I posted on Your Dunedin: The Woodhouse challenge – influence his alcohol purchase age vote… Andrew White has responded and has agreed for this to be posted:
I am under 20 years of age and I would like to express my staunch disapproval of any attempt to increase the alcohol purchase age. I also oppose a split of the alcohol purchase age. I disagree with many other parts of the Alcohol Reform Bill too. I urge you to vote “no” to any alcohol purchase age increase.
The status quo of being 18 years old to purchase alcohol from bars and liquor stores should be retained. I have no disagreement with tackling the issue of alcohol abuse; that is a valid and important aim. However what the Alcohol Reform Bill would do would be a knee jerk reaction and excessive.
Government should not legislate to discriminate against an entire age group based on the problems and actions of some in that group. By raising the age to purchase alcohol from bars and liquor stores or just the latter the majority of responsible 18 and 19 year olds will be subjected to collective punishment. 120,000 adult New Zealanders aged 18 and 19 should not be made scapegoats for New Zealand’s alcohol issues.
We allow 18 year olds to fight and die for our country, get married, and vote. Furthermore the New Zealand Medical Association has said there is no clinical evidence to suggest that alcohol was more harmful to an 18-year-old than a 20-year-old.
My way to tackle the issue of alcohol abuse is to make alcohol education part of the National Curriculum so all students in state schools will specifically learn about alcohol. Right now one of the learning areas in the National Curriculum is Health and Physical Education which teaches students about mental health, sexuality education, food and nutrition, body care and physical safety, sport studies, and outdoor education.
There is no specific emphasis put on alcohol education. If students all over New Zealand were given an entire lesson on alcohol when they start high school it will give them the information they need so that when they start consuming alcohol they will know the risks associated with it and it may well lead to a change in the alcohol culture in New Zealand.
Once alcohol education is added to the National Curriculum and been in place for at least 10 years I think New Zealand could see a reduction in alcohol abuse in young people and in 20-30 years we could see a reduction in alcohol abuse in older age groups. If you support public schooling then you support education. Education should be given a chance to prove itself with regards to tackling alcohol abuse.
Other parts of the Alcohol Reform Bill that I do not agree with are the national trading hours for liquor stores and bars, and if a “lock in” policy is part of the bill I do not agree with that also. There are legitimate reasons for people visiting these places at any time of the day. Not everyone works 9am-5pm.
There are late afternoon/night shift workers who purchase alcohol from liquor stores or bars after work and students who attend university during the day and work at night also purchase alcohol afterwards.
There are obese people in New Zealand, yet fast food outlets and supermarkets are allowed to be open 24 hours a day. There are problem gamblers in New Zealand, yet the TAB and casinos are allowed to be open 24 hours a day.
These are all issues that will determine my vote in the next election. Please do not support this bill in its current form.
Just to add something further. If you do have a problem with liquor stores and bars opening 24/7 maybe a compromise could be struck where there could be a limit on the amount of liquor each customer can purchase during certain hours -between 4am-8am 2 packs of beer and 2 wine bottles from a liquor store -3 purchases from a bar.
The limit could apply to all ages or just those under 20. These places could also be required to install CCTV cameras outside their premises and sign up to a private security firm who will do drive by patrols between 12am-4am to report any trouble being caused outside the premises.
It would be easy for the authorities to enforce and for liquor stores and bars to enforce. For example, if a person went into a liquor store at 4am and bought the maximum amount of alcohol(which could be 2 packs of beer and 2 bottles of wine) and that same person came again at 6am I think it’s highly likely that the liquor store owner will remember serving that person just 2 hours before. And the police could go undercover and test if liquor store owners are following the law.
At a bar, if a person purchased alcohol at 4am then at 4.30am then again at 5am that would be 3 seperate times a person approached the person serving the alcohol so I think it would be easy for the person serving to remember if a person has come up to the counter 3 times and the police could go undercover to test this too. I know people could just go to a different liquor store or bar but some people may not want to go to the extra hassle and they will still be limited in the amount of alcohol they can purchase from different liquor stores and bars.
