The drinking age debate – hopefully now over
August 31st, 2012 at 2:42 pm by David FarrarThis has been the third vote on the so called drinking (actually purchase) age in 13 years. Hopefully it is the last one, so we can focus on changes which will (in my opinion) make more of an impact on reducing harm from alcohol.
I want to blog why this has been such a big issue for me, and for so long. And no it is not as Damien Christie suggested so I can pick up drunk 18 year old girls in bars (that falls into the coincidental side-effects category 
– note I am kidding).
I regularly get inspired by young adults who have such obviously huge potential and greatness. They literally represent our future – as a country, and as a species.
I spent many years as a venturer leader, working with 14 to 19 year olds. In the absence of being a parent, it is a great experience to see a young person become an young adult, who has their whole life ahead of them, and has so much to contribute.
Just two weekends ago I was blown away by the attitudes and skills of the 750 students at The Big Sing. Awesome. It made me positive about NZ.
In my own business, I’ve had several students work for me in a management and supervisory role. Despite being just 20, 19 and even once 18 they have done great jobs. They think of ways to improve the business I would have never thought of. They come up with great ideas, they do business process improvements without even checking with me. People such as Anna, Kerry, Malia, Jess, Mitch and Steffi actually inspire me. I wish I was that good at their age.
Being involved with Keep It 18 a couple of years ago, I was blown away by the maturity and political skills of Nicola Wood who was just 19, yet had such great passion and determination.
How can you not be inspired by Sam Johnson and the Student Volunteer Army? They did it all by a simple message on Facebook.
While I have not met her, I find Brittany Trilford, who addressed the Rio Earth summit, an inspiring person. I don’t agree with her political views, but she spoke so well.
In the Young Nats, I meet such awesome people who care so much about their country – and will make such a contribution. And despite their age I see people such as Daniel, Sean, Shaun and Megan turn into smooth effective lobbyists on issues that if they formed a company they could probably charge $300/hr
I am a big fan of the student media. Holly Walker stood out a great Critic Editor, and she is now a Green MP. Callum Federic at Critic has managed to do one of the best interviews of a controversial I have seen. Elle Hunt, formerly of Salient, oozes talent and I have no doubt will become one of New Zealand’s best feature writers.
So when I see young adults I see so many awesome people, and that they represent a great future.
And what I have always hated about having a drinking age of 20, is the awful awful message it sends to 18 and 19 year olds. It is telling them they can not be trusted. That they are not deemed adults. That they should not inspire to greatness, because hell we can’t even trust you to buy a bottle of wine.
That is what has motivated me on this issue. It isn’t for me an alcohol issue or a health issue. It is an issue about allowing young 18 and 19 year old New Zealanders to achieve greatness.
Let me finish with a very pertinent story related to this.
I worked in the late 1990s for PM Jenny Shipley. As part of that job, I traveled with her to all the National Party Regional Conferences. At the Otago/Southland Regional Conference I saw that there was a remit put up by the Young Nationals on lowering the drinking age from 20 to 18.
When I was myself a Young Nat, I had advocated for lowering the drinking age, and was delighted to see the Young Nats were still fighting the good fight. So I went up to them, introduced myself to them and said I was happy to help them with their speeches. The Young Nat moving the remit identified herself and said that would be great. I made a few suggestions about lines to use, and recall as an 18 year old she was unusually stubborn as she refused to use what I thought was the best line (which was fine).
Anyway she successfully persuaded the quite conservative region to vote for lowering the drinking age to 18. And as it happens within 12 months Parliament did vote to lower the drinking age.
That 18 year old Young Nat is now the MP for Auckland Central, who just successfully moved the amendment in Parliament to keep the drinking age at 18.
That reinforces for me why it was and is so important not to treat 18 and 19 year olds as if they are all out of control untrustworthy alcohol abusers. So many of them go on to become awesome people, and do awesome things.
Related posts:
- Purchase age not drinking age
- Hopeful common sense on youth drinking
- Drinking Age
- Drinking at age four
August 31st, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Why 18, and not 17?
As an aside, around 15 years ago I was involved in a low budget broadcasting station. At the time, the legal drinking age was 20. We were approached by a major brewery salesperson, who offered to buy a substantial amount of advertising and show sponsorship, along with free product for their brand new pre-mixed drink. He blatantly told me that they were aiming it at the 14-17 age bracket. In all the debates about the rights and wrongs of the various age limits, I see a lot of very well made arguments. I would feel a hell of a lot better if I thought the companies behind the products weren’t such bastards.
[DPF: I think 18 is the right age to get your adult rights as it tends to be the age you are at when you finish school]
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:06 pm
A victory for common sense politics.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:21 pm
What I have to consider after the recent parliamentary votes is the consistency with which some MP’s voted on this issue and the marriage reform and the inconsistency with which others voted.
