The Law Commission’s Alcohol Issues Paper is, I was told by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, 1.4 kg heavy. It is probably one of the most comprehensive reviews of liquor issues ever created.
At this stage, the law commission is making no recommendations. The issues paper is out for consultation through to October after which the Law Commission has until the end of March to report back to Parliament.
So Lianne Dalziel and I though we’d post some of the issues on Red Alert and give you the opportunity to comment on them one by one.
And since the purchasing age is the point getting the most attention, let’s start there and get it off our collective chests…
There are a range of options for the purchasing age: Stay at 18 or increase to 19, 20 or 21.
There is another option also proposed: Split the purchasing age so it would be 18 for on-licence premises (ie pubs, restaurants etc) and 20 for off-licences (supermarkets, wholesalers etc).
Comment away…
I think raising it back up to 20 or 21 would be the best option. Lowering it down to 18 was the a mistake. The amount of binge drinking by teenagers went up considerably when it was lowered and it hasn’t got any better since.
I don’t think splitting the age between on-license and off-license premises is a great idea. You most likely end up with the silly argument “well, they can sell it to 18 y.o so why can’t I?”.
more rigorous enforcement of the laws as they stand at the moment would go some way towards improving the problem.
I don’t think that the drinking age should be raised to 20 or 21 – underaged drinkers will always drink and at least if a person is 18 they can go to a pub where there is water available and staff to keep an eye on them. It would also cause huge resentment from this age group.
I actually would partially agree with splitting the age between licensed and unlicensed premises. I was unusual in that I didn’t start drinking at parties, I first started drinking in bars. It was good I knew how many drinks I could have and what effect it would have – because I was purchasing them individually.
No government will ever stop 18 year olds from drinking. So let’s not make it illegal again and drive the drinking into secrecy.
Education is an option! I think the police already do a lot to deal with drinkers.
Raising the age seems simple enough to quell this alleged problem; all it may do is make the ‘raise the age’ mob feel like they’ve done something. However unintended consequences are always just around the corner. During the early 80’s the individual states of the US dropped the age from 21 to 18, sure enough the “don’t lower the age” mob started bringing out reports stating this & that to support their position that the age should be raised again – binge drinking et al. When Ronny got in he wanted to raise the age but couldn’t due to the states’ right to do as they pleased on this issue. So clever Ronny decided that, “Sure, they can keep the age at 18 if they want; but their federal road funding will dry up if they don’t do as I want them to.” So, most states that initially decided to stay with the age at 18 acquiesced to this blackmail and changed back. What happened was…actually nothing, all the bench marks used to measure the ‘raise the age’ mobs reports showed that there had been no difference between states with the age at 18 & those with it at 21; no more incidence of drunkenness, binge drinking etc. None, except that the back to age 21 states are making more arrests of drinkers breeching the rules, and more prosecutions of publicans due to more – now – underage drinkers.
There is absolutely no need to raise the alcohol purchase age. If Labour was liberal and not the socially conservative party they show themselves to be over and over again they wouldn’t even need to ask the question. I like most people started binge drinking in my young teens. What effect raising the purchase age would have on teenagers I don’t know, but I do know it had little effect on most people when I was a teenager. By my early tewnties I had grown out of it. Many places in Europe have a lower alcohol purchasing age then we do. The post says there are a range of options, but fails to mention lowering the drinking age or moving towards a voluntarily enforced minimum drinking age etc.
QtR: I only included the options found within the issues paper. Those you have suggested warrent discussion. I’m a bit tied up just now but will come back to the discussion in a while.
How about a proper review of the age of majority (or whatever we want to call it). The different ages for different things seems completely arbitrary, and there is little social or cultural support that the transition to adulthood.
The problem isn’t 18 and 19 year olds drinking to excess, it’s drinking to excess at all ages.
The serious question that needs to be asked are why are so many young people passing out, puking and causing mischeif in party areas (E.g. Courtenay Place) when there is an alcohol ban and bars are not supposed to be serving patrons who are drunk.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dhhtgzwh_238cbk36cs
“2.4) While restricting the rights groups is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 so long as “…such reasonable limits prescribed by law… can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”[2], [I] do not see how attacking one group for another groups problems, how attacking a majority for the problems of a minority, and how not punishing other age groups causing similar harms, is either demonstrably justifiable or ethical. [I] find the idea of unnecessary use of indirect targeting, blanket punishment, and age discrimination morally reprehensible.”
“3.4) The whole purpose of raising the alcohol purchase age is to make it harder for under 18 year olds (and 18 and 19 years) to access alcohol. But considering current under-age trends, with 62% of alcohol coming from parents, 51% of police cases having the last drink at home, and 9% of teenagers illegally purchasing alcohol, how is simply raising the alcohol purchase age, a law that will be even harder to enforce, going to actually get at the root causes and have any positive effect? Access is already poorly enforced and is not the core problem.”
“4.4) Raising the alcohol purchase age is not merely ineffective, it is counter productive; it will not only fail to solve the problems, it will perpetuate them. By making problem drinking the norm, by bringing the law into disrepute, and by diverting a serious social problem that needs to be thoroughly dealt with at its roots, raising the purchase age would be a major step backwards.”
That’s my opinion anyway.
Much clearer here: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dhhtgzwh_238cbk36cs
We have to make a simple decision, do we want to raise the drinking age and have people binge drinking, drinking to excess, passing out, etc. after 20 or 21, or do we want to have them do it at 18? Most people have grown out of their excessive drinking by their early to mid-20s. Arguably, having them do it earlier would be better, because then they are less likely to be involved in a relationship (i.e. physical abuse where alcohol is a key factor) and if they’re at uni, they’re in their first few years, better than the last few I guess. That’s only two reasons I can think of now – I guess they’d be many more for keeping it at 18.
I have traveled relatively expansively through America and have struggled with their draconian drinking laws. When you’re 18, your parents no longer have any (legal) say over you, you can vote, you can buy cigarettes (which are more harmful to each individual person than alcohol) you can pretty much do anything you want. Why then, should you not be able to drink? I think we need to review all the ‘coming-of-age’ laws and make everything legal at 18.
We need to foster a positive drinking culture. Where it is OK to drink but its not OK to drink responsibly. I think we are seeing this come through schools now. Many of the 16, 17 year olds have been exposed to heaps of drug and alcohol education and they are less likely to drink to excess because they are aware of the consequences. Maybe we need to wait another 10 years before we make the decision. Its no use saying that we’re going to educate people more and not giving it time to see results. I think that a cultural shift is occurring. Slowly, but surely. Remember, these things don’t happen over night.
I’m not sure of the actual science on this, but is it healthy to binge drink once every week or two weeks than have the sustained drinking of maybe two glasses of wine a night? Does anyone know? My guess is that you will drink more volume in two glasses evenly spaced over 6 or 7 days than in one night where you drink a dozen beers or something.
Easy Andy. Moderate consumption=good. Binging=bad (toxic).
Enforcing current laws more vigorously gets my vote.
I’m a real fan of 18 in licenced premises and 20 to takeway. Why I hear you ask?
The are 1,000′s of mature 18-19 year olds out there getting punished because of the behaviour of a few. Not fair. Remember there are very tough laws regarding the serving of underage people AND serving drunk people of all ages.
I agree with “I Suspect” above .. it’s all about enforcement and education .. by parents not by TV ads. Same with boy racers really.
Regarding the argument that 16 is the new 18 .. referring to the age younger people get hold of booze .. na, enforcement is the key.
Raising the $ of booze is also a shocker. Jim Andertons “sherry” tax failed as did his party bill rule so don’t go there.
I’m personally of the view that the answer is to lower the drinking age dramatically and institute more restrictions aimed at reducing binge drinking specifically. It would be nice to forbid sale of liquor to anyone already clearly intoxicated- and require breathalising of bar patrons and liquor store customers. I think it couldn’t hurt to put an upper limit on the amount of drinks you’re allowed to sell a particular person, either.
Having people able to drink at a very young age should encourage retailers and parents to both have a lot more say in regulating the drinking habits of new drinkers. One of the reasons we develop a binge-drinking culture is that eighteen year olds don’t usually answer to anyone but themselves about their drinking habits, which is not a good way to instill a positive drinking culture.
Making alcohol more expensive or harder to get in general isn’t the answer- it has to be about preventing binge drinking specifically, which there has been precious little attempt to do. All the measures I’ve heard about thus far have been attempts to demonise or restrict youth drinking, which is simply inappropriate given the fact that, for instance, drunk driving is largely a middle-aged problem.
Oh, I meant to mention- an appropriate age to introduce people to non-binge drinking would probably be from twelve to fourteen.
sounds crazy Ari but then I understand in some countries (Italy/France) having a wine or 2 with meals is encouraged and it introduces youth to the joys of a drink without having them hanging out for their 18th/20th or 21st as in “my day”.
It will never gain favour here though because the fun police .. those who love regulation .. with stop it straight away.
@jabba and Ari I agree that raising the price of alcohol is not the way to go. It won’t stop the problem of underaged drinking or misbehaving, but it will punish lower income people who are responsible drinkers.
I don’t agree that the drinking age should be lowered – young people have enough to deal with in their teens without being expected to be responsible drinkers.
“…require breathalising of bar patrons and liquor store customers. I think it couldn’t hurt to put an upper limit on the amount of drinks you’re allowed to sell a particular person, either.”
I would object to going out for a good time and being forced to take a breath test. Plus, bar staff have enough work to do selling drinks to queues of people and keeping an eye on behaviour to be doing this. I also think that putting an upper limit on the amount of alcohol that can be sold would really stuff people up who were buying for functions – such as a 21st party.
“Having people able to drink at a very young age should encourage retailers and parents to both have a lot more say in regulating the drinking habits of new drinkers.”
I thought that minors could have alcohol in bars and restaurants as long as they are accompanied by their parents???? And could have it at home if supplied by their parents – am I wrong or right? I think that legalising it for very young people would increase their ability to drink unsupervised as they would be able to buy it themselves.
Iain, don’t get too caught up on the age issue. The Law Commission has canvassed a wide range of issues – so it will be good to see you views on issues like price, licensing, marketing etc. Too often the debate is limited only to the age – while it’s important, there are a wider range of things to cover. Unfortunately too many (i.e. NZ media!) get fixated on the age because they can’t get their heads around complexities of licensing rules etc.
My 2 cents on the age: a flat purchase age of 20 years.
I don’t think we should be raising the drinking age.
I’m curious about the idea of making the age younger for buying in pubs than it is to ‘takeaway’. Most 18-20 year olds will drink at a house, then go to pubs afterwards. They probably consume most of their alcohol at home. This is maybe why there’s an idea of targeting it. The obvious of the outcome is more young people on the streets – if they can’t obtain alcohol illegally (which a lot will obviously try), then they will be forced to go out. Go to pubs, and then maybe end up mooshing around on the street because they can’t afford anymore or whatever.
The cost of buying alcohol in most bars is very expensive these days (at least in Wellington). This will negatively impact young peoples finances in a quite significant way. It’s hard enough trying to get by while studying. Ok, they can drink less, but alcohol consumption is very inelastic a lot of the time. IE: Your best friends birthday celebrations – people are going to demand more booze. Don’t know if this is a good thing or not, but it’s a fact that a law change won’t change.
If anybody is serious about changing alcohol consumption behaviour, the reasons underlying it need to be looked at. Large societal issues. It’d fine to look at laws around alcohol from time to time, but I don’t agree with curtailing a large group of peoples rights for not that much benefit.
Thanks everyone for all the comments. Do keep them coming, its really useful to hear your points of view.
Ross: Great to see you on Red Alert! Hope we get lots of comments from you. No, I don’t want to get hung up on the age issue and will do plenty of posts on the other matters raised in the issues paper (Including some of the other things raised on this thread).
On the split age: Yep, one of the problems this sets out to address is the practice of “front-end loading” ie getting trollied at home on cheaper alcohol (in an unsupervised environment) then hitting town just as all that alcohol is starting to take effect.
Many police reckon the people they have to deal with in city centres have done their harmful drinking at home. They often get into pubs becasue they don’t appear too drunk becasue the booze hasn’t kicked in yet (it takes about an hour to feel the full effects of your drink).
Of course, advocating for a split purchasing age assumes that you are more likely to front-end load if you are under 20.
On the idea of lower drinking ages: Remember we have no DRINKING age in NZ. 18 is the age at which you can purchase alcohol, but there is no law against drinking it when you are 8 for instance. This raises the question of who should be allowed to supply alcohol to those too young to purchase it. But I think it would be best to come back to that question on a separate post but no worries if you want to touch on it here.
For more information on the Commission’s review watch this video of Sir Geoffrey Palmer speaking at a recent Australasian alcohol conference – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEs9Tj3wQYk
@Colvin – Yes! Thankyou! The price of alcohol in bars is too high so people are more or less forced to get tanked up before they go into town. If certain drinks were cheaper in bars then people could drink more civilly.
I also agree with what you say about drinking while studying. A lot of course related groups, postgrad groups, uni functions and just plain having a quiet drink with your mates are set in bars. It can be hard to participate when the price of alcohol keeps going up and all you want to do is have a good time. Lately I’ve had to resort to drinking before I go to these events because it’s too expensive.
Geoffrey Palmer is a great guy I’m sure, but he won’t be the one impacted by the Commission’s recommendations.
Last Saturday a 14 year old boy purchased 2x doz. RTD’s from the local Wine shop in Whitianga for two 12 year old girls & three 13 year old boys.
None of the children made it home on Saturday night and needless to state the consequences.
The local police have said they’ll “have a word” to the wine shop as the 14 year old may have been mistaken for 18.
