Keep it 18 reason #4

August 16th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Most alcohol is supplied by parents or family members

The latest ALAC survey found 60% of youth moderate and binge drinkers say their last drink was at home, or a relative’s home. Only 27% say they were at a friend’s house. Scapegoating 18 and 19 year olds for allegedly being the source of alcohol to under age drinkers, is not bourne out by the facts.

Tags: ,

20 Responses to “Keep it 18 reason #4”

  1. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    These parentally supplied 18 and 19 year olds had to open their own mouths and pour the alcohol down their throats and there lies the lack of maturity that says to me that the drinking age should be raised. If it were up to me it would be 21 in NZ.There is a totally different culture in the American city in which I live compared to Wellington. The only drunk person you are likely to encounter here is in the mirror.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    Scapegoating 18 and 19 year olds for allegedly being the source of alcohol to under age drinkers, is not bourne out by the facts.

    The Bourne Inebriation :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Weihana (4,585 comments) says:

    Monique Watson,

    These parentally supplied 18 and 19 year olds had to open their own mouths and pour the alcohol down their throats and there lies the lack of maturity that says to me that the drinking age should be raised

    I presume “youth moderate and binge drinkers” means those under 18. 18 year olds can already buy liquor themselves from the liquor store hence DPF’s point that underagers obtain it from family primarily and not from friends who are 18 or 19.

    In any case, why are 18 and 19 years old immature for drinking and getting drunk but every other age group is not? Strange logic, or lack thereof.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    It’s the developing brain that needs protection Weihana. Adults are big enough and hairy enough to look out for themselves but kids need protection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jinky (188 comments) says:

    In what way are 18 & 19 year olds currently serving with our defence force “kids who need protection”? Or even those who are serving sentences in jail as adult criminals? the laws around adulthood are arbitrary and confusing. As others have pointed out it is legally possible to get married but not buy a drink at your own wedding!! You can be a parent and legally responsible for children but not be of a legal age to purchase alcohol!!?? No wonder that some young people choose to ignore a law they see as unfair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Weihana (4,585 comments) says:

    Monique Watson,

    18 and 19 year olds are not “kids”. Kids do not defend the nation, vote in elections, pay rent, have sex etc.

    Moreover, the argument re their “developing brains” is irrelevant. Yes, it would appear heavy and prolonged alcohol abuse can adversely affect brain development. But adults can also suffer neurotoxic effects from alcohol abuse which the young brain is more resilient to. So the argument is a red herring. Both young adults and older adults are at risk from alcohol abuse. Wow. Who would’ve thought?

    Basic fact is they are adults, at least nominally, when they turn 18 so they should be able to make their own decisions. Time to let go… he ain’t your little boy anymore. :)

    Edit: I should qualify that statement. If you’re 18, living at home, attending school, paying for nothing… don’t think of yourself as an adult. Hell, if you’re 25 and living at home, not paying rent, living off mommy and daddy, you should not think of yourself as an adult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    There is only one answer here – “18”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    I don’t know why ALAC has chosen to group Binge and Moderate drinkers in to the same category. Binge drinking is something quite different from Moderate drinking.
    Moderate consumption means fairly regular consumption, without binging (i.e. what most would consider regular responsible drinking – not getting drunk) – is this an unhealthy way to be introduced to alcohol?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Michael (910 comments) says:

    At 16 you can drive, have sex and consent to surgery. At 18 you can buy a pack of smokes. At 18 you vote. Isn’t Maryan Street proposing a bill which will allow anyone who is terminally ill and over 18 years old to request euthanasia. Clearly, Parliament has stop deciding that anything other than 18 is the age of adult responsibility.

    Setting aside the moral issues of euthanasia (and I am not wanting to hijack this thread on those lines), are we suggesting that a 18 year old is mature enough to deal with (literally) a life and death decision, but isn’t mature enough to make a decision about buying a six pack of beer, a bottle of win, or a litre of spirits?

    Keep it 18.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Why not ban alcohol from 40-60 year-olds?

    They’re providing it to their underage kids, they’re a large proportion of drunk drivers, they binge, are disruptive in restaurants, and because of their larger incomes can afford more harmful alcohol, they’re at higher risk of heart disease, liver problems and pancreatitis from drinking.

    Keep it 18, but don’t let those aged 40 to 60 drink – for the good of our Nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. frankflintstone (68 comments) says:

    yikes, so just because a youth has a drink at home, then it must have been provided by a parent or relative? they couldn’t have bought it themselves and drank it at home. also it doesn’t say how many drinks they had provided to them by the parent. My guess is that they drink moderately in those situations and get trolleyed at parties.