By this I mean were they guided by the Human Rights Act in not accepting discrimination based on either sexuality or age grounds.
This leads to the wider issue of constitutional development and whether our lawyers or MP’s are mature enough for this development. The Law Commission was quite happy to recommend the age 20, without even referencing this constitutional implication or any accord with the HRA. We are after all equal citizens as voters.
As to the issue of alcohol abuse management – clearly we have to target drinking to get drunk as we have those who have drunk too much to safely drive (this is not the same thing as being drunk). We also have to manage public concerns about where people are drinking in community areas – after buying drinks at off licenses in suburban locations.
In my opinion we can do this with one simple measure – defining drunkenness by a new higher blood alcohol level and using this as a standard by which hosts exclude patrons at the door or further sale at the bar. And by which police can clear the streets of those who are drunk (being able to require a breathalyser test) by asking them to leave and being able to arrest and fine them if they do not. This means the police can stop those who drink in their cars (to avoid the ban on drinking in urban centre streets) and walk around the streets drunk.
PS Why do so many presume that the increased number of admissions in hospitals in urban centres identifies an increase in alochol related harm – with legal access to bars and clubs there have been more young people drinking there than in the suburbs. People use to de-tox in their mates house or back home in bed. Much of the issue is generated by urban area professionals who have faced an increase in workload with the 1999 law change.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:27 pm
The age at which differential treatment based on age can be age discrimination under the Human Rights Act is 16.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:35 pm
My nephew played for his school’s First XV last year, and all the Year 13 boys were going out drinking in town after the game. Have schools had to develop new protocols for the lower drinking age? You could potentially have kids turning up to school on Mondays with hangovers from the weekend.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Graeme Edgeler, is there any link that elaborates on the age matter?
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Brought a tear to my eye. (No BS!)
Well said DPF.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:01 pm
It is 16.
This leads to the question – but why would anyone set it at that age, when activities and access would imply that denial of the right to vote or to buy alcohol on licensed premises would be discriminatory?
If it was so that other discrimination could be mitigated, then surely there was a need to set aside an exclusion for a higher age for voting and to purchase of alcohol, or if not in the absence of stating this, lest their precedent would lead to habitual ignoring of the age in legislating otherwise?
PS Of course no discrimination for those over 16 – does not mean allowing discrimination against those over 18 either.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Oh silly, silly DPF.
You can just as well put up the opposite story about a few totally stupid 18 and 19 year olds and this thats the reason for removing the right to buy liquor from them.
And youll find a lot more stories about utterly stupid 18 year olds than you will hear about the utterly mature ones.
Its well established that most people do not have a fully developed brain until about 25 – so to say that an 18 year old is a well balanced adult is just plain wrong.
[DPF: I disagree. I think the majority of 18 and 19 year olds are well developed adults, and do not think you punish them for the minority]
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:23 pm
No, it’s not well established.
As Kevin Hague wrote on this matter.
Much has been made recently of the argument that the human brain continues to mature until the age of about 25. Those making this argument say this implies that alcohol use by 18 and 19 year olds puts them at risk of disproportionately greater harm than older purchasers, including some permanent or long-lasting effects that older purchasers do not risk, and that one of the effects is to compromise decision-making capability. We have tried to follow up the evidence to support this argument, but found it curiously hard to find. What we have found is mostly indicative, rather than conclusive. We do accept that it is likely that younger drinkers risk disproportionately more harm than older drinkers, but don’t believe the size of this effect for 18 and 19 year olds makes a compelling case for raising the purchase age. Indeed, if the ‘developing brain’ argument were compelling, then the purchase age ought to be increased to 25, but this is not advocated because it would not be “socially acceptable”.
Similarly if the ‘avoiding harm’ argument were sufficient, then alcohol purchase would be completely illegal, as harm occurs at every age. It is not disputed that lowering the alcohol purchase age to 18 resulted in a net increase of harm with, for example, increased admissions to hospital for alcohol-related conditions and increased alcohol-related criminal offending. It stands to reason that legal access to alcohol will increase its use, and therefore increased effects from it, both good and bad. Equally, if the purchase age had instead been increased to 30, there would have been a marked decrease in alcohol-related hospital admissions and criminal offending in the 20-29 age group.
The final argument that is typically made against retaining 18 as the alcohol purchase age is that it has lowered the de facto purchase age. The argument goes that alcohol-related harm to 18 and 19 year olds is not the issue with the current purchase age. Rather the concern is that because 19 and, particularly, 18 year olds often still have close links with younger teenagers, they become a conduit for access to alcohol for those who are not mature enough to consent to its risks. The counters to this argument are twofold. Firstly, the evidence is that where younger teenagers have accessed alcohol, the conduit has usually been from parents rather than from 18 or 19 year old friends, so raising the purchase age will have only a minor effect on the problem. Secondly, it is poor legislative practice to penalise a whole category of people because of the effects on an entirely different group (particularly when the linkage is weak) or because of the actions of a small subset of the group.
In summary, the arguments mounted for raising the purchase age are not sufficiently compelling to justify prohibition for 18 and 19 year olds.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:44 pm
***That reinforces for me why it was and is so important not to treat 18 and 19 year olds as if they are all out of control untrustworthy alcohol abusers. ***
Following this logic why did the Govt restrict the sale of pseudoephedrine based cold medicine then? The new stuff doesn’t seem nearly as effective.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Because the issue was age discrimination, not prohibition.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:51 pm
As to the specific case, the intent was to cut off supply to those making drugs not prevent abuse of a drug by those taking a medicine.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Yes. There are a couple of exceptions (e.g. pension, insurance) but you can’t discriminate on the basis of age if that age is 16 or above (i.e. you can discriminate on the basis of age as much as you like under 16)
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:00 pm
kino flo, you’re talking absolute (and I suspect dishonest) rubbish.
16 and 17 year olds were turning up at school with hangovers 42-43 years ago – and not just on Mondays.
I was one of them.
Whether you like it or not the Pollies for once voted with their brains and finally got something right.
Get over it.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:04 pm
I was in my 3rd year at Varsity by the time I was allowed to by booze. Simply daft, which is why i’ve loudly supported Keep it 18.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Good speech by master Hughes from the Green Party. Not a fan of his but I agree with his ideas
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:09 pm
So you weren’t studying English, then?
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Tell you what DPF…..If you give up your undemocratic desire to see a republic forced on the majority who do not yet want to cut ties with the UK then those of us who want to see the drinking age revert to 20 will agree to drop the issue.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 7:41 pm
bb – it would have been a really decent week if we’d also had debate and voting on our indistinguished flag, our dirge of an anthem, and a historic monarchy that has little to do with modern New Zealand.
But I guess we can’t have everything at once.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 9:00 pm
And some may sink without becoming great due to the damage they do to themselves and others.
The debate over drinking age will never be over but for now the purchase age is 18.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 9:47 pm
The undistinguised indisguisable flag – those who want to keep it can always takes up Oz citizenship while working over there.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Why do those that go out on booze patrols with the police change their minds about the age limit? It’s better they drink at home or with a parent/guardian. In wartime an 18 yr does not get ordered to fight overseas-he/she has to get parents permission first. An indigenous person however cannot be made to fight overseas whatever his age,he has to volunteer. He may be conscripted but that is as far as it goes.Thems the rules.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Graeme, is there not greater latitude for the govt irrespective of the age? (Just as it has greater freedom to act according to its wishes under BORA)
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Somone said:
Firstly, the evidence is that where younger teenagers have accessed alcohol, the conduit has usually been from parents rather than from 18 or 19 year old friends, so raising the purchase age will have only a minor effect on the problem.
~~~~~~~~
If teenagers get alcohol from their parents it’s typically one drink at dinner on a special occassion. When teenagers get alcohol from friends (boys) or friends/older acquaintances/unknowns (girls) they tend to get more alcohol and stronger alcohol.
It should have been 18 and out of school. Letting school kids buy alcohol means that the older kids buy it for the younger kids and becomes the thing to do at school age parties.
The issue will keep coming up becauase white, middle-class kids kill themselves with alcohol.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 7:42 am
I regularly get inspired by young adults who have such obviously huge potential and greatness. They literally represent our future – as a country, and as a species.
………………………..
at a residents meeting someone pointed out that “there are students who go down the street drunk tipping over wheely bins and others who pick them up”. There just aren’t enough of the latter.
What is needed is more closely linking harm from alchohol with the industry and hurting them in the pocket. For instance it cost $70 to replace the letter box smashed outside my fathers house the day before he died ( a great send-off for an ex pow of the Japanese). Beside it was a pink alcoholic drink, the proprietor of which died in a helicopter accident worth about $600million.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 10:09 am
If it is a National Government policy I will vote against it.
Vote:The drinking age bill was a Collins’s bill, so it’s wrong anyway.
Whaddaya mean whether it’s right or wrong – nothing to do with it.
September 2nd, 2012 at 12:57 am
If you want to support young people who have huge potential and greatness, then why wouldn’t you want to support a higher drinking age that protects young people from harming themselves? Alcohol is not good for humans, it is especially not good for younger humans. People do not need alcohol. Protecting the young will make that potential for greatness for more likely, whereas lowering the age has more potential to harm them. There is no honour is trying to keep the drinking age at 18, David.
It may not be a health issue for you, but it obviously is a a health issue.
I don’t agree that that having it at 18 sends an awful message that they cannot be trusted.
As Chester said, just because you can get married, go to war, etc doesn’t mean you should do any of those things and the asme applies to alcohol.
Vote: