“”We need solutions that will actually work, hopefully this decade”
I agree, and returning to the previous law we had a few years ago is the simplist solution, for now. Not exactly that idealistic is it?
“that won’t happen by dreaming of some mythical non-alcoholic era last century.”
Now your just being intellectually lazy. Who said anything about “non alcoholic”? Please read my posts properly if your going to respond to them.
Grendel,
“Lee wants to stop having liberal views imposed on him, but wants to change the laws to force his views on to others. got to love religious hypocrisy so early in the week.”
Not hypocritical at all. I don’t want liberal views imposed on me because they are liberal, not because they are imposed. ALL laws are imposed. Thats what laws are.
“this is what is wrong with the interventionists/statists and conservatives.”
Well your either an interventionsit to some degree, or an anarchist. Are you are an anarchist? And please don’t trot out the claim that your a minarchist libertarian. Libertarians are just interventionists who are being dishonest about the fact.
Statism is the view that EVERY single possible problem needs state intervention. I don’t believe that.
A Traditionalist society would actually require far less state intervention than ours, because a family based agrarian/distributist society founded on traditional moral virture would be far more self-reliant, have far less social problems and have far more genuine liberty than ours.
State interventionism is required ONLY because we have created a mass of social problems and rising crime due to the moral anarchy propagated by both the liberal left and the liberal right.
Liberalism is the disease. Traditonalism is the cure.
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com
Place. Limits. Liberty.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
I think the law be tightened up considerably so that only moderate drinkers would not suffer hardship. In the area of pricing I think the price of alcohol should at least double. That will not affect the moderate drinkers too much but the drunks simply would not be able to afford to get wasted. There is a vocal element and I include Farrar in this who are heavy drinkers who want to get drunk well it is going to cost them double to do that.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
tvb,
some good suggestions, and I think your right about the “vocal element”.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
tvb
You are merely trying to impose your standards on everyone much the same as Lee01. He does it through trying to legislate people into a religious morality…you want to impose your standards through the medium of pricing.
It is not your business if DPF wishes to get fried…nor should any citizen be punished for the actions of a few, a la Dear Leader & the socialist engineers. By all means push so that people are enforced to obey existing law but don’t try to force everyone into the straight jacket of more legislation.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
“You are merely trying to impose your standards on everyone much the same as Lee01″
And your trying to impose yours on us. Stop forcing me to love in a liberal society be legislating liberal laws.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Lee01
…”Stop forcing me to love(sic) in a liberal society be(sic) legislating liberal laws.”…..
I’m not asking you to live or love in any particular society…..I am suggesting that giving the existing laws a chance to work under the policing they require is better than knee jerk wowserism aimed at a particular part of the population but penalising everyone.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Nonsense. Not in the west I knew. Not in any west that I’m aware of.
The “good old days” are a futile fallacy. Some things are worse now, some are better. For example men are not now able to get pissed at the pub and come home and beat their wives with impunity – “just a domestic”. You don’t want to go back to that sort of morality do you?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
No we allow you to have your standards you can teach you kids to abstain or swing So long as it does not hurt others we do not care.
I Live by my own moral code. It is not yours that does not mean that it is not “just”or honorable or fair.
We do not want you to love liberal society. just as we reserve the right to dislike some aspects of your beliefs.
Your ideologue involves enforcing your views On the rest of us you do not have the right
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Pete,
“Nonsense. Not in the west I knew. Not in any west that I’m aware of.”
Prior to the 1960′s the West was Christian, and prior to the industrial revolution agrarian. Are you disputing that?
nasska,
“I’m not asking you to live or love in any particular society”
Of course you are, a liberal one.
“I am suggesting that giving the existing laws a chance to work”
Ahhh, the liberal mantra, “give the new way a chance to work” Well we have had sixty years of that and it’s not working. The new laws will have the same effect as all liberal laws, social problems and rising crime.
“under the policing they require is better than knee jerk wowserism”
I’m not advocating “wowserism” is that even exists. I am advocating that children should not drink alcohol, especially in the current cultural environment.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
“I Live by my own moral code. It is not yours that does not mean that it is not “just”or honorable or fair.”
In practice moral anarchy does not work. A healthy society needs shared moral values.
“Your ideologue involves enforcing your views On the rest of us you do not have the right”
Yes I do. Its called democracy.
