The Greens on the drinking age

by frog

The drinking age is back on the political agenda. Yesterday, Matt Robson’s Private Member’s Bill, which would raise the age back to 20, was pulled from the Parliamentary ballot.

I’ve been getting some questions about where the Greens stand on this, so I thought I’d offer some answers. The Greens don’t have a party policy on what the drinking age should be. Thus, unless a drinking age policy suddenly went through the policy process before the Bill came before Parliament (unlikely in the extreme), then individual MPs would be free to vote as they wished.

It’s possible that our MPs, when they have their next Caucus next week, will decide to support the Bill to select committee simply so that a debate about broader issues relating to our drinking culture can be aired. But that is a decision for next week. As for the stark issue – do you support raising the drinking age to 20? – the MPs have differing views.

Only two Green MPs were in the House when the decision was made to lower the drinking age: Rod supported lowering the age, Jeanette didn’t. Both would oppose raising the age to 20 now.

Says Rod:

Although I don’t feel lowering the age has worked out as I hoped, I still feel I voted correctly. I want to see the law properly enforced, including outlets losing their license if they are caught selling to underage drinkers. I am keen to encourage better paternal and peer group responsibility.

I would not support lifting it back to 20 but I would strongly advocate banning liquor advertising which I believe is more responsible for underage drinking than changing the legal age from 20 to 18. Youth drinking has increased since 1993 alcohol advertising on television was introduced in 1993, well before the legal age was lowered.

Says Jeanette:

I think 18-19 year olds should be able to drink responsibly in pubs, but the current drinking culture in New Zealand is so unhealthy I predicted it would lead to more trouble. It is not, of course, mainly 18-19 year olds that are causing the trouble. It seems hard to blame them for what their younger siblings are doing.

In my view, the issue is not the drinking age, but the drinking culture and social attitudes. When older people abuse alcohol so badly and it is condoned by so many in society, then of course young people will follow. What we need is to get rid of alcohol advertising (except at point of sale) and a culture change that does not glorify binge drinking…

If the legislation came up again, I would probably not vote to raise the age again. I don’t think you can close the stable door once young people have been allowed to drink legally. I would instead concentrate on the real issues.

Sue B, Keith, Mike, Metiria, and Nandor all oppose raising the drinking age to 20 for the following reasons.

Says Sue B:

I find it really hypocritical of some MPs and many other New Zealanders to want to push the age back up to 20 when they themselves were drinking heavily at 18 or younger, as many of us did in my generation…

18-year-olds are old enough to marry, have children, work in responsible jobs, die for our country and a whole lot more – to stop this age group from buying and drinking alcohol is simply ridiculous. There are many problems associated with alcohol in our culture, but it’s not just confined to people under 20. We have to work towards a whole different approach to drinking and drugs in our society and not make young people carry the can for much wider issues.

Says Keith:

I think it was an important step forward to treat 18-year-olds as adults. If 18-year-olds can vote, marry and fight for their country at 18 years of age, surely they should be able to buy and drink alcohol like everyone else. It is a basic human rights issue. I also take a lead from last year’s Youth Parliament, which voted overwhelmingly to keep the drinking age at 18.

I am aware that there is still a lot of binge drinking among young people. However, overindulgence is best tackled by campaigns, especially peer-driven ones, to encourage young people to drink in moderation. Ending alcohol advertising on TV would also reduce the rate of drunkenness among young people. Taking away the right of 18-year-olds to drink is not justified, and would not be a solution.

Says Metiria:

The results of lowering the age aren’t the least bit surprising. The failure to control alcohol advertising remains a significant problem and adult drinkers must take more responsibility for the drinking role models they provide for younger people.

Says Mike:

It is a bit too late to close this stable door, the horse has well and truly bolted. If we are concerned about youth binge drinking (and we surely ought to be), then we need to make a serious commitment to enforcing the existing law and putting in place measures to keep young people safe, before attempting to solve a long standing, deep-seated social problem with another juggling of the legislation.

Says Nandor:

I would not support raising the drinking age as a stand-alone measure. We need to first look at policing the current limit, restricting alcohol advertising and pricing mechanisms.

Ian supports raising the age to 20, while Sue K would consider supporting raising the age to 20 if it were accompanied by a suite of measures to mitigate the effects of our drinking culture (as, judging by the comments above, might some other of our MPs).

Says Ian:

Lowering the age has turned out badly. It seems to me that, on average, young people are getting access to alcohol more easily than before. Whether that’s because of the lowering of the drinking age, or because parents and peers now have a more lax attitude to providing alcohol to young people is an open question.

Says Sue K:

I would only support an increase in the drinking age if we had already put in place a suite of measures to reduce the accessibility of alcohol to children and the incessant marketing of alcohol to children – including a prohibition on advertising liquor, on liquor sponsorship of sports, prohibition on alcopops and drinks targeted at children, etc. We need to change the culture which glamorises and tolerates alcohol first and foremost and look at legislative change next. Simply passing a law without these measures simply would not work.

So, pretty strong criticism there of raising the drinking age on its own as a simplistic response to a complex issue. It’ll be interesting to see how all the parties approach this issue, but hopefully Robson’s Private Member’s Bill will at least induce a serious debate about New Zealanders’ use and misuse of alcohol.