Right: Eighteen-year-old Australians were conscripted for service during the Vietnam War. During the Australian involvement in this conflict, the legal drinking age was lowered to 18. It was argued that those who could fight for their country should not have to wait until they were 21 to buy a beer.
.Arguments against raising the legal drinking age
1. Any change in the law is likely to be ignored by many young people
It has been claimed that if the drinking age were increased to 19 or 21 many young people would simply decide to break the law. It has been noted that that is what is happening currently with the legal drinking age of 18.
Co-ordinator of Fairfield Migrant and Resource Centre, Ricci Bartel. has argued that raising the drinking age would not change the drinking culture of young people.
Ms Bartel has stated, 'Binge-drinking is most prominent among young people aged 14 to 26 and if the drinking age is increased to 21 you are not making any difference to the drinking habits of any one above the age of 21 and probably none to those below that age.'
Ms Bartel added, 'Education campaigns about the danger of binge-drinking are the only effective strategy because legislation can not prevent young people from accessing alcohol.
The youth will always find a way to purchase and access alcohol supplies even if new restrictions are put in place.'
In an editorial published on November 23, 2009, in The Redland Times, it was similarly argued, 'Raising the drinking age could be argued as a positive step, but it will do little to stop access to alcohol by young people.
A higher drinking age could limit their ability to frequent hotels and nightclubs, but in turn would send young people to private venues, or worse, onto the streets to meet the cult need for binge drinking.'
It has further been noted that irresponsible drinking is likely to increase if the drinking age were increased because young people would drink illegally in unsupervised environments. This appears to have been the experience in the United States. Professor Ruth Engs, of Indiana University, has stated, 'There has been an increase in other problems related to heavy and irresponsible drinking among college age youth. Most of these reported behaviours showed little change until after the 21 year old law in 1987. For example from 1982 until 1987 about 46% of students reported "vomiting after drinking." This jumped to over 50% after the law change. Significant increase were also found for other variables: "cutting class after drinking" jumped from 9% to almost 12%; "missing class because of hangover" went from 26% to 28%; "getting lower grade because of drinking" rose from 5% to 7%; and "been in a fight after drinking" increased from 12% to 17%. All of these behaviours are indices of irresponsible drinking. This increase in abusive drinking behaviour is due to "underground drinking" outside of adult supervision in student rooms and apartments were same age individuals congregate and because of lack of knowledge of responsible drinking behaviours.'
2. Changes to Australian laws to increase the legal drinking age would be a misuse of police resources
It has been claimed that raising the legal drinking age would create major implementation problems for Australian police forces.
Rob Moodie, the chairman of the preventive health task force, has noted that given the failure of enforcement against current under-age drinking, Australia's effort should focus on stronger licensing provisions against liquor outlets and more public information campaigns against alcohol abuse.
Professor Moodie has argued that focusing on liquor outlets and ensuring they do not serve alcohol irresponsibly would be a more effective use of police resources.
Michael Daube, the president of the Public Health Association of Australia, Michael Daube, has similarly argued that the focus should be on things that worked, including stronger enforcement of the law.
Hugh Tobin is the managing editor of the Institute of Public Affairs Review. He has argued that police resources are already overtaxed dealing with alcohol-related incidents and that giving police further laws to enforce will be ineffective, if only because the police do not have the numbers to do so.
Tobin claimed, 'Under-age drinking is already illegal, as is drink-driving, drunken violence and drunk and disorderly conduct. The introduction of lockouts and curfews to combat violence on the streets is a sign that police resources are under strain. In Melbourne, the same weekend that the 2am lockout was implemented, the Victorian Police Association claimed that there was a major shortage of police officers available for patrol work, particularly at night.
It is often speculated that the first European settlers in Australia drank more alcohol per head of population than any other community in the history of mankind. Alcohol will always be a part of Australian culture. And an overwhelming majority of Australians consume alcohol responsibly and want to continue to be able to do so. The majority do not deserve to be punished for the violent crimes of the few. But they should be protected from them, and that protection will come from more effective policing, not from knee-jerk policy decisions.'
3. 18 is the age at which young people are generally considered adult
It has been argued that it would be inconsistent to deny adolescents the legal right to consume alcohol at 18, when that is the age at which they assume many other adult responsibilities. Eighteen year-olds are required to vote, they can drive a car and they face adult penalties for crime they commit. Thus, it is claimed, they should also be able to legal consume alcohol.
In an editorial published in The Maitland Mercury on October 23, 2009, it was noted, 'Eighteen-year-olds have the right to vote to decide who will be this country's leaders, they can marry without their parents' consent and, at the other end of the spectrum, they can be sent to adult prisons if they break the law. It would make no sense to then tell them they cannot drink alcohol.'
The same editorial also noted that historically the legal drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18 in Australia during the Vietnam War because it was recognised that if a country could conscript 18-year-olds and require them to fight and risk their lives on its behalf, then it was not reasonable to deny them the right to drink alcohol. The Maitland Mercury editorial of October 23, 2009, states, 'The legal drinking age was lowered during the Vietnam War when it was quite rightly pointed out that if 18-year-olds were old enough to die for their country then they were old enough to have a beer at the pub.
It was as compelling an argument then as it is today.'
This view was also put by a letter writer to The Star Observer who noted, 'I am furious about the infantilisation of young adults. As I hear there is a push to raise the drinking age of voting adults from 18 to 21. I am livid.
The other day I was in a bottle shop that was demanding ID of anyone under 25. That is appalling discrimination...
By the time I was 21 I had left home, put myself through high school, got into Law, had slaved in refuges, was on a task force for a white paper for Cabinet on domestic violence and it would be an outrage if I couldn't have gone out for a drink.
If wowsers want to raise the drinking age to 21 then raise the age young adults can join the armed forces to 21. If the drinking age is raised I don't want to see one teenager in uniform.'
4. There are other means of reducing the incidence road accidents and violence
It has been argued that there are a variety of other measures which are more likely to be effective than raising the legal drinking age. In an emailed comment on the issue published in The Sydney Morning Herald on December 10, 2009, it was stated, 'Once again we see a simplistic solution being offered to a multi-layered issue ... why would raising the legal drinking age have any impact on young children who have access to alcohol and limited parental supervision to prevent its consumption? Answer - it wouldn't.
With respect, I think it's a knee jerk reaction to a broad social issue. Education has proved to be most effective at changing people's bad habits, for example, smoking. Current adverts advising parents not to offer alcohol to children under 18 will have an impact. As will teaching high school children the dangers of alcohol misuse.'
5. Australia needs to address the social and cultural origins of our excessive drinking
It has been claimed that no change in the law will alter Australian drinking behaviour unless we can shift the social attitudes that endorse the excessive assumption of alcohol.
In an editorial published on November 23, 2009, in The Redland Times, it was argued,'Therein lies the problem - the drinking culture, which can only be changed by realignment of attitudes through education.
A fragmented approach to achieving this culture change is unworkable. A Parliamentary Inquiry into alcohol related violence needs to embrace all avenues of the problem and take on board the great work that the Matthew Stanley Foundation, and other similar groups, have already achieved.
All the inquiries in the world, however, will not bring a solution unless government funding through education programs is sufficient to bring the culture change necessary to end the violence which costs the nation $1.7 billion annually.'
In the United States similar arguments have been put. It has been argued that a cultural change toward the use of alcohol needs to be affected, modelled on cultures who deal with alcohol more successfully. Professor Ruth Engs, of Indiana University, has argued, 'Alternative approaches from the experience of other, and more ancient cultures, who do not have these problems need to be tried. Groups such as Italians, Greeks, Chinese and Jews, who have few drinking related problems, tend to share some common characteristics. Alcohol is neither seen as a poison or a magic potent, there is little or no social pressure to drink, irresponsible behaviour is never tolerated, young people learn at home from their parents and from other adults how to handle alcohol in a responsible manner, there is societal consensus on what constitutes responsible drinking.'
6. The decrease in the United States' alcohol-related accidents is not the result of the higher legal drinking age
It has been claimed that it is a simplification to suggest that the United States' reduction in alcohol-related accidents is the result of the country's higher legal drinking age.
Professor Ruth Engs, of Indiana University, has stated, 'Research from the early 1980s until the present has shown a continuous decrease in drinking and driving related variables which has parallel the nation's, and also university students, decrease in per capita consumption. However, these declines started in 1980 before the national 1987 law which mandated states to have 21 year old alcohol purchase laws.
The decrease in drinking and driving problems are the result of many factors and not just the rise in purchase age or the decreased per capita consumption. These include: education concerning drunk driving, designated driver programs, increased seat belt and air bag usage, safer automobiles, lower speed limits, free taxi services from drinking establishments, etc.'