Oh and by the way, for those who are a bit slow today, please read my previous posts. I am NOT, I repeat NOT advocating either teetolalism or criminalising adult drinking. Only better regulation until liberalism dies its inevitable death.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
another classic piece of hypocrisy. only through enforcing ‘traditional morals’ (ie the ones i have), can we have liberty. apparently less liberty or liberty within the very narrow confines that i have decided are allowed means more liberty.
what rot.
you are free to allow or not allow your kids and yourself to drink, having that freedom, a liberal one, is not imposing anything on you at all. in fact its the opposite, we do not care what you do, just keep away from us.
your ‘moral’ view requires itself to be imposed on others to force them to be the way you want them to be.
the govt has no business trying to price reasonable drinkers out of enjoying the freedoms of being an adult, just to stop those adults who have abrogated their right to be treated like adults. unlike fundies like lee, liberal freedom means treating adults as adults and not trying to force them to think the way we want them to. but for fundies like lee, they have not seen a method of force they don;t want to use to make someone do something ‘the right way’ (ie their way).
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“another classic piece of hypocrisy. only through enforcing ‘traditional morals’ (ie the ones i have), can we have liberty.”
I never said they have to enforced. I want them to be freely chosen my a majority of the population, and then imposed by democratic means.
“you are free to allow or not allow your kids and yourself to drink, having that freedom, a liberal one, is not imposing anything on you at all.”
Did some people take a stupid pill today?
I AM NOT ADVOCATING PROHIBITION. I AM NOT ADVOCATING PROHIBITION. I AM NOT ADVOCATING PROHIBITION. I AM SIMPLY ADVOCATING A RETURN TO THE 20 YEAR AGE LIMIT WE HAD A FEW YEARS AGO.
Are we clear now?
“we do not care what you do, just keep away from us.”
Of course you do, otherwise you would not be advocating for a liberal society.
“your ‘moral’ view requires itself to be imposed on others to force them to be the way you want them to be.”
And so does yours. The only difference is that I am honest about it.
“but for fundies like lee”
I’m not a fundy, I am a Traditonalist.
“liberal freedom means treating adults as adults and not trying to force them to think the way we want them to. ”
Rot. Liberal “freedom” means turning adults into children and using the power of the state to overturn over a thousand years of traditional morality and the criminalising any dessent rhough “human rights ” and “hate speech” laws.
The modern liberal society is the most totalitarian in history.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Lee01
…”The new laws will have the same effect as all liberal laws, social problems and rising crime.”….
So out with the brave new world & let’s turn back the clock & welcome back the idyllic 40′s & 50′s. As I wasn’t born until the end of the 40′s I’ll refrain from commenting on that part of paradise but I can recall most of the 50′s, boils warts & all.
The parts I can vividly remember were the mind numbing sessions at the church. The prayer, the hymns, the sermons, the collection plate, the hypocrisy is all coming back to me. Good job my parents paid lip service to the crap or where would I be now. As Peter George stated above Saturdays for many families meant Mum being whacked around the house when Dad arrived home with a skinfull but as it was probably sanctioned by some 2000 year old tripe in the Good Book so that’s okay. Pregnant teenagers given the bash & sent out of town to have the baby but hey don’t worry…God loves you!
Then I can remember a couple of women in the town who died screaming from the pain of cancer but no morphine allowed…after all they may have become addicted & Jesus wouldn’t have liked that.
Tell you what… you can have those days…I don’t want them.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
“I want them to be freely chosen my a majority of the population”
The population is freely choosing not to by ever increasing numbers soon we will be the majority.
When that happens liberal atheists will ban religion !
sorry I do not do emoticons its up to you to decide if its sarcasm or whatever
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
“So out with the brave new world & let’s turn back the clock & welcome back the idyllic 40′s & 50′s. ”
Yup! Actually I would be inclined to go back a bit further, but you have got the right idea!
“As Peter George stated above Saturdays for many families meant Mum being whacked around the house when Dad arrived home with a skinfull”
Not for every family, or even a majority. There is more spousal abuse now than there was then.
“Dad arrived home with a skinfull but as it was probably sanctioned by some 2000 year old tripe in the Good Book so that’s okay”
Actually no. The Bible says alcohol abuse and drunkenness are wrong. So the problem was that society was not Christian enough. Not surprising as your only going back a few decades. The liberal rot had sunk in way before that. And a a lot of the problem your describing was due to industrialisation.
“Pregnant teenagers given the bash & sent out of town to have the baby but hey don’t worry”
Perhaps they should have kept their legs closed. But hey, now you have millions of fatherless babies growing up and joining gangs and killing people. Oh yeah, thats so much better.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
no lee, my views are not imposed on you at all.
you can choose to be conservative with your drinking. you can go off with a bunch of other really exciting and fun ‘tradtionalists’, set up a commune and have very restrictive rules on drinking, and none of that is affected by the current liberal right of adults to make their own choices and mistakes.
your view requires people to do less than they might, so i could not go of with friends and live somewhere in NZ and have our own very lax drinking rules, becuase your fundie lot would happily use the force of the state against us.
see with my views you and others like you can do what you wish. with your views i cannot do what i wish.
so there is no way my views are imposed on you other than having them exist, and while i cannot put it past a fundie to want to ban the having of a viewpoint you disagree with , even you cannot be that crazy a fundie. there is no force in the liberal view point on drinking.
your views have to be imposed or forced on me to make them work. your view requires force – which being the fundie you are, is not surprising.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
“The population is freely choosing not to by ever increasing numbers soon we will be the majority.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, but conservative Christianity is growing faster than ever. Its only the liberal wing thats declining.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
You’d better turbo charge that time machine & stock up with provisions before you take off…sounds like it could be a long journey back to Nirvana.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
lee is so confused, he is claiming that to be liberal you want to restrict freedom of speech via hate speech laws.
thats not liberal, thats statist, you know the thing you are, just on other things?
nice try though trying to claim that liberals (ie, those of us who want to leave you alone to live with your own morals as long as you do not advocate violence against me or my property and vice versa) are totalitarian as you call for the use of the force of the state to enforce your world views.
it must be very confusing in your world, no wonder you;ve lost it.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Wow, this thread has moved quite far from a few misleading stats about teenagers and alcohol.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
“no lee, my views are not imposed on you at all.”
I do not want to live in your liberal society. And by advocating one, you are. I’m not faulting you for that, just pointing out your hypocrisy.
“you can choose to be conservative with your drinking. you can go off with a bunch of other really exciting and fun ‘tradtionalists’, set up a commune and have very restrictive rules on drinking, and none of that is affected by the current liberal right of adults to make their own choices and mistakes.”
Sorry, but I want the entire civilisation back thanks. After all, Christians created and built it, why should you get it?
“see with my views you and others like you can do what you wish. with your views i cannot do what i wish.”
Not really, because the society you want will not in the long run tolerate dissent. Liberalism is totalitarian by nature.
“your views have to be imposed or forced on me to make them work. your view requires force”
All views require force.
The Tyranny of Liberalism James Kalb on the Ideology’s Totalitarian Impulses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2216891/posts
The fraud of Liberal “tolerance”: http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/34
Political correctness and the Crisis of Liberalism: PC and the Crisis of Liberalism: http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1445
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Prior to the 1960′s the West was Christian, and prior to the industrial revolution agrarian. Are you disputing that?
It may have been more Christian but there was still a lot of non-Christian and faux Christian and falwed Christian. And there was a lot of crap in society then to, including drinking far too much.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
“lee is so confused, he is claiming that to be liberal you want to restrict freedom of speech via hate speech laws. thats not liberal, thats statist, you know the thing you are, just on other things?”
No, I claim that in practice thats what liberalism does. That MAY not be what you or other right wing liberals want in theory, but thats what we have, and I am arguing that in fact it is in the very nature of liberalism to head in a totalitarian direction. As Jim Kalb points out in the articles above, Liberalism, in practice, is totalitarian. It is so because for all you lip service to freedom, in the end liberalism creates so many social problems and so much crime that statism is the invetible result.
A non-statist society requires stable and strong families, strong civil institutions like the Church, and a moral people.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
That translates to theocracy.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Pete,
“It may have been more Christian but there was still a lot of non-Christian and faux Christian and falwed Christian. And there was a lot of crap in society then to, including drinking far too much.”
True. I have never claimed otherwise. Thats why real conservatism is realistic, not idealistic. No society will ever be perfect because of human sin. YET liberals on both the right and the left do not believe in sin, they believe in the potential and perfectibility of human nature, and so overturn over a thousand years of imperfect but robust and functioning moral values, and then stanb around scratching their heads at all the social, political and economic problems that result.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
So to summarise (according to Lee):
I a teetotal atheist who just wants to get on with life can get trumped by a pisshead bible basher who wants to impose his totalitarian views on everyone while fast tracking back to a pre industrial paradise.
Beam me up Scotty.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I never said they have to enforced. I want them to be freely chosen my a majority of the population, and then imposed by democratic means.
Enforced and imposed sound very similar to me.
