How might a 'split purchase age' be successful in limiting harm to young people?
by Talklaw Project Coordinator 10:12am, 26 July 2009The Law Commission suggests leaving the minimum purchase age of 18 years at on-licences (bars and pubs), and increasing the minimum purchase age at off-licences (liquor stores and supermarkets) to 20 years.
This may result in more young people, aged 18 and 19, drinking in the 'relatively supervised' environment provided by bars or pubs, in preference to drinking in unsupervised areas.
There may also be a reduction in the supply of alcohol to people under the age of 18 by older friends.
On the flip side there are many responsible 18 and 19 year olds who work, pay tax, vote and would be prevented from the privilege of purchasing alcohol from retail outlets.
Did you know? The 12 to 17-year age group are more likely to experience almost every alcohol-related problem than any other age group.
This discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.
Relates to
document:
Supply Controls (345 KB)
simonrose81 Comment 1
7:38pm, 30 July 2009
3
3 
By raising the alcohol age limit certainly wont be a bad move however i believe its important to look at the issue of the amount of alcohol consumed by an individual not the age. It could be important to put a limit per person in public of alcohol that is consumed. It is a serious problem in new zealand as far to much alcohol is consumed at bars and other public places. Another idea thats been conveyed is to have earlier closing house for pubs and bars which would also be a positive idea to stop the drinking late at night.
Blah Blah Comment 1.1
1:11pm, 31 July 2009
2
3
i reckon they shud keep the age at 18 for pubs/clubss etc
coz yes we will be supervised ,but raising it to 20 for supermarkets liqour store's reason being is that ,thats the only place'ss 12,15,17 year olds can get thea hands on alcohol .thats the best way to deal wiv this problem,while also keeping it fare .& alos i dont think closinq pubs/clubs down early will solve any of the problems !but dealing wiv house partys wil make a difference ,thea more of the problem outa control young teens & yes your more likely find a 12/15 drinking thea .police shud monitor house partys the way they do
wiiv night clubs & pubs
comming from a 18year olds point of view .
Crasher Comment 1.1.1
7:55pm, 31 July 2009
4
1
The idea of splitting the drinking age is by far the best proposal i have heard of in regards to the targeting of NZ's drinking problem. With raising the purchasing age to 20 and keeping the on licence purchase age at 18, it gives more control to the bar, considering that they are the ones that face the $260,000 in fines for intoxication and will also allow the new drinkers to become more mature with alcohol consumption.
MikeRJ3 Comment 1.1.1.1
9:34am, 20 September 2009
1
0
I see the splitting of the drinking age as a cop-out to the liquor industry. I would not call the environment of a pub/club "supervised".
The issue here is alcohol abuse and problems associated with that abuse. Stating that pubs/clubs would provide a venue for learning mature drinking habits is highly unlikely as these businesses benefit from the revenue of higher consumption. You would not have drug dealers teaching responsible drug use.
The initial responsibility of learning responsible drinking is in our homes and the media.
walshies Comment 2
9:27pm, 30 July 2009
3
1
I think raising the age to 20 for purchasing from off-licences is a good idea. This in some way should help. However, fake IDs are easy to obtain, ask any schoolkid. Also, kids who are likely to binge-drink usually steal their parent's booze and copy their behaviour - children as young as 15 taking tequila to parties. At social events even where children have been present from pre-school to 12, adults can behave in appalling ways due to the influence of alcohol. These parents otherwise highly respectable. Perhaps some hard-hitting guilt-trip advertising may make some parents think twice and get baby-sitters, or take control before their children see them so messy. Make it an offence to be drunk in public, and change the laws about drink-driving, ie if you are the designated driver carrying passengers then no drinking at all - just like paid bus/taxi drivers. If you are only responsible for yourself, then keep existing limits
old_kiwi_kid Comment 3
3:35pm, 31 July 2009
1
0
One thing that does not help is the ready availability of alcopops. RTD's I think they are called. Young ones can purchase these in 6-packs for under $20. In my younger days it was only the oldies who drank hard liquor. Now very young teens are scoffing spirits like there is no tomorrow. And unfortunately for some, there isn't.