    “Most alcohol is supplied by parents or family members”, is a ridiculous assumption to be made. Hopefully the writer has nothing to do with surveys or statistics

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    40-60 year olds are adults. if they want to drink themselves to death then be it on their heads. If they’re anything like me they probably got into it rely and young. Banning drink from mature adults is called prohibition and is proven not to work.
    Removing the right for kids to drink it is just good sense. And yes at 18 you are still are kids. Theres nothing wrong with that, it’s just the truth. Your brain matures around the age of 25. Yada yada fucking yada around the right to marry, fight for your country and voting at 18. I can guarantee you won’t vote the same way at the age of 58 that you do at say 18 and you won’t get married before 25 in this day and age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Weihana (4,585 comments) says:

    Monique Watson,

    Your brain matures around the age of 25. Yada yada fucking yada around the right to marry, fight for your country and voting at 18. I can guarantee you won’t vote the same way at the age of 58 that you do at say 18 and you won’t get married before 25 in this day and age.

    For some people the brain never matures. In any case it is a specious argument.

    There is wide-spread drinking of alcohol amongst people prior to the age of 18. There is no evidence that people who consume alcohol at a young age, but who do not have a history of prolonged alcohol abuse, suffer any discernible detriment to their development as compared to people who abstain until they are 18 or older.

    Moreover, your argument is even more absurd in that it is premised on the fact that a person might change from when they are 58 as compared to when they are 18. The suggestion is that somehow at the age of 25 people are set in stone for ever after. In fact they continue to change from their 20s to their 30s and from their 30s to 40s etc. Indeed around retirement age their frontal lobe will slowly start to atrophy. Does this mean we must limit the right to drink for seniors because they are not at their mental peak?

    While you casually disregard analogies with a right to marry, fight for one’s country, and vote, you do so because your argument is incredibly weak and inconsistent. The reason for those analogies is that the fundamental issue is the same: the right to take responsibility for one’s actions that may have significant long-term consequences. Arguably getting married and fighting for one’s country are far more consequential to one’s life than having a drink.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    I find it disturbing that a professional pollster like you David quote from a survey, and end your commentary by writing “Scapegoating 18 and 19 year olds for allegedly being the source of alcohol to under age drinkers, is not bourne out by the facts.”

    Surveys are not FACTS. They are surveys only, based on a randomly selected person’s opinion.

    If facts are required on this topic the most useful method would be to question underage drinkers brought into hospital emergency departments, and ask them who supplied the alcohol. Then you’d have your facts.

    But maybe those facts might not support your argument David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Weihana (4,585 comments) says:

    Chris2 (519) Says:
    August 17th, 2012 at 10:05 am

    I find it disturbing that a professional pollster like you David quote from a survey, and end your commentary by writing “Scapegoating 18 and 19 year olds for allegedly being the source of alcohol to under age drinkers, is not bourne out by the facts.”

    Surveys are not FACTS. They are surveys only, based on a randomly selected person’s opinion.

    If facts are required on this topic the most useful method would be to question underage drinkers brought into hospital emergency departments, and ask them who supplied the alcohol. Then you’d have your facts.

    But maybe those facts might not support your argument David?

    Chris, questioning people brought into hospital emergency departments is JUST ANOTHER FORM OF SURVEY.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    No it’s not another survey, because it is not random. It’s collecting actual evidence from those affected by alcohol to such an extent that they have been taken to hospital. This is quite different from calling someone at home while they are preparing dinner and wanting a response in under 10 seconds.

    Using your logic Weihana, you would claim that a General Election is just another form of survey!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    Asking the drunks at the Emergency Department isn’t going to provide any meaningful statistics either.
    It’s like going to jail and asking who did what.
    Apparently if people don’t steal, they won’t go to jail… so… don’t steal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Weihana (4,585 comments) says:

    Chris2,

    The relevant terms DPF introduced were:

    “for allegedly being the source of alcohol to under age drinkers”

    So in terms of your suggestion I have some issues:

    1. Surely not all underage drinkers wind up in hospital.
    2. Are we really going to get statistics from every drunk that ends up in the ER?
    3. Can their responses be relied upon in a situation where they may consider they are in trouble?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Jinky (188 comments) says:

    Weihana +1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    40-60 year olds are adults.

    18 and 19 year olds are adults too.

    Banning drink from mature adults is called prohibition and is proven not to work.

    I agree.

    And yes at 18 you are still are kids. Theres nothing wrong with that, it’s just the truth.

    18 year olds are not kids, they are adults. Many 18 year olds are more responsible that many 40 year olds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote