Raising the Legal Drinking Age

Camikaze

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
27,343
Location
Sydney
My state government has done some patently ridiculous things in its time. But I'm fairly sure this one, if followed through, would top the list.
Ban the booze until 21 (BTW, Kristina Keneally is the NSW Premier, and Fred Nile is senile)
KRISTINA KENEALLY wants a public debate over the need to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 in NSW.

Her government has leapt on to a proposal by Christian Democrat MP Fred Nile to raise the age in a private member's bill. The Premier grew up in Ohio where, like most of the US, the legal drinking age is 21.

"When I was 20, we used to drive to Windsor, Ontario, Canada - an hour away - where the legal drinking age was 19," Ms Keneally said.

The legal drinking age has been set at 18 in NSW since at least 1906.

The Premier's office said the proposal was being seriously considered and the Liquor Amendment Bill would go to cabinet for debate.

Nationally, 70 young people are admitted to hospital every week and four die from alcohol abuse.

"While I do not want to pre-empt cabinet, my personal view is 18 is the right age,'' Ms Keneally said. "Any change to the legal drinking age is a very significant issue for the community. We recognise that there are strong concerns for and against changing the drinking age from 18 to 21. I note that at the age of 18, you can be called upon to defend your country. However, in the United States, most jurisdictions have a drinking age of 21.''

Ms Keneally was 18 in 1987 when Ohio lifted its drinking age.

"This resulted in binge drinking, drove drinking underground and indirectly encouraged drink-driving,'' she said. "In fact, when I was 20, we used to drive to Windsor, Ontario, Canada - an hour away - where the legal drinking age was 19."

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell addressed the issue in a TV interview this month: "I think it would be fantastic if we started over again and it was 21 for people to drink alcohol legally … it's very hard for people to go back, particularly when we now have a binge drinking culture.''

Odyssey House chief executive James Pitts said yesterday he would support the drinking age being raised. ''From a health standpoint, it is not a bad idea,'' he said. ''It gives young people an opportunity to not have the adverse consequences [of alcohol consumption].''

Psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg said the latest research showed one in 20 older teenagers were consuming on average 50 standard drinks a month: ''I'm not saying no child should drink until they're 18, but 21 should be the age when they could buy alcohol.''

Other research found under-age drinkers contributed $107 million in federal taxes from downing 175 million standard drinks a year.

Mr Nile presented the bill to Parliament on Thursday, urging members to support it to curb alcohol-fuelled violence and stop Australia's ''greatest social problem''. He said MPs ''with courage'' could ''save our young people from road accidents'' and allow ''the neurological development of young people to be healthy and unimpeded by the harmful impacts of alcohol''. He told Parliament that new research from the Brain and Mind Research Institute at the University of Sydney showed adolescent brains were sensitive to the negative effects of alcohol, and its use should be ''postponed for as long as possible in the late teenage and early adult years''.

Greens MP John Kaye said it would be ''catastrophic'' if the government supported the bill: ''The real solution does not lie with age-related restrictions [but] with looking at the people making massive amounts of money on alcohol and cracking down on the way they advertise and operate.''

Australian Hotels Association NSW chief executive Sally Fielke said raising the age was not the best approach: ''The focus needs to be on changing our drinking culture and that starts with educating these kids about alcohol.''

Australian Medical Association federal president Andrew Pesce wants more research. ''If there's going to be a change, we would look to see evidence as to whether that's likely to give us positive health outcomes,'' he said.

University of Newcastle's Dr Kypros Kypri presented a seminar for the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research last week on the minimum alcohol-buying age and its effect on the incidence of alcohol-related injuries: ''Analysis shows there is a 15 per cent reduction in traffic crash injuries when the purchase age goes up.''

Mental Health Council of Australia chief executive David Crosbie has said the higher the drinking age, the fewer the problems: ''There is little doubt that if the drinking age is increased, there would be [fewer] deaths and hospitalisations among young people.''

John Eyre, managing director of Alcohol Related Brain Injury Australian Services, claims any level of alcohol consumed by people under about 24 is doing a more serious level of damage than someone over that age.

Rob Moodie, professor of global health at Melbourne University's Nossal Institute, agrees, having said that, while cigarette laws had been tightened and harm reduced, the opposite had occurred with alcohol.

Paul Dillon, from Drug and Alcohol Research and Training Australia, labelled the cabinet call a stunt: ''It would be incredibly difficult to change the age, and realistically there are a range of other things we could do to make a change - raise prices, reduce access and reduce alcohol advertising.''

Note that this is not so much about where the legal drinking age should ideally be placed, but what impacts raising the age by three years would have on what is termed the 'binge drinking culture'.

Would raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 (or for that matter, from 21 to, say, 24), achieve anything useful (other than winning the votes of a bunch of geriatrics)?
 
It won't have any effect at all, except for making people use fake IDs 3 years longer, and getting dangerously wasted in private homes instead of at public places.

Legal drinking ages are mostly useless whatever they are anyways. Even a total ban on alcohol has little effect (except for crime rates). Most people start drinking a little before or in their early teens, no matter what the drinking age is.

And finally: Binge drinking is stupid, but I won't complain much as long as the girls are hot and loose. :D
 
Glad to see at least one puritanical reactionary from the US left the country and moved elsewhere. Perhaps if enough decide to do so, we can change the law back to 18 here again. If you are old enough to vote and die for the inane foreign policies of your government, you are certainly old enough to drink.
 
Raising the drinking age will accomplish nothing, and might well make things worse. At least when kids hit drinking age, they'll shift a lot of their drinking to bars, where you can hold the bartenders liable for overserving.

But in the end, kids will be kids. When they want to drink, they'll find a way. The only way to stop them is a broader cultural shift (which this won't accomplish; see: United States), or by draconian police intervention, which would require a level of funding and invasiveness that nobody will support.
 
Are the jails empty and need to be filled up? I dont think this'll do a thing.
 
It won't have any effect at all, except for making people use fake IDs 3 years longer, and getting dangerously wasted in private homes instead of at public places.

These are my thoughts exactly. I'm a little surprised the various people quoted in the article didn't seem to pick up on this. The claim is made that there is a direct correlation between drinking age and health problems (and it would've been nice if they had mentioned some studies), but that seems a rather odd and illogical claim to make.
 
Better to lower it than raise it. Raising it has nothing but negative effects. Make them look at the US experience.
 
Glad to see at least one puritanical reactionary from the US left the country and moved elsewhere.

To be fair, from the article:
"While I do not want to pre-empt cabinet, my personal view is 18 is the right age,'' Ms Keneally said.
She's just playing politics.

Raising the drinking age will accomplish nothing, and might well make things worse. At least when kids hit drinking age, they'll shift a lot of their drinking to bars, where you can hold the bartenders liable for overserving.

Yeah, NSW has very stringent restrictions on licenced venues as it is (e.g. $55000 fine for serving a drunk patron, IIRC), which means they are safer places to consume alcohol. That said, a lot of the problems in Sydney (where this law is essentially targeting) are in the city at licenced venues. I'd be interested to find out exactly what the split is between issues related to 'unsupervised' drinking and issues related to drinking in licenced venues.
 
Oh, I definitely think there is a correlation between the age one starts drinking, how much one drinks, and health problems.

However, I do not see any correlation between a legal drinking age and when people start drinking, or how much they drink. That goes whether the drinking age is nonexistent, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25 or even if alcohol is forbidden (this last one requires heavy policing to have any effect mind you).
 
The USA should be a perfect place to glean information about how it works. Most States that were not 21 did raise them in the mid-late 80s due to pressure from the federalies. Surely there are studies you guys could peruse to see how things were before and after.
 
Oh, I definitely think there is a correlation between the age one starts drinking, how much one drinks, and health problems.

However, I do not see any correlation between a legal drinking age and when people start drinking, or how much they drink. That goes whether the drinking age is nonexistent, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25 or even if alcohol is forbidden (this last one requires heavy policing to have any effect mind you).

Ah yes, that's what I meant. For 'drinking age' read 'legal drinking age'. :)
 
The USA should be a perfect place to glean information about how it works. Most States that were not 21 did raise them in the mid-late 80s due to pressure from the federalies. Surely there are studies you guys could peruse to see how things were before and after.
Possibly. And then compare states that raised drinking ages to states that always had 21? Would have to account for states where young people could simply travel to other states to get their fill though.