You can’t enforce or impose morals on anyone, it’s never worked in the past, especially when it’s a narrow form of religious based “morals”. We need to encourage a moral code of conduct that allows for a wide variery of beliefs and non-beliefs.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
“That translates to theocracy.”
Not at all. Theocracy means the Church itslef rules, that is ministers and/or priests. A Christian democracy is a democracy.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
“You can’t enforce or impose morals on anyone, it’s never worked in the past,”
Yes it has. It worked reasonably well for over a thousand years
“We need to encourage a moral code of conduct that allows for a wide variery of beliefs and non-beliefs.”
No we don’t. We need to encouarge the re-Christianing of society and the organic unity of the nation.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Nasska,
resorting to abuse and name calling suggests you have run out of intellectual steam
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Any chance of yanking this thread back to talking about youth and alcohol?
Religious zealots could pop over to the General Debate. Just a suggestion.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
mikenmild
Youth & alcohol…you mean an innocuous subject like that sparked this theological waffle?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Moderate drinkers and people who are TT would be in the majority. Those who want to be drunks are a small vocal minority. A drunk person is socially a pest and in some cases dangerous. I have no problem making drunkeness very expensive as it is a small antisocial minority who will be affected.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Have you no knowledge of history at all?
This is the best time to be alive ever No argument no debate Your golden time has never existed life 60 years ago or any other time in human history would feel like purgatory to us now
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
“Have you no knowledge of history at all?”
Quite a lot actually. I’m studying history and theology at Otago and I have been reading history for thirty years.
“This is the best time to be alive ever”
Says you
“No argument no debate”
Liberal totalitarianism again?
“Your golden time has never existed”
Yes it has, for almost two thousand years.
“any other time in human history would feel like purgatory to us now”
So when virtually every other week an elderly person is beaten and robbed or raped in their own home, thats not purgatory?\\And yes crime has always existed. But look at the crime stats in the fifties compared to now. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“Any chance of yanking this thread back to talking about youth and alcohol?”
It still is.
“Religious zealots could pop over to the General Debate. Just a suggestion.”
Off you go then
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Lee: Christianity does not provide a better morality than that had by non-christians. This can be evidenced by the large number of christians that are arrested each year for murder, pedophilia, domestic violence, rape and so on. Rather, morality is something that each of us decide for ourselves. Whilst what you read, who you listen to (sermons) may influence your morality, in my experience there are much larger factors than that, such as how others would react if you did a “bad” thing, or how you would react if someone else did the same thing to you.
You don’t need the christian guilt of sin (Rm 3:23 all are sinners, even babies, though we’ve had to change that a bit as folk realised that it wasn’t really fair on the babies that die before they have any comprehension that they’re sinners, so now we try to tell our kids as soon as possible that they’re evil sinners via sunday school, bible in schools and so on…) to have a functioning, moral, society.
To bring it back (slightly) towards alcohol, would you be happy for your kids under the age of 20 to drink the communion wine? Or has your church decided that grape juice is a suitable substitute? Should it be taken from a common glass/goblet or should individual thimbles be provided for each member of the congregation?
I remember with amusement attending a church recently that had a liberal approach to this conundrum: They provided 3 options: A central common glass of wine, separate thimbles of wine, and separate thimbles of grape juice. Apparently the grape juice drinkers who preferred a common glass didn’t kick up enough stink when this regime was implemented…
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
“THE civilization of the modern West appears in history a veritable anomaly: among all those which are known to us more or less completely, this civilization is the only one which has developed along purely material lines and this monstrous development, whose beginning coincindes with the so-called Renaissance, has been accompanied, as indeed it was fated to be, with a corresponding intellectual regress.
This regress has reached such a point that the Westerners of today no longer know what pure intellect is; in fact they do not even suspect that anything of the kind can exist.
Hence their disdain for the Middle Ages of Europe, whose spirit escapes them scarcely completely.”
Rene Guenon
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
I agree with Griff, in most respects we are lucky to be living in one of the best countries and eras ever.
And no matter how much small minorities want to return to the old partriarchal days where much of the so called morals were a sham and much of the crap was kept secret or swept under the moral carpet. It can’t be done, it shouldn’t be attempted. We have to move forward into the future, trying to improve what we can in the here and now.
Working on more olerance and acceptance of different views and beliefs would be a good place to start.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
“Lee: Christianity does not provide a better morality than that had by non-christians.”
Yes, it does.
“This can be evidenced by the large number of christians that are arrested each year for murder, pedophilia, domestic violence, rape and so on.”
Source? And failing to live up to a moral standard is not the fault of the moral standard.
