Panel Debates Age Restrictions for Fermented Grain
The affirmative team argued in favour of a split drinking age, with 18-year-olds allowed to drink in bars but