Matt Robson's bill to raise the drinking age back to twenty has also been drawn. I don't like this one either - instead, I prefer education, strengthening restrictions on liquor advertising, and a shift to a more sensible drinking culture rather than prohibition.
Under-20's will probably be watching the way MPs vote on this one very closely...
Sorry, can't agree. Very admirable intent, but seriously, alcohol is an addition (and one that I enjoy) and in my opinion it is totally unreasonable to think that young people can be that disciplined. Vast portions of the population stuggle, so how will young people do it. Maybe you should head out with the cops one night as The Listener did. http://www.listener.co.nz/default,3881.sm
ReplyDeleteI'm with Idiot/Savant on this one. Education, change of attitudes and advertising restrictions are the key. And the fact that a drinking age of 16 works well without any of the binge-drinking culture and related violence etc. problems here in Germany, indicates to me that it is not, as Lawrence says, totally unreasonable to think that young people can be that disciplined. Of course they can. They just have to be shown how.
ReplyDeleteI'm of the opinion, and it may be a very emotional and irrational one, that if an eighteen-year old is able to drive, have sex (and presumably babies), and die for the country in the armed forces, then they should be permitted to drink alcohol. It seems perverse to prevent someone from having a beer or a wine because they supposedly cannot be trusted to maintain their own, or others', health while simultaneously allowing them to become parents. Is it just me or is there a jarring disconnect here?
ReplyDeleteArguably, discriminating against under-20's in sale of alchohol is a breach of the Bill Of Rights Act, which states:
ReplyDelete"Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993"
Such a ground of discrimination is age.
Ormuzd: you forgot the most important one: 18 is old enough to vote - and 18 year olds may very well vote to be allowed to drink...
ReplyDeleteRich: the anti-discrimination clause in the BORA is (like all the others) subject to s5, which allows limits that can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Age limits for various things - sex, voting, drinking - are covered by this clause. IIRC, there's also a clause in the HRA which exempts minors from the provisions against age discrimination - but this actually works in favour of a lower drinking age, as the general age of legal majority is 18 (not 20).
Any new constitution should have to make some sort of statement about minority/majority age. I suggest the following:
ReplyDeleteADULTS:
18 is full competency. No discrimination above this age. Full stop.
YOUTHS:
16-18 is independence and the competency to be independent (ie. from one's parents). Adult competence may be extended by law to this group (eg. drivers licences etc.) by Parliament. This means we acknowledge that this group is too old to be rightfully under any meaningful control of parents or adults and they have a right to start to their own lives but are not yet competent to exercise full adult rights and their consequences.
CHILDREN:
Under 16s: Kids. Parents' problem.
Maybe a difference in age limits between supervised drinking in licenced premises and buying liquor at a liquor store?
ReplyDeleteMilou
"demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"
ReplyDeleteLet's analyse this. The two reasons to justify a discriminatory ban would be:
1. By drinking, 18-19 year olds are injuring their health to such an extent as to overload the health system, reduce the labour pool, etc
2. 18-19 year olds are harming others as a result of drunkenness to a disproportionate extent.
It is not a reasonable grounds to argue that young adults are not competent to decide to drink - they are entitled to the same presumption of competence as adults of any age.
18-19 year olds aren't harmed biologically by alcohol any more that 20-21 year olds. Only a small minority have alcohol-related health problems - not sufficient to make a restriction imperative on the grounds that their problems are affecting the wider public.
Again, only a tiny minority of young adults are violent or dangerously to others as a result of alcohol use. There are adequate remedies against violence and for that matter against drunk driving (which is much more prevalent amongst the middle aged).
So I don't believe raising the drinking age is "demonstrably justified" - remember, this is an objective test - just because a majority favour a law doesn't make it demonstrably justified.
I believe the justification for raising the age is that the lower the age is, the easier it is for kids to get alcohol. It would be hypocritical to deny 18 year olds the ability to buy alcohol when they can vote, marry, get a civil union, or fight for their country. Education is important, but a middle ground might be to allow 18 year olds to drink on licensed premises, but not to buy from supermarkets or bottle shops. Realistically this would mean that many 18 year olds would get their older friends to buy, but it should limit the number of kids getting trashed.
ReplyDeleteThe Greens' views on this are here: http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/05/05/the-greens-on-the-drinking-age/
ReplyDeleteGiven the number of times Robson cited polls, I don't think it's hard to guess the motivation for this bill - a last attempt to escape the jaws of electoral oblivion.
ReplyDeleteWhen the drinking age was originally lowered to 18, I supported it with the caveat that Police and Government had to get serious about enforcing this law. Anyone who's lived in a university town KNOWS the pubs where you've have to be wearing nappies not to be served - especially if you were an attractive young woman with big tits and tight t-shirt.
Nothing much has changed, and I don't think it would be any different if the drinking age was put up to thirty.
It might be the only issue these days that the politically apathetic university students would protest about. When the age was lowered to 18 I stuck the voting lists of MPs on the wall and my compartriots celebrated it as "Freedom Day". They may have to fight for it - again.
ReplyDeletethe reason fir a discriminatory ban is to divide and conquor. We dont want anyone drinking in excess but we cant stop you all we can do is stop SOME of you. But Id rather save a few sixteen year olds lives than just give up on everyone because we cant save the old ones.
ReplyDeleteRich: good analysis. Though you missed out the most important reason: killjoys like Anderton don't like to see teenagers enjoying themselves. That's really what it comes down to: people's desire not to see city streets "cluttered" with laughing, screaming, drunk 19 year olds.
ReplyDeleteIMHO this isn't a good reason.