• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

NZ drinking age - raise to 20, or keep it 18?

What should be done about the drinking age?


  • Total voters
    18

Jayzamann

International Regular
I can't really think of an argument for raising it, and I'm usually pretty good at playing devils advocate.
 

BackFootPunch

International 12th Man
It's not what we're drinking, it's how we're drinking etc.

Idiots gonna idiot unfortunately. Better to have more control over where they can do that.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Twenty seems an odd age if it's going to be raised. Twenty-one is traditionally the age of majority, key of the door and all that.

But keep as is would seem the way to go. Unfair to punish the responsible eighteen and nineteen YOs for the sins of their twattier peers.

IMHO the idea of a "drinking age" is all a bit self-defeating anyway. The idea that at 17 years & 364 days old one's incapable of having a quiet beer and the next day one's fit to consume whatever one can afford is patently a nonsense.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Hall of Fame Member
Keep it at 18. If I ever have kids, they'll be drinking younger than that so they don't go mad when they hit 18. But I don't think you'll stop teens binge drinking by raising the drinking age to 20. They'll just drink from 3L bottles of cider behind the nearest multi-storey and it'll change nothing.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Raise it to a year older than whatever age Phlegm is.
Do this the day before his birthday, so if he's a day away from 23 change it to 24 that day. And do this on the same date every single year.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Twenty seems an odd age if it's going to be raised. Twenty-one is traditionally the age of majority, key of the door and all that.

But keep as is would seem the way to go. Unfair to punish the responsible eighteen and nineteen YOs for the sins of their twattier peers.

IMHO the idea of a "drinking age" is all a bit self-defeating anyway. The idea that at 17 years & 364 days old one's incapable of having a quiet beer and the next day one's fit to consume whatever one can afford is patently a nonsense.
Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Here the legal purchasing age (in a supermarket etc) is 16. There is no legal drinking age, and adults are allowed to purchase grog for minors.

Have to be 18 to buy it in a pub though.
 
Last edited:

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
I often find myself defending my hopelessly biased view of keeping it 18 by the whole "They'll find a way to get on it anyway, so it'll make no difference". However, the tiny, sensible, part of my mind realises that this is the exact same logic used by anti-gun-control advocates. The 18 - 20 split between on and off licenses is probably the best compromise tbh.

Doesn't change the fact that the government is incredibly unwilling to attack one of the obvious roots of the problem - ridiculously cheap booze, especially RTDs. Should really smack some taxes on them, though I can't see John "best friend of business" Key going in that direction.
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah but ridiculously expensive booze of that type has caused a new problem here; pre-loading. We had the same problem here, RTD's get people < 20 yrs pissed quicker. Solution? Tax. Response? People pre-mix voddy and cordial at home, putting in far more alcohol per drink than they'd get in an RTD. Consequence? Jumped-up, three-sheets by 8pm under-20's ready to go you at the slightest provocation. The UK are dealing with this exact thing right now and, well, they're currently bumping up against the whole 'people want to get bent and will so do no matter what you do' ceiling. So, even though alcohol-related crime in Australia is influenced downward by stuff like this, it's a limited effect and the nature of the assault changes. Fewer minor scuffles, but more king hits, etc.
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The other thing is that raising the drinking age and having places shut earlier does work from a political standpoint. There's actually quite a bit of evidence, stemming mainly from experiments in Newcastle* that the incidence of alcohol-related violence decreased quite a bit (see Kyp Kypri's work**) and there's similar with regards raising the drinking age. The rationale goes that people are generally law-abiding, rational people and upon seeing a hard limit, will respond accordingly and either wait until of age or keep a lid on it until then. Those who drink to hardcore levels are in the minority, will do so regardless of what laws are in place, etc. That's the rationale. So, yes, measures like this do bring the numbers down. However, there are many, many problems and limitations with studies like these but they're almost imposible to measure, let alone allow for in the models.

For example, the research has been clear for many years that there are several age correlates with alcohol; older people (until about 60) drink much, much less than younger people. Increasing drink prices, increased police precense, restrictions on opening hours have, likely, driven older people away to have a drink at home instead. So, already you see an increase in the proportions of those being victims of and admitting to perpetrating violent assaults around licensed prems. Solution? Crack down. Response? Alcohol-related violence drops, mainly because the opportunity to drink whilst out and about decreases. Future consequences? Unmeasurable (have no idea of the levels of alcohol-related violence outside of licensed prems) so we assume the measures are working. I know of several researchers in the area experimenting with composite measures but they are incredibly easy to criticise so plugging and chugging into a model becomes a very iffy exercise but, well, at least it gets the next grant.

Incidentally, watch out for the new black in this area; outlet density. It partly explains why the only people concerned about licensed prems' closures are the owners of licensed prems (and bands :(). Some of the other measures being suggested make ya laugh, though; American researchers have experimented with having people in licensed prems whose specific job is to pull up anyone getting somewhat loosed to tone it down a teenth. Some would say that's the role older people in licensed prems played before they were driven away......

* Yes, yes, I know, Newcastle's generalisability is limited. Absolutely a valid criticism of those studies.

** Know this fella, hung out with him at a conference dinner last year, I didn't drink and he got utterly schtonkered but rocked up the next day like nothing had happened. Solid. Pretty sure there's a word for someone who heavily advocates restrictions on something they so joyously engage in, though.
 
Last edited:

uvelocity

International Coach
something on the radio about a suggested 4 drink limit per person in a licensed premise.

****s just have no idea.

here's an idea, stop trying to ban stupid
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Would suggest a consequent rise in assaults on bar staff if that were implemented.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Wasn't one of the things introduced in Newcastle a lockout? I know that in Melbourne, it led to more violence on the streets as people weren't prepared and happy to go home and there weren't enough cabs to get everyone home at that stage of the night anyway.
 

uvelocity

International Coach
apparently it's already in effect on some cruise ships

wanted to go on one of them until I saw some video of the zoo that it becomes at night
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wasn't one of the things introduced in Newcastle a lockout? I know that in Melbourne, it led to more violence on the streets as people weren't prepared and happy to go home and there weren't enough cabs to get everyone home at that stage of the night anyway.
They did but, from what I remember, lockouts causing more violence is anecdotal, not supported by evidence/experiment. That's one of those unmeasurables (aside from crude violence rate)

Not saying it's not true, of course.
 

Top