Is this no care – no consequence bullshit what society must put up with? – and you concern yourselves with smacking???
@spud. What does that matter?
@Ross – it doesn’t matter, but it slightly annoys me that raising the price of alcohol would affect the social lives of decent people who have less money than the people who are making the recommendations.
I think it´s stupid to raise alcohol comsuption age. In Spain, at 18 everybody has drunk alcohol because we don´t see as something forbiden. When I was 16, I could go to a bar and drink wine or a gin-tonic without any problem. Nowadays, I am not an alcoholic and I drink sometimes and moderate. I think that when you forbid something, everybody wants to try it. So, forbidden to forbid!!
[...] Previous posts are here: Alcohol Purchasing Age [...]
It appears to me that the majority of nzers do not object to 18-19 year olds being able to purchase alcohol. From a “philosophical” perspective, 18 seems like the right age for such responsibility – I.e. The age you leave home, vote, contracts etc. Of course the core argument is always “you may do these things but not drink”.
Instead, the core issue is more one of enforcement, at least in my mind. When the purchase age was 20, the de facto reality was 18; likewise, at 18, the de facto appears to be 16. It therefore seems to me that we debate purchase age to try solve the defacto age issue, and then as a society lean to 20 because it enables the right outcome in reality.
If that is the case – and my experience suggests it is, then That seems to me to be a screwy way to regulate. Instead, the debate should instead be how to effectively enforce a purchase age, whatever that may be, so that your de facto and de jure standards are aligned.
As children grow, cells in the brain (known as neurons) are constantly making new connections with other cells in the brain. The stronger these neural pathways within the brain become, the more efficiently children can perform new skills. Neural pathways within the brain strengthen whenever new skills are learnt and, to some degree, this process continues throughout life. In other words, we are not born with a fully developed brain.
Dr Simon Rowley, a paediatrician at National Women’s Hospital and trustee of the Brainwave Trust, describes the adolescent brain as still ‘under construction.’ He says young men’s brains do not fully mature until they are in their early 20s. Anything which interrupts or impedes this process of neurological development may adversely affect brain function later on.
Alcohol tends to shrink the prefrontal cortex and white brain matter in those who drink excessively, an effect which is more pronounced for males than females. The hippocampus is also uniquely responsive to alcohol during adolescent development and seems to be especially sensitive to neurotoxicity. Since the hippocampus plays a major role in short term memory, damage to this area may impact on learning ability. Binge drinking at any time before brain development is complete exposes the adolescent brain to these risks.
Early alcohol use also increases the likelihood that a young drinker will eventually become alcohol dependent. One survey suggests that nearly half of those who begin drinking before the age of 14 will become alcohol dependent at some point in their lives. Making matters worse, teenagers in particular are slow to understand that their drinking may be problematic. A third of those who become dependent before the age of 18 wait ten years or more after the onset of dependence before seeking help.
Given what is known about the impact of alcohol on the developing teenage brain, the government’s decision in 1999 to lower the legal age of purchase to 18 was highly irresponsible. That decision made alcohol increasingly available to those under the age of 18 as well as those over 18, and added to the problems of those teenagers who are already vulnerable to peer pressure. This decision went against evidence based recommendations made by the World Health Organisation on reducing alcohol related harm, and added to the destructive impact that alcohol has on one of the most vulnerable sectors of our community.
On the basis of the damage which alcohol causes to the teenage brain, there is absolutely reason to even consider the split age proposal. Age 20 is appropriate for both on- and off-licence outlets and this age is endorsed by Prof Doug Sellman from Otago University (and over 300 other doctors and nurses) in the 5+ Solution to alcohol related harm. (Go to the Alcohol Action website http://www.alcoholaction.co.nz for further information about the 5+ Solution.)
Fortunately, the Law Commission is now reviewing the age of purchase. However, in my view the unfortunate decision to make the purchase age 18 seems unlikely to be reversed. The problem is that National and Labour still abdicate responsibility for the damage alcohol causes by delegating alcohol issues to the archaic process of conscience voting. The Labour party needs to abandon conscience voting and actually develop a party policy on reducing alcohol related harm.
Roger Brooking
Clinical Manager, ADAC Ltd
I hope the Nats do it – may as well brass off the younger ones coming through so they end up voting for Labour – it may well inspire them to vote…
Having read grassroots I don’t like where the suggest of abandoning conscience voting is going. I don’t think the country wants to be dictated to and I think it’s wrong to force MPs to vote the same way over something as important as this.
I do accept that drinking too young can cause permanent brain damage, but I’m not convinced that raising the drinking age will stop teenagers from drinking.
Education about the brain damage to young people would be a good idea.