And there is already a law making it illegal for bars to serve people who are drunk. If liquor store and bar owners can not afford these extra security requirements then they could be required by law to close at a certain time.
Monique Watson (@Orcs2Elves)
/ July 13, 2012I hear what the writer is suing but I totally disagree. Any adult has got the right to fuck themselves up with alcohol; their right to so so can’t restricted due to prohibition regime fallout. However, if you are between the age of 18 and 20 you are still a child and other adults need to step up and protect your brain for you.
Just because you can fight and die for your country doesn’t mean you can drink with impunity. I know someone who dies fitting on their front lawn who developed a habit at the age of 20 years. More people die from alcohol abuse than die fighting. That is a crapola reason for allowing kids to drink. And that is what most 18-20 yr old’s are. Kids. Your maturity doesn’t mean the 20 yr old next to you isn’t a train wreck in the making.
And absolutely 18-20 yr old’s should be the scapegoats for NZ’s alcohol problem because they are NZ’s alcohol problem. Ignore the bullshit surveys; everybody lies on those.
ryan
/ July 15, 201218 year olds are adults, get use to it or else dont give them adult rights like voting. If they arent adults like you say and are still children, what sick people would let a child go to war? join the police force? The small majority of 18-20 year olds adults not children. Anyway most of them can handle there liqure beter than 30 year olds lol. The bing drinking issue shouldnt be blamed on an age group of 2 years lol. Shows how low you people can go. All because your fun is over dosnt mean you have to ruin ours lol
Mike
/ July 13, 2012I have argued the same to some of our MP’s and Ministers, essentially deal to the problem people not nail the majority law abiding people.
Remember the anti smacking law?
I ask you what does John Key and Parliament not understand about 80% in two polls either side of an election?
However, alcohol abuse and drunkeness and the associated behavior and crimes that go with it will not be dealt to with education.
Least of all a course or lesson in all schools.
Ever heard of peer pressure and adult examples?
The only way for this to be dealt to is if people and society treat being drunk in public the same as they treat drink driving.
That it is unacceptable.
so to solve the behavior enamating from drunk people we need to set an example to society about them and make it plain getting drunk was a choice.
1. for starters all people treated by ED’s and ambulances for being drunk and drunk behavior pay full whack for the services.
2. those same people should appear before a magistrate for being incapable and drunk in public at the next sober point in their life. IE be kept in isolation until they appear before a magistrate.
3. those same people are charged and convicted and have to undergo ALAC training and have demerits on their driving, flying and firearms liscences and have a week in jail suspended for 2 yrs as part of their sentencing.
Obviously once this is the normal process followed we can extend it to those arrested for behavior al and criminal acts whilst drunk.
2nd and 3rd arrests should warrant imprisonment for a short stay.
Mike
/ July 13, 2012Monique
I disagree completely with your summation.
If you are 18 you are an adult and can enter into a contract, buy and found companies, act as a director of enterprises and employ people, take out credit and all the other jobs the young lad stated including being a serviceman/woman, fireman, policemen etc etc.
I am over 50 and in every decade I have met more than enough of my age group who qualify for you descriptions .
Lastly no adult has the right to f/ck themselves up with alcohol or otherwise, being an adult means you don’t do that, only children do that.
Monique Watson (@Orcs2Elves)
/ July 13, 2012Mike.
That you can enter into a contract at the age of 18 isn’t a good thing, if your brain isn’t mature enough to handle the consequences. However the consequences of a teenager abusing a substance are potentially a hell of a lot worse. Teenagers are kids whether they are 13 or 19 and we owe it to the current crop to put boundaries in place so they don’t end up dumbasses like me and my generation that were given the key to the Pandora’s box of drugs and alcohol by the spineless generations before us. In the U.S. kids are treated like kids until they reach the ripe old age of 2. Much better for the individual and society.
nanageeup
/ July 13, 2012As long as those nasty nats don’t put the price of sherry up