“morality is something that each of us decide for ourselves”
Nonsense. We imbibe the moral values of the society we live in.
“You don’t need the christian guilt of sin to have a functioning, moral, society.
No, you need Christian virtue. But the guilt part helps.
“To bring it back (slightly) towards alcohol, would you be happy for your kids under the age of 20 to drink the communion wine? ”
Are you seriously going to compare a sip of wine with teen binge drinking?
My point all along is that it is the binge drinking we need to deal with.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
“And no matter how much small minorities want to return to the old partriarchal days where much of the so called morals were a sham and much of the crap was kept secret or swept under the moral carpet.”
Well, so were told by liberals. Much of this is grossly exagerated by the hairy armpit brigade.
“It can’t be done, it shouldn’t be attempted.”
It can and it should.
“We have to move forward into the future”
If your on the wrong path it makes sense to backtrack and find the right path into the future.
“Working on more olerance and acceptance of different views and beliefs would be a good place to start.”
More liberalism to counter the problems created by liberalism?
Was it not liberal “tolerance” that lead to the shattering of social unity and the decline in civic virtue through multiculturalism? And “tolerence” that allowed liberal judges to go soft on crime?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
On real progress..
“You may have felt you were ready to listen to me as long as you thought I had anything new to say; but if it turns out only to be religion, well, the world has tried that and you can’t turn back the clock. If anyone is feeling that way…
“First, as to putting the clock back. Would you think I was joking if I said that you can put a clock back, and that if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible thing to do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea of clocks.
We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.
…I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.”
C.S Lewis
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Lee, I don’t think I’m on the wrong path.
I’m promoting non-violence, I’m promoting responsible drinking, I’m promoting practical equality, I’m promoting tolerance of different cultures and beliefs, and I’m promoting more personal responsibility.
What’s wrong about that?
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Pete,
“Lee, I don’t think I’m on the wrong path.”
I meant society as a whole, not you personally.
“I’m promoting non-violence, I’m promoting responsible drinking, I’m promoting practical equality, I’m promoting tolerance of different cultures and beliefs, and I’m promoting more personal responsibility. What’s wrong about that?”
Well, these ones: “I’m promoting non-violence, I’m promoting responsible drinking, and I’m promoting more personal responsibility”
are very good.
But these: “I’m promoting practical equality, I’m promoting tolerance of different cultures and beliefs”
are part of the liberal disease that is causing so many problems. Egalitarianism and cultural-moral relativism help create the moral anarchy that leads to social decline and more crime.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
C.S Lewis died in 63 so the fifties must have been shite as well.
Fifties compared to now
Lower life expectancy poor health
Vote:Six o’clock swill. leading to Wife beating, incest, children out of wedlock etc hidden and not exposed to justice.
Rape of your wife still legal.
Woman treated as second class citizenry.
Freedom of expression curtailed we could all be locked up for extreme views. Much lower income even though NZ was at top for gdp
the list goes on and on
September 12th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
“C.S Lewis died in 63 so the fifties must have been shite as well.”
the liberal rot set in early in the century, buts its full social and economic effects were not felt until the 1970′s.
“Lower life expectancy poor health”
Simply a function of techonological innovation, and not what we are talking about.
“Six o’clock swill. leading to Wife beating, incest, children out of wedlock etc hidden and not exposed to justice.”
See the problems that a non-Biblical liberal cultural approach to alcohol creates?
“Rape of your wife still legal.”
There is more rape now than then.
“Woman treated as second class citizenry.”
No, they were treated as women. Now they are treated as consumer objects for men, starved and given eating disorders to suit a fashion industry controlled by gay men who want women to look like twelve year old boys, and raped and murdered at a rate the fifties does not even come close to.
“Freedom of expression curtailed we could all be locked up for extreme views.”
Good. What has your freedom of expression got us? Boobs on Bikes? Lady Gaga? An epidemic of pronography and the violence towards women and children that goes with it?
Bye for now folks.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
I’m glad there’s virtually no chance of anyone getting away with forcing everyone back to an authoritarian conformist dictatorial era of intolerance and inequality.
And there’s one relevant major improvement over the “good old days”, those of us who are responsible and care about our own wellbeing don’t have to drink alcohol because it’s to unsafe to drink water, we only need to drink enough to enjoy, and not to self destroy.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
“I’m glad there’s virtually no chance of anyone getting away with forcing everyone back to an authoritarian conformist dictatorial era of intolerance and inequality.”
