I'm very pleased to see Heather Roy and Rodney Hide are officially against raising the drinking age. For those lobbying for this legislation here are some questions;
Are we going to increase the responsibility of 18 and 19 year-olds by taking it away from them?
How are we going to teach responsible drinking by disallowing it?
Will 18 and 19 year-olds stop drinking or binge-drinking because it is illegal?
Why remove individual freedom from all people simply because they belong to a group which includes some who cannot handle it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Tsk, tsk, Lindsay. Of course making it illegal for these students to drink will stop them. Haven't you noticed how well the drug laws have worked? The difference is amazing. With the stroke of a pen we ended up with a drug free New Zealand. No one dares smoke pot because of the laws. And in places like the US, with the harshest laws on the planet outside places like Indonesia and North Korea, the police haven't found a marijuana plant in decades, the prisons are now empty and simply no one indulges. Yes, a place called Camelot was created with some paper and the magical signatures of the leaders. I understand next they will ban unpleasant weather. And to think we get to see utopia in our lifetime.
I get your point Lindsay.
Yet at the same time, it harms our children.
Marketing alcohol to young people is leading to more young New Zealanders dying, researchers said today.
Massey University health researcher Tim McCreanor told the Public Health Association's annual conference in Palmerston North the number of alcohol related injuries and deaths among the young had increased since 2000.
"It's no coincidence that this is when the drinking age was lowered to 18," Mr McCreanor said.
Your reasoning, taken to the natural extreme allows teenagers to partake in psychedelic drugs placing the decision to consume as well as the outcomes squarely on their shoulders.
Some people are mature by 15. Others never make it. I struggle with the idea that leaving alcohol consumption by teens to personal choice, and as a result accepting a known and well proven social cost measured in lives and misery, is a good idea.
I doubt many could support unrestricted alcohol consumption by a 3 year old as a defensible stance. So the dividing line lies somewhere. We could debate whether it is parents or the State that should take the role of policeman here, but there is little doubt that by introducing restriction you end up saving some young people's lives.
Lindsay, you don't believe it's a bit over the top to put these things into freedom versus oppression?
Why won't a single Sout Auckland MP vote against this bill?
What about the freedoms of those that have to put up with the drunken youths? Of the drunks that kill their children?
And why won't we allow 16 years old to drink in the pub?
What about the responsible drinking drivers who easily can handle a 1% level of alcohol? Why should they have their liberties taken away because of others who can handle far less?
Berend, I have no idea about South Auckland MPs, we already have laws against being drunk in a public place and murder. Whether 16 year-olds should drink in the pub is not up for debate at the moment and neither is the safe level of drinking and driving. And no, I don't think it is over the top to present the debate as one of freedom because hand-in-hand with freedom goes individual responsibility which is a concept most people cannot grasp and badly need to.
Lindsay, why don't we leave it up to the people to drink as much as they think is responsible before driving?
If every youth was an angel, we wouldn't need any law, wouldn't we?
The point is that a slight change of law might make a whole lot of difference to South Auckland.
You can dismiss the alcohol problems out of hand, and saying that people should be responsible, but we wouldn't have this debate if they were, would we?
There is a problem, and perhaps not where you live. We can debate what would work best, but that we must do something is pretty clear to a majority over here in South Auckland.
I would be quite happy to have a law that gives license to 18 and 19 year olds to drink in your area. But perhaps youth in South Auckland have some problem with that responsibility.
Just dismissing there is a problem is a great way to win voters.
Berend, I am not denying there is a problem. On balance adult drinkers probably cause more damage (physical or psychological) than youth but we aren't looking at passing a law to stop them drinking. Of course there are problems but I don't believe this proposal will solve them. I'm with amoebe. We have to look at the longer term picture.
Meanwhile properly enforce the existing laws that relate to drunkeness and being a public nuisance. If there isn't enough manpower to do that then widening the net (creating more illegal drinkers) is an absolute waste of time.
Lindsay: I don't believe this proposal will solve them.
That might be so. But that's quite different than arguing this is an assault on freedom. Which it has little to do with as I said. Some laws, such as drinking at 18 or 20 are contingent, they depend on the culture we're living in.
"Think of the children!"
That's not an argument. Sorry.
It's already illegal for children to buy alcohol. Why should it be illegal for adults as well?
The idea that someone, somewhere might be having fun seems to bother a lot of people in this country and I must admit to getting a bit tired of it.
"The idea that someone, somewhere might be having fun seems to bother a lot of people in this country and I must admit to getting a bit tired of it."
Hooray! well said Blair... and nuts to you De boer! ;-)
Berend, if it isn't an assault on freedom then what is it? It is saying that an adult by every legal definition cannot be permitted by another adult (barowner) to consume a legal beverage on that adult's premises.
A similar case for banning this can be made for prohibiting all parents from drinking, because of the risk it poses to their children. How about banning drinking for everyone who has a driver's licence?
It is a kneejerk reaction and ACT should be applauded for being principled on a NON economic matter!
Post a Comment