The former Chancellor of Cambridge University, Lord Broers, yesterday morning, asked a question in the House of Lords. He said,
My Lords, have the Government considered increasing the age at which young people can buy alcohol to the level in the United States? I have observed in the university world that young American students coming to this country are amazed at the alcohol consumption of our undergraduates.
Lord Broers’s solution is daft, just think for a moment about where that would leave the ages of consent. He seems to be saying that you should be able to vote (age, 18), drive a car (age, 17) and even have a child (age, 16) but that raising a pint in a pub at the age of 20 is somehow beyond your ken. Its interesting that Lord Broers seems to want to make childhood extend so long that it takes people into their twenties, thinks that a pint in a pub is a more serious act than voting for a government or even having a kid, and considers the best way to deal with a problem for some is to make something illegal for all. What’s interesting about Lord Broer’s comments is their paternalism: ultimately irresponsible people voting doesn’t matter because voting doesn’t matter, but irresponsible people getting drunk at midnight on the street does matter because one might be leaving the opera then. Furthermore if 10% of 19 year olds in the UK can’t handle their drink, that’s obviously a reason for the other 90% to have alcohol forcibly removed from them.
We will never solve the problem of young people drinking in this way- as the minister noted a prohibition would be deeply ineffective- it would also alienate teenagers rather than persuade them. Public information campaigns- the drink driving campaign is a great one to emmulate- even city centre planning regulations- are likely to be much more successful instruments in dealing with this problem. Raising the drinking age would merely criminalise a large segment of the population who are behaving perfectly sensibly and betrays an attitude of mind where the first response to a problem is what should be the last resort- having recourse to the statute book to ban someone from doing something.
Agree completely, and in fact I have two articles coming up on my blog in the morning that touch on these issues of engagement and prohibitive measures regarding children consuming alcohol.
What I will say is that in almost every circumstance available, if you look to a place with a decent social education culture and lower age of consent for something than our country, you’ll find they have less of a problem than we do. Arbitrary figures as to when you suddenly become responsible enough to do something don’t do anything to stop kids from exploring their boundaries, especially on issues like drink and sex.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.
The law was never meant to stop 17 year olds drinking.
The age of 18 (adulthood by law) was a reasonable arbitrary age under which publicans could use the law as a justification for refusing to serve some one. This meant they could turn away children.
So if we now want to enforce that law - we need to change it to reflect the reality that 17 year olds are old enough to drink whether it is legal or not.
–
And what is worse is people like Brian Paddick spouting nonsence about enforcing the law because in a study, 4 in 10 outlets in london served a child - when ‘child’ includes soldiers and married couples.
My best friend and I first starting going to the pub when we were 16 and were regulars by the time we were 17. Even though the other regulars and barstaff knew of our age (which we were unaware of at the time), we were allowed there because we were responsible drinkers who everyone knew would never cause trouble or act like complete pillocks. I truly do find the idea of 20 year olds behing prohibited from consuming alcohol in a pub to be ridiculous, I’m only just 21!
Surely if the concern is young people over-consuming alcohol to such an extent that it represents a huge social cost, shouldn’t the standard economic solution be to raise taxes on alocohol (which I saw on the news yesterday is the plan, and good on ‘em)
He’s the former Vice-Chancellor - the Chancellor is the Duke of Edinburgh.
I agree though, a ludicrous suggestion.
I also doubt that any Cambridge VC has ever got close enough to the undergraduate population to converse with US students and form such an opinion. It is no doubt one which has been filtered through to Lord Broers from elsewhere.
Having said that, there’s no doubt a great deal of OTT drinking at Cambridge.
There is a lot of OTT drinking in Cambridge! Whoops about the Vice Chancellor thing- doesn’t alter the main point though- and I agree with everyone else’s comments.
- direct link -
Lee Griffin