Emily Menkes argues against the raising of the drinking age.
Therecent report of the Law Commission on alcohol law reform makes a number of proposals about raising the drinking age from 18 to 20 in order to reduce harm and repair New Zealand's drinking culture.
Although the report has many valid points, this particular proposal is a badly thought-out attempt at a quick fix that restricts only one sector of the population without addressing the wider social problem: the drinking culture in New Zealand.
This is something that encompasses the behaviour and habits of all age groups, not just the under-20s.
It is not news that our drinking culture is harmful.
But raising the age from 18 to 20 will not solve this, and using youth as a scapegoat is unfair, misleading and potentially harmful.
The population of 18- to 20-year-olds numbers about 140,000, and this unfair scrutiny is leading these adults to have a right potentially stripped from them because of the careless actions of a few.
Of course, there are problem drinkers in this category, and an associated tragic loss of young lives, associated with binge-drinking.
But what the commission doesn't seem to be addressing is the problem drinkers in virtually every other category.
We under-20s have the responsibilities of adults: we can receive full prison sentences just like those over 20.
If we can be sentenced and taxed, among other things, as adults, it also means we should have the right to make our own decisions involving alcohol.
I am a 19-year-old and I am legally within my rights to bet at the TAB, apply for credit cards, have consensual sex, get married, buy a house, go to war, and vote, yet if this proposal gets through, I may not be able to have a glass of wine.
Are these other rights going to be taken away as well?
As a result, a campaign called "Keep It 18" has been launched and has rapidly grown in support.
In a rare case of solidarity, the youth wings of the National, Labour, Act New Zealand and Green parties have also banded together in order to fight this aspect of liquor reform.
The Law Commission is persisting with this proposal despite it being rejected twice.
MPs defeated the Bill in 1999 and 2006 with 59-54 and 72-49 majorities respectively.
The recent media backlash involving the death of 16-year-old James Webster, who drank a bottle of vodka, has been used as an impetus for this cause, despite John Key himself saying that raising the drinking age would not have prevented this problem.
ACT deputy leader Heather Roy and Minister of Justice Simon Powell also oppose this proposal.
The only way for New Zealand to correct its culture is to provide regulations that challenge the whole New Zealand drinking population.
There are certain parts of the Law Commission's report that make sense - such as fines for being intoxicated in public and being taken home by police.
Another is the proposal to raise tax on alcohol - often ridiculously cheap, and a loss leader in many supermarkets.
Such changes would help to address the problem without the unjustified age discrimination.
In order to reduce the alcohol abuse in this country, the Government needs to restrict alcohol supply and advertising, increase education and treatment accessibility, and community control.
Target the problem drinkers in all sectors of society, and make them individually accountable, without presenting them as examples, saying it is their gender, race, hometown or age that should be penalised.
According to the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit, the people with the most harmful drinking habits are males under 30.
Many countries, such as Belgium and Denmark, have lower drinking ages than New Zealand (France doesn't even have one), yet these countries do not appear to have a significant youth-drinking problem.
International evidence shows that the most effective policies to reduce alcohol-related harm are those which target the availability, price and promotion of alcohol, as seen with studies in places such as the University of Sheffield in England.
Instead of spending the millions it will cost to change and then implement a minimum age change, why not use the money for education about alcohol and extra law enforcement and monitoring?The aim of this proposal is to reduce harm, granted.
But by making 18- and 19-year-olds' drinking illegal, and driving young people who drink away from supervised areas, it might exacerbate the problem.
The Law Commission is trying to do right by society, but in this case it is misguided.
If we want to create a culture of responsible drinking, we need a policy which better enables young people to make positive decisions about how they use alcohol, while at the same time acknowledging that New Zealand's problem-drinking culture cannot be pinned on just one age group.
• Emily Menkes is a student at the University of Otago.