All eras have intolerance and inequality. The current liberal society has more, not less. It just hides this behind a thin facade of psudo-tolerance and political correctness.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
How are you sure?
We know there is now more reported rape and more prosecuted rape.
And we know there is a lot of unreported rape.
And we know there was more unreported rape in the past.
The same applies to child abuse. And family violence.
You can’t base anything on reported crime statistics when comparing the present where men are being forced to accept responsibilty for terrible (and immoral) behaviour, and the past where they got away with it often without censure or restriction.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Before that lets see second world war, depression, first world war, or go back to the class system doff ya hat and the poor house, so it goes Famine, Pestilence, War and Chaos. When pray tell was your nirvana. The reformation, the Norman conquest, Attila the Hun
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
But your wrong Pete. As terrorism increases, sical problems and crime increase, and economic and environmental problems continue to pile up, Traditionalism will begin to look more and more like the right alternative. Which is why it is making a come-back through much of the West, albeit at the fringes in some respects, but increasingly in the mainstream. Just look at the rise of localism and sustainable farming, or the rise of the hard right in Europe and the USA.
Bin Laden and the global economic crisis did us one favour. Christendom is re-awakening!
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
“When pray tell was your nirvana.”
I never said it was nirvana. I said it was better than now in many respects.
And lets be fair, the modern age has given us the nuclear arms race, massive environmental degradation, bio-warfare and eventually, soon, bio and nuclear terrorism, not to mention global economic meltdown, massive crime rates and social and moral decline.
Gotta go!
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Lee01 said “My point all along is that it is the binge drinking we need to deal with.”
If that was your point then we wouldn’t be arguing as I suspect we all pretty much agree that binge drinking (certainly binge drinking that results in social ills) is what needs to be addressed.
Instead, you made claims such as “Anyone under the age of 20 who is drinking IS a problem drinker.”
Raising the age limit back to what it used to be will not address the binge drinking problem. Making binge drinking socially unacceptable might be a better plan of attack.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Interestingly, the report suggests that binge drinking is “5 or more alcoholic drinks within a 4 hour session”. Guess I’m a binge drinker several times a year.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Oh dear. I’m all ‘ism’ed out.
Far too many for the one thread.
Traditionalism
Vote:localism
terrorism
liberalism
conservatism
traditional conservatism
Burkean conservatism
agrarianism
classicism
classical conservatism
Toryism
socialism
capitalism
teetotalism
Statism
State interventionism
wowserism
conservatism
Liberal totalitarianism
multiculturalism
Egalitarianism
cultural-moral relativism
September 12th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Promote responsible drinking all you like but a small vocal minority want alcohol cheap so they can get drunk regularly. A drunk person is a social pest at best, and dangerous in many many cases. Double the cost of alcohol as it is far too cheap when young adults can afford to get drunk. A moderate drinker would not mind wine being twice the price as they only drink one bottle between 3 or 4 anyway. A drunk would drink 2 bottles and more on their own. Make it costly to do that.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
“Lee01 (497) Says:
September 12th, 2011 at 11:51 am
I agree about civil liberties wankers, I’m totally in favour of extending boot camp style training into every high school in the country”
Good luck with that idea! The a lot of parents seem to want to excuse their precious darlings from any responsibility for wrong doing. Some will write notes trying to excuse their sweeties from detentions because obviously rules are only for others!
Griff (702) Says:
September 12th, 2011 at 10:30 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/education/news/article.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10750813
“There are three times more drug incidents than ones involving alcohol at primary and intermediate schools.
social change away from alcohol?”
The school I teach at (high school) the proportion would be much worse than this. Alcohol incidents are rare. Weed is getting more and more common. When we trace it back most of it comes from family members (parents, siblings, uncles etc) of the stduent. Not from a gang tinny house. This makes it difficult for the school to deal with effectively.
Vote:September 12th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
When I was at school it was the same and that was the seventy’s
Pot is not good for kids It destroys their motivation.
I support legalization at least then we can regulate the market and spend more on education.
Also rid our self’s of the crime prohibition creates And stop criminalizing people and destroying life’s for a victim less crime.
We have been successful in cutting down on tobacco use. We should aim to do the same for both alcohol and cannibals
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 10:46 am
“I support legalization at least then we can regulate the market and spend more on education.”
I am not convinced that simply legalising pot is the answer, I think it would create more problems than it solves. However, I am in favour of decriminalising it for medical purposes, as was done in California. It seems unecessarily cruel to deny it to terminal cancer patients or others suffering horrific pain.
Vote: