Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said on ABC TV on Monday night that he would personally like to see the legal drinking age raised to 21 after connecting high rates of P-plater road crash deaths to alcohol consumption.
“If the evidence is there and it is capable of being proven that it works, then we (will) look at these things and make a decision,” Rudd said, when asked about the issue by a young person on the Q&A program.
When the Prime Minister expresses concern about the huge impact of alcohol on the community, that is definitely a wonderful development. Rudd referred specifically to “high rates of P-plater road deaths [linked] to alcohol consumption”.
Well, are they really high? Or did a few really tragic cases just manage to get enormous publicity on a slow news day? And even if there are high rates of P-plater road crash deaths caused by alcohol, is raising the legal drinking age the most effective way of reducing these deaths?
The Prime Minister called for the evidence on this issue and he deserves praise just for asking to see the evidence. Most politicians decide policy on alcohol and drugs just on gut feelings. But the majority of the evidence on this issue is from the US where the legal drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 in the 1980s. President Reagan forced virtually all the states to raise their legal drinking age by withholding federal funds for highways until they complied. Alcohol consumption and road crash deaths did fall as a result (although cannabis consumption increased).
Australia has much more effective national measures to reduce drink driving than the US. Also, we have had these for a long time. These measures include random breath testing and compulsory car safety belts. Most important, we also have probationary driving licences, essentially for young people, which require zero breath alcohol concentration when driving. This amounts to a finely targeted prohibition of alcohol.
In contrast, raising the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 is, in reality, a poorly targeted prohibition with the likelihood of significant levels of non-compliance and consequently (possibly severe) unintended negative consequences.
Also, raising the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 is fraught with political and ethical problems. Just imagine trying to defend this policy against concerns that a 20-year-old Australian is considered mature enough to vote and even die serving his or her country but not considered mature enough to enjoy a beer with the family at Christmas!
Also, there are more effective ways for Australia to reduce road crash deaths due to alcohol, apart from raising the legal drinking age.
Australia’s system for taxing alcohol is ripe for reform just on economic grounds, let alone public health and safety concerns. Alcohol taxes have a substantial impact on price. The higher the price of alcohol, the lower the consumption. Slightly increasing the price of alcohol is the single most effective prevention measure known. Price increases would be particularly effective in young people because they have lower incomes and therefore less money to spend on alcohol.
The majority of alcohol consumed in a community by young people is drunk at high levels of risk of short-term harms. Even small increases would achieve a worthwhile benefit (and be easier to achieve and sustain). Large increases risk stimulating a black market.
Also, alcohol is too readily available in Australia. We have too many outlets, the conditions for these outlets are too liberal and the drinks industry is too powerful (and the community too weak) in the licensing process.
Expect the drinks industry to weigh into this debate soon with loud cries of “wowser” and “nanny state”.
“Also, alcohol is too readily available in Australia”
I don’t think that is true. If you go to the US/Europe/Any developed country, you can buy alcohol at Service stations, shopping centers, cafes, holes in the wall. Just about everywhere. and it’s available 24 hours a day.
Pricing is the best way to modify demand. Alcohol is not an inelastic good so you will find a decrease in demand through higher prices (especially amongst the young with less disposable income)
Regarding “Just imagine trying to defend this policy against concerns that a 20-year-old Australian is considered mature enough to vote and even die serving his or her country but not considered mature enough to enjoy a beer with the family at Christmas!”
That’d be pretty easy to defend, since Australians under the age of 18 are legally allowed to drink alcohol in a private residence, and even at licensed premises when having a meal while accompanied by a guardian – which covers the majority of Christmas functions. Since I learned this in Health class at high school years ago, it’s not exactly tough research to do.
Alcohol is too readily available to teen-age drivers; but are we overlooking a psychological problem, namely the awarding of P plates to kids who have barely learned to drive and immediately believe they are kings or queens of the road when they should be on L plates for at least 12 months after they pass their driving test and then only granted P plates when they have passed a second more stringent driving test?
Prohibition won’t work. Young people will drink whether it’s legal or not. Having spent time in the US, the higher drinking age there is treated as a joke by young people.
As to raising the price. Well it works to a point. Many of my friends at University on low incomes used to brew their own beer precisely because of the cost. With the rise of spirit based drinks, there exists a real risk of young people especially students moving to distilling their own drinks and the risk of poisoning when they inadvertently produce methanol instead of ethanol.
I doubt if anything will come of this. Rudd was just moving his mouth again. Besides the liquor industry donates huge amounts of money to both parties.