Debunking the drinking age argument
May 7th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarLast week someone claimed that the increase in the drinking or purchase age in 1999 lead to more young people dying, and killing themselves. I do not have access to the long-term suicide stats, but do have the long-term youth mortality states (and suicide is the leading cause).
As one can see, the youth mortality rate has continued to drop since the late 1990s. Those advocating to raise the age seem to want to blame everything from climate change to youth suicide on it.
May 7th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Well said, DPF.
Having had the youngest teenage son of a close friend depart in such an unseemly manner, I deplore the proclivity of issue zealots to link their screwed views to human tragedy.
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Road accidents are another major killer of young people, and of course drinking and driving is a significant factor in road accidents.
It’s actually more feasible that lowering the age young people can legally drink in bars means less cruising and drinking and less drinking in uncontrolled and less safe situations, and it could be encouraging more responsible driving habits along with the responsibility of legal drinking. At least these suppositions fit the graph trend better.
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Sigh,
X-axis should pass through zero on the Y-axis scale. Otherwise it gives the impression that rates are ~15% of what they used to be, rather than ~40% of what they used to be.
FM
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
What an amazing graph. Really good news. More than 50% reduction in deaths for that age group, over a twenty year period.
I wonder what the factors were? And whether this was just New Zealand or worldwide?
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Rubbish. You can see the rates dropping sharply from 1990 until the age was lowered in 1999 where they almost plateau out.
In the case of the 15-19 cohort, the rate falls by 0.5/1,000 between 1989 and 1999 whereas between 1999 and 2009 it falls by only 0.1 and if the 2011 results are included, the rate remains virtually static.
The difference is even more pronounced with the 20-24 age group.
Real progress was being made, then this happened and backs up research that points to alcohol as a major factor in suicide.
Disingenuous.
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
PG it could also be said that bar-drinking is less safe compared with home drinking as it is much easier to ‘stay put’ if you are at a house compared to a bar where you are kicked out onto the street and full of booze.
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
@ Pete or the change to the driver licensing conditions meaning younger people less likely to kill themselves on the road.
@ BB so your thesis is a decline in the deathrate is proof that lower drinking age causes higher deaths? /boggle
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
bb: You can see the rates dropping sharply from 1990 until the age was lowered in 1999 where they almost plateau out.
You might be able to see that but it’s difficult to see how. And it has certainly not trended back upwards.
There’s a fairly clear trend downward since the 1980s. It may have paused (with fluctuations) for a few years from 1999 but it’s kept trending down and certainly doesn’t look out of step with the total population trend.
It would be interesting to compare those trends with the road toll trends.
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
@ kermadec
I suspect its the reduced road toll due to safer cars and greater coverage by rescue helicopters.
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
If the drinking age is increased to twenty years of age, so should the voting age, the driving age, the age of consent, the age at which you can serve in the military, the age you can leave school – etc etc.
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Brian,
I appreciate some people put forward the argument of maintaining a consistent age for rights, privileges and obligations, but does that mean you also advocate increasing the age of consent, the driving age and the age you can leave school to 18 if the alcohol purchase age is left at 18? (Because, interestingly, I don’t recall ever having seen the people using a supposed ‘consistency’ argument to keep the purchase age at 18 suggestion actually such.)
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
boredboy,
Real progress was being made, then this happened and backs up research that points to alcohol as a major factor in suicide.
Disingenuous.
Your analysis doesn’t really make much sense, unless of course you are ignorant of the legislative history behind alcohol regulation in New Zealand.
The first thing that you should consider is that the 1989 sale of liquor act was an act to LIBERALIZE the sale of alcohol in this country. Alcohol was MORE regulated prior to it and liquor outlets had to prove some community “need”. The 1989 act removed this criteria and also allowed the sale of wine in supermarkets. Is this the “real progress” you were referring to?
The 1999 reforms were a continuation of this liberal agenda, so to argue that the reduction in deaths from 1990 until 1999 reflects the strengths of a more regulated environment is untenable.
Unless of course you can explain why the liberalizing reforms of 1989 are somehow fundamentally different to the liberalizing reforms of 1999?
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
bhudson,
I agree having a single age is not necessary. All such ages are arbitrary anyway, so we should at least attempt to make them evidence-based in order to minimize harm rather than taking a strict ideological approach.
My view is generally that regulations should reflect reality rather than deny it. The reality of our culture is that the latter years of high school are years when teenagers generally start to drink regularly at social occasions. While there are many people who denounce such a culture the reality is that this culture exists and will not be eliminated by legislation. So this to me suggests we should lower the age to 16 to bring more of these people into a realistic regulatory framework. By prohibiting them they simply create their own, unregulated, framework including poorly supervised house parties and the like.
Are 18 year olds that much more sophisticated than 16 year olds? Hell, are 20 year olds that much more on to it? I would say not really so what’s the big fuss? Whatever you do 16 year old’s will drink. So in my view best to have a legislative framework that encourages compliance with some sort of minimum standards designed to encourage the safe consumption of alcohol rather than unsafe consumption that is typical at unregulated events typical of high school.
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
boredboy, classic cherry-picking!! How about you look at all the data with a break in 1990. You’ll conclude no impact whatever from the drinking age change but probably a rather large change with the campaign against drink driving.
“18 Dec 1990 – The ministry is at present co-ordinating the most comprehensive drink/drive campaign ever to try to ensure that people who drink will not be on …”
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Again I am with Brian Smaller and have argued here before.
It is ludicrous to expect a man or woman to serve the country at possible risk to life or limb and disallow them from having a beer.
And lets not forget that an 18 year old can sign a contract and be a company director and employ people too!
Lazy thinking and poor law, but what else can we expect from that shower in parliament?
Vote:After all 50% of Kiwis voted for them in the hope of keeping their entitlements safe whilst not paying tax.
May 7th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Smaller
That increase in the age of consent should halve the dpb bill. Good call.
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Why are the two lines so similar?
Presumably the smaller fluctuations from year to year are random.
Why would two separate population groups show almost exactly the same fluctuations?
Vote:May 7th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Kermadec, good call. Something fishy there.
Vote:May 9th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Brian Smaller (3,541) Says:
If the drinking age is increased to twenty years of age, so should the voting age, the driving age, the age of consent, the age at which you can serve in the military, the age you can leave school – etc etc.
If the drinking age is 20 they won’t be doing those other things while impaired by alcohol.
Vote: