The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill [PDF] looks likely to get its Second Reading on Wednesday, and the Herald reports that opinion among MPs is split. The current head-count is 30 MPs "definitely" or "probably" in favour of raising the age back to 20, and 32 who "definitely" or "probably" want to keep it at 18. However, there's also a group of 12 in the middle who favour a split age of 18 for drinking in pubs and 20 for purchasing from liquor stores and supermarkets, which may end up as a fallback position for both sides if they don't have the numbers to get their own way on a straight vote. This group will probably vote for the bill at Second Reading (which should be enough for it to pass to the committee stage); its anyone's guess which way they'll vote if they fail to get a split age (and it may depend on which order the amendments and clauses are voted on).
Significantly, 23 MPs (including Prime Minister Helen Clark) have not made their minds up yet, and a further 20 could not be contacted. So, these are the people to target. There's not much time, so if you want to lobby anyone, you need to get letters in the post today or tomorrow (email of course you can send any time, but there's less chance of it being noticed).
Meanwhile, Wellington law student Chris Bishop has launched a keep it 18 campaign - with the support of the youth wings of Labour, National, the Greens, and ACT (NZ First of course doesn't have a youth wing - unless you count members between the age of 50 and 65). Its rare to see that sort of political unity across parties, and its a strong sign that those whose rights are undermined by the bill - 18 to 20 year olds - are strongly opposed to it and will punish supporters at the ballot box. Parties courting the youth vote would be wise to take heed.
10 comments:
> Changing New Zealand's drinking culture isn't about changing the drinking age. It's about responsible drinking and proper enforcement of the age.
hehe I can jsut imagine this in the USA....
"guns dont kill people, PEOPLE kill people!"
'It's about responsible shooting and proper enforcement of the current rules.'
Posted by Genius : 11/04/2006 02:51:00 PM
It is about the power of the liquor lobby going back to 1840 - and it isn't about the drinking age, but the ease of supply which is regulated by the age of purchase at the local dairy.
Posted by Anonymous : 11/04/2006 10:17:00 PM
Actually dairies aren't allowed to sell alcohol. A dairy with a liquor license is called a "superette".
In fact it isn't "about" having drinking ages, advertising or anything like that.
It's about ensuring people have a sense of self-worth. This is an outcome of a fairer society, and is the reason why many continental European countries, where alcohol is readily available to 16 year olds, have few problems with abuse.
Posted by Rich : 11/05/2006 12:48:00 PM
Rich,
I'd say it is about all of those things.
your point may well be the big one (although it is also the really difficult one!)...
But that doesn't mean for example - having a 20yr drinking age is not marginally better than a 18yr old one as a harm reduction strategy.
Posted by Genius : 11/05/2006 01:41:00 PM
Or a drinking age of 30, or 40, or, since a lot of older people drink too much and have fragile health, a maximum drinking age of 55.
Or, since Maori have a higher rate of alcoholism than others, maybe ban alcohol sales to Maori.
If you think that's unacceptable, then why do you think that young adults can be singled out?
Posted by Rich : 11/05/2006 04:15:00 PM
You’re tempting me! (I can imagine a drinking/smoking age that slowly goes up untill it hits 125 hehehehe).
Yes the age thing is arbitrary, maybe there is a better system, but there isn’t another system on the table at the moment. Anyway, I am not sure how we can justify a limit of 18 either. On a pure "rights" based grounding it should be 0.
Which would probably result in more harm - If you are willing to accept that I can respect that position, and if everyone is willing to accept it I guess it is, to a large extent, the correct decision. But if that is someone’s position I'd like to see them admitting it.
Just saying "in some other area we arbitrarily defied it as being 18" doesn’t really carry much weight because it falls back on another arbitrary decision which SHOULD have been made based on the information surrounding it (i.e. quite possibly commingto a different conclusion depending on risks and benefits).
Posted by Genius : 11/05/2006 05:57:00 PM
I'd be happy with 16 as in France and Germany. I also think any business should be able to sell alcohol if they want, and that all currently illegal drugs should be available legally.
I also think that the prime responsibility for minimising drug realted health problems is with the individual (and parents for kids).
But then I'm more or less an anarchist on social issues.
Posted by Rich : 11/05/2006 09:40:00 PM
I take it you are a dentologist as opposed to a concequentialist? (at least on social issues)
Posted by Genius : 11/05/2006 10:17:00 PM
You people need to think outside the polidodecaiscosoliestriangle!
Think free market, think government industry!
What you need to do to curb drinking is to increase drinking!
Obviously there should be no age limit on alcohol at all. All children at state schools should get a free 1/2 pint bottle of beer at lunchtime. Glass bottle mind you... reduce, reuse, recycle boys and girls.
In order that the poor may avail themselves of the demon drink as freely as the rich all taxes and regulations should be removed. If you want to drink Harvey's Homebrewed Hooch for a buck a litre at Harvey's Hotel (his garage made over with a strip of old carpet and grandma's lampstand) then so be it. But remember... NO SMOKING, you might hurt Harvey's lungs.
As well as that the Government must ensure a safe supply and thus sell in all supermarkets the State Spirit (something resembling vodka). Cheap and easy to access it must only be sold in 2L bottles so as to reduce packaging per unit. Reduce, reuse and recycle kids!
Now assume you overdo the plonk, well I'm sorry... that's evolution in action, we're reducing the drinking culture donchaknow. All drink-related injury and illness will only be treated by medical professionals if Venus is in Aquarius and you have the exact monies pertaining to your healthcare in your wallet in cash. The State refuses to sholder the burden of your individual excess.
If you're lucky we'll find you a hoseable room to puke and possibly die in. It's Darwin you see. In a few generations all that binge drinking culture will be dead and gone... literally.
Now drink up citizen!
Posted by Muerk : 11/06/2006 11:04:00 AM
Genius: you mean "deontologist" - a dentologist fixes teeth and would probably be keen on more drinking as it keeps him/her busy!
To some extent yes I am.
For instance I consider this case to have been a travesty of justice. The driver of a car fell asleep and crashed onto a railway line, resulting in an express trail derailing and killing ten people. He was jailed for five years. Now by far the most likely consequence of his actions would have been that he made it through his journey without incident. Another (much less likely) consequence would have been that he drove off the road and injured himself. The actual turn of events was an incredible piece of bad luck for all involved. If he had been sentenced for his actions rather than the consequences, it would probably have been a fine.
However I'm a pragmatist and resist the efforts of philosophers to put one in boxes.
Posted by Rich : 11/06/2006 02:42:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).