We will never see a change in the law regarding age, hours of trade, or anything that will slow the amount drunk as big money (booze barons) not only talks, it SHOUTS.
runner Comment 3.1
5:54am, 7 August 2009
0
2
RTD's are not the problem. 6 bottles of RTDS for $20 is expensive compared to a six pack of standard beer for half that price at $10. And at that age I found beer far easier to binge on than spirit based drinks.
I would rather kids drank these (or beer) instead of out of bottles of vodka and mixer where they are likely to make their own cocktails significantly more potent.
4444 Comment 3.1.1
8:21pm, 14 September 2009
3
1
The danger of such RTDs however is that the alcohol cannot be tasted which is why they are such an attractive option to youth. This fits right in with the mentality of "drinking to get pissed", not because of the desire to enjoy alcohol for what it is (or with food) but rather for the affect it has. At least spirits are a little more pricey (being in concentrated form) making them somewhat more unattainable.
runner Comment 3.1.1.1
6:08am, 28 September 2009
0
0
Bull, if you cannot taste the alcohol in an RTD then perhaps you have no tastebuds. At 4-5% alcohol they are normally the same strength of beer and ciders. They are generally preferred by women or by younger drinkers because they are sweeter, more appeasing to those with a sweet tooth whereas beer is sweet but has a different after taste. Beer is far easier to scull.
You can argue a bottle of Jim Beam or Smirnoff is expensive, but per unit alcohol they are far cheaper than a 4 or 6 pack of premixers. And people often don't dilute their spirits with mixers to the same level as RTDs.
If drinkers wish to drink to get pissed, its quite obvious to see which spirits varient they will be choosing.
Siftandfind Comment 4
12:58am, 1 August 2009
4
1
I have serious doubts whether any age limiting legislation will alter patterns of consumption in those that are at risk of unhealthy drinking practices (i.e. binge drinking and consuming to the point of drunkennes). I do not think this is an AGE problem, but an individual mental health issue. Unless the psychological reasons that prompt unhealthy drinking patterns are addressed, any ammont of prohibitive imitation wil not deter those who feel a need to alter their emotional/perceptive state. They'll find a way to source their drug of choice to do this regardless of legislation .
The reality is that a 16 year old who can't obtain liquor from an older person purchasing legal-alcohol, there are plenty of backyard brewers and still-drivers willing to sell illicit alcohol to minors.
Focus on education and altering the drinking culture (by offering alternative responses to stress/depression etc) and support our youth/commnity members to find ways to recreate safely.
Age limitation will also broaden the number of people who can potentially break the law and end up with criminal records, when misuse of alcohol should, in fact, be seen as a personal health issue, not a criminal one (except in the case of risk to others ie: when related to drink driving, assault etc).
MikeRJ3 Comment 4.1
5:47pm, 20 September 2009
0
0
In general I agree with this statement that this is a social problem although I am not hopeful that the education alone can make much more of a difference than it already does. Telling a teen that they should not drink is a lot like telling them to not have sex - some will listen and some will try harder to rebel against what is expected of them.
I agree that teens will find ways to get alcohol from other sources such as parents, other adults, brew their own, etc., but that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and put it into the too hard basket.
Having a legal age limit to buy and consume alcohol is a way to start dealing with this issue. It's true that a legal age limit will likely result in an increase in charges amongst young people. This could be seen as a way to intervene before the teens behaviour spirals further and hurts him/herself and/or others.
There could be other options put into place prior to actual convictions. These could be attendance at alcohol counselling, etc, prior to sentencing during a period of remand. Sadly, without having the possibility of a punitive sanction, many people will not take the problem seriously.
runner Comment 5
5:50am, 7 August 2009
1
3
In the fairness of the age of responsibility of all aspects of life: vote, pay tax, join the armed forces, etc ... the age of purchase should remain at 18 in both licensed and off-licensed premises. This is the current age in most countries of the world.
Unfortunately little can be done to curb the supply of liquor to minors from parents or older siblings so having a higher age of purchase is not going to have any effect.
The USA has had a flat drinking age of 21 for decades. As you can see this clearly has not worked so why do you think it would work here?
sticky Comment 5.1
4:31pm, 19 August 2009
1
1
Wrong, the 21 drinking age in the US has had a huge affect. It was one of the most successful alcohol measures ever.
runner Comment 5.1.1
6:23am, 22 August 2009
0
1
Got any evidence to back this up?
Drinking culture is not much different in the USA than it is here ... its how we/they drink. Youths still access alcohol at ages we are doing now. The main thing is enforcement. It is strictly enforced over there. Shops and bars consistently check IDs. Why cannot New Zealand do that?
It is a felony to consume alcohol underage in that country. So you don't get kids roaming the streets with coke bottles filled with rum or bourbon, they all binge drink at private residences, out of sight but not necessarily out of harms way.
The law on age is an outdated law from the times of Ron Reagen when the republicans (ie the conservatives) held the power.
Most American's I have spoken to believe it is a ridiculous minimum age which ought to be dropped back to that of other developped countries. So much for being called 'Land of the Free', you can fight and die for your country but cannot even have a beer.
MikeRJ3 Comment 5.1.1.1
7:46pm, 22 September 2009
1
1
The Unites States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) states that raising the drinking age to 21 has had confirmed life saving benefits.
runner Comment 5.1.1.1.1
6:12am, 28 September 2009
0
0
It has also infringed upon peoples civil liberties. Makes no sense that you can vote in the USA and fight for Uncle Sam at 18 but not drink a drop of alcohol until three years later. Ask any American I've met overseas and they all say the same thing.
MikeRJ3 Comment 5.2
5:52pm, 20 September 2009
0
0
In regards to the USA, I would agree that teenage drinking is a problem, although you are not as likely to see a group of 18 year-old teens being drunk in public and throwing bottles at Police.
If others are buying an underage person alcohol, there would also need to be criminal liability for that person as well. In the USA you can be charged with supplying alochol to a minor and the penalties can be quite severe.
Quarter Comment 6
10:09am, 9 August 2009
1
1
I agree with runner and siftandfind. The age should stay as it is. 18 year olds having to resort to drinking in town if they want to seems pointless, and exposes them to violence/rape etc. that they would otherwise be sheltered from if they were under parental care at home. Similarly, limits placed on how much one can buy would be easy to get around.
When I was a minor, if we couldn't get an older person to buy us liquor, a mates Dad had some unguarded moonshine that would easily get us off our faces. My first experiences were stolen nips from a variety of parents liquor cabinets - combined into 'rocket fuel' that would blow your head off...and a little from each bottle, and no ones the wiser (until the vomit is discovered the next morning).
Once alcohol is publicly viewed as the carcinogen it is, it may become viewed as rather 'dirty' and something to be locked away from the kids. There still seems to be the perception that it is rather harmless, and parents are not terribly concerned when they find lil 'Johnny' has experimented with some gin from the liquor cabinet. I would far rather my children smoke cannabis and drop LSD into their eyes before drinking alcohol - as I know that these two drugs (although publicly perceived as nasty nasties) will not lead them to a long horrible road of addiction, dependence and possible death.
In response to an earlier closing time - in my opinion, this is simply a faster road to binge drinking. If pubs close at 12 (as they used to in the UK) that only gives people a short time to drink before closing hour, hence they drink as much as they can, as fast as they can. In the UK it was like a race before 'last call' bell was rung. Then everyone was released onto the streets at the same time and fisty cuffs would occur - except they often like to play with knives. Giving people a longer time means the sensible ones can drop out early, making the strain less on police to mop up the 'bad' ones at the end of the night.
Sauniere Comment 6.1
12:30am, 28 August 2009
2
0
Maybe Quarter wants the age left alone because raising it would mean that when they legalise pot it will also align. He'd rather his kids smoke pot - so lets keep the age so kids not adults can access all these substances. 18. As a professional in the field I can assure him that cannabis and LSD are just as harmful to some people as alcohol is to some people. It is not an angel / devil situation at all. Many who would have trouble with either use both for double.
Dun Laoghaire Comment 7
5:12pm, 16 September 2009
2
1
Alcohol is as much or more a part of Italian culture, as it is of New Zealand's. Yet binge drinking and drunkeness is not socially acceptable in Italy. Other cultural differences are supportive of 'better behaviour' too... for example family groups including children and old people go out in the streets more at night. Of course, regulations are easy to change, cultural ways aren't. However, changing behaviour is perhaps more influenced in the long term by cultural values and practices, rather than regulation. I would suggest leaving the mimimum purchase ages as they are, and put effort into shaping social attitudes and cultural practices.
HCR Comment 7.1
7:22pm, 17 September 2009
2
1
I totally agree with the above (Dun Laoghaire). Changing the age isn't going to change a thing. It is short-sighted. It is an attitude towards drinking and parenting teenagers that cannot (unfortunately) be fixed by a quick legislation change. We can learn a lot from teh European attitude towards alcohol and one element of that is that LACK OF REGULATION! I think a lot of Euro countries have a drinking age of 16, however it is not widely controlled. Alcohol availability is widespread (even in kiosks, vending machines and YES you can get beer in McDonalds in Spain!) and yet they have less issues with youngsters....perhaps it is time to "deregulate"....take the prohibition away so it is less enticing.....put the emphasis back on teh family to control their own youngsters.....i suspect i am being too naive but it would be a nice reality.
Wardhana Comment 7.1.1
2:06pm, 18 September 2009
2
0
If changing the age isn't working, we should just ban alchohol for people 18 years and below. I also think, however, that pregnant women should also be banned from drinking alchohol.
runner Comment 7.1.2
10:48pm, 19 September 2009
0
1
Smart idea HCR.
The deregulation of alcohol would reduce many issues, especially those with younger drinkers. Anyone knows that it is impossible to stop people from drinking alcohol also it is just borderline facist.
One suggestion is to keep the age limit at 18, reduce the tax of low alcohol beer and RTDs to encourage a higher ratio of consumption in this area. Higher strength liquor should be more restricted. In Germany the age limit is 16 but to buy hard liquor you have to be older.
Start making more people responsible for their actions ... $150 fine for those who end up in a hospital or police cell for intoxication.
Too many rules and regulations will coerce people to rebel, which is something we want to avoid.
MikeRJ3 Comment 7.1.3
6:01pm, 20 September 2009
0
0
Isn't it the lack of family values (or valuing what is not socially acceptable) in many of these families that leads to the undesirable behaviour in the first place? Would you also argue legalising drugs would be a good idea if we can increase the social stigma about the use of drugs?
I see your argument, but it is short-sighted unless you can propose a logical way of first changing the culture of drinking for the 18 - 20 year-olds.
runner Comment 7.1.3.1
10:28am, 21 September 2009
0
2
We had many legal recreational drugs such as BZP and NOS until the government banned them. Young people were using these more than cannabis and other illicit substances. There were a few people who were admitted to hospital for mixing them with alcohol, as the drugs are strictly not meaned to be mixed with alcohol. But our law makers seem to believe removing the personal freedoms (because of a few morons who cannot read the instructions) is going to solve the problems. Yeah right
This was an outright foolish move. And likewise if the government make it harder for youths to access alcohol. Recreational drugs are all part of our culture, curbing their use will generate problems in other places.
MikeRJ3 Comment 7.1.3.1.1
10:37pm, 21 September 2009
0
0
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
MikeRJ3 Comment 7.1.3.1.2
7:28pm, 22 September 2009
0
1
I find it difficult to believe that "recreational drugs" are part of kiwi culture and would guess that many of our older generation would be appalled by this comment.
Why is it that people feel the need to have to escape from reality? What is lacking in some people's life that makes them need to artificially enhance it by using drugs?
I believe that if we could answer this question we could start to really deal with the core issue of what to do to curb the problems with limiting the harm to young people rather than making excuses for harmful and unhelpful behaviour.
runner Comment 7.1.3.1.2.1
2:21am, 19 October 2009
0
0
Q:Why is it that people feel the need to have to escape from reality? A:The same reasoning implied by people who choose to drink alcohol. It is one of many ways to release the ennui from our routine lifestyles. Thats why I believe focus should not be on stopping young people from consuming alcohol and drugs .. but encouraging safer guidelines and alternatives. Young people will always gain access to such substances therefore imposing draconian laws is, in my mind, not the right way to go.
MikeRJ3 Comment 8
6:08pm, 20 September 2009
1
0
Changing the way that people are allowed to drink in public would be a positive step in controlling behaviour. Rather than have areas that are prescribed as "Liquor Ban" areas, every public area would be a "Liquor Ban" area and the local councils would be able to dictate "Liquor Allowed" areas.
This would be a huge change in attitude but could help stop normalising the perception that everyone needs to be drinking all the time. Do we really need to have people walking down the footpath drink alcohol?