I have a feeling it has only gotten worse, i.e. young people drink more than ever. Not because of raising the legal drinking ages, but simply because our culture have become more open to partying, getting wasted, nobody taking care of themselves, lousy parents/single mothers/fathers or simply resourceless families, intensified marketing, etc.
 
College presidents call for lower drinking age



UNDATED - College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

Other prominent schools in the group include Syracuse, Tufts, Colgate, Kenyon and Morehouse.

But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

"It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.

Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem.

Research has found more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependance. One study has estimated more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking, and about 1,700 die in such accidents.

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.

Moana Jagasia, a Duke University sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is lower, said reducing the age in the U.S. could be helpful.

"There isn't that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18," she said. "If the age is younger, you're getting exposed to it at a younger age, and you don't freak out when you get to campus."

McCardell's group takes its name from ancient Greece, where the purple gemstone amethyst was widely believed to ward off drunkenness if used in drinking vessels and jewelry. He said college students will drink no matter what, but do so more dangerously when it's illegal.

The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."

"I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue," said William Troutt, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn., who has signed the statement.

But some other college administrators sharply disagree that lowering the drinking age would help. University of Miami President Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, declined to sign.

"I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress," Shalala said in a telephone interview. "To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all."

McCardell claims that his experiences as a president and a parent, as well as a historian studying Prohibition, have persuaded him the drinking age isn't working.

But critics say McCardell has badly misrepresented the research by suggesting that the decision to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 may not have saved lives.

In fact, MADD CEO Chuck Hurley said, nearly all peer-reviewed studies looking at the change showed raising the drinking age reduced drunk-driving deaths. A survey of research from the U.S. and other countries by the Centers for Disease Control and others reached the same conclusion.

McCardell cites the work of Alexander Wagenaar, a University of Florida epidemiologist and expert on how changes in the drinking age affect safety. But Wagenaar himself sides with MADD in the debate.

The college presidents "see a problem of drinking on college campuses, and they don't want to deal with it," Wagenaar said in a telephone interview. "It's really unfortunate, but the science is very clear."

Another scholar who has extensively researched college binge-drinking also criticized the presidents' initiative.

"I understand why colleges are doing it, because it splits their students, and they like to treat them all alike rather than having to card some of them. It's a nuisance to them," said Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of Public Health.

But, "I wish these college presidents sat around and tried to work out ways to deal with the problem on their campus rather than try to eliminate the problem by defining it out of existence," he said.

Duke faced accusations of ignoring the heavy drinking that formed the backdrop of 2006 rape allegations against three lacrosse players. The rape allegations proved to be a hoax, but the alcohol-fueled party was never disputed.

Duke senior Wey Ruepten said university officials should accept the reality that students are going to drink and give them the responsibility that comes with alcohol.

"If you treat students like children, they're going to act like children," he said.

Duke President Richard Brodhead declined an interview request. But he wrote in a statement on the Amethyst Initiative's Web site that the 21-year-old drinking age "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks." It also prevents school officials "from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice."

Hurley, of MADD, has a different take on the presidents.

"They're waving the white flag," he said.

Associated Press Writer Barbara Rodriguez contributed to this report from Durham, N.C.

http://www.katu.com/news/27144239.html
 
They raised the drinking age from 19 to 21 in my state 38 days before I turned 19. Of course, I drank more at 19 and 20 than any other years of my life, so maybe they need to raise it to 45 so I can relive my glory days.
 
They raised the drinking age from 19 to 21 in my state 38 days before I turned 18. Of course, I drank more at 19 and 20 than any other years of my life, so maybe they need to raise it to 45 so I can relive my glory days.

Same here. I did all my serious bar crawling before turning 21. Grandfather clauses rock. :cool:
 
it also helps when the bar owners don't give a damn. i remember being 19 and with a group that included some 15 year old girls who got into a disco. 1 15 year old girl got into a fight with the club owner. she didn't get tossed out or carded. cause, ya know, she was hot.
 
As I mentioned elsewhere drinking ages are a suggestion, rather than a hard and fast rule. They could raise the drinking age to 90 tomorrow, or re-enact prohibition all over again and it would make no difference to the lives of most people.
 
Back
Top Bottom