Drinking Age - General Media, 16/03/2006

The select committee reviewing the bill for raising the drinking age to 20, has recommended a 'two-tier' system. Raise the alcohol purchasing age to 20, keep the legal drinking age at 18. Now we'd expect the media to be critically assessing the validity, pros and cons and sustainability of the recommendation. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has become stuck within a sphere of argument, dictated by those who favour greater control over young people's decision-making. In the arguments for and against banning 18-20 year olds from purchasing alcohol, both the broadcast and print media have focused almost exclusively on health repercussions. Of course these are important considerations, but they should not be the sole factor determining argument outcomes. The frontpage articles on the subject in both the Herald and on Stuff (Dominion) overwhelmingly presented health-based factors pro-raising of the purchasing age. Talkback was of course as per usual unanimous in its conservative position. Michael Laws and Leighton Smith couldn't seem to let an opportunity to moan about young people pass. They too tried to direct debate along health lines (I take my hat off to those talkback callers who actually managed to engage the issue more broadly, despite the radio hosts' narrowing of debate). The most unfortunate aspect of this one-eyed analysis is that the cornerstone of justice is being ignored in the debate. Do 18-20 year olds have a right to purchase alcohol? Are they old / rational enough to make decisions for themselves without government intervention in their affairs? What makes alcohol so special that we would consider restricting young people's choice to use it, yet allow them mostly unrestricted individual decision-making in other areas? To ignore justice is to ignore whether a policy can be considered fundamentally morally right or wrong. By ignoring these questions, the media do exactly that. The sphere of debate surrounding the drinking age, needs to be lifted to a new level. (And no, a single article in the middle of Herald taking into account the Hospitality Association's view on the matter, does not constitute a broad consideration of non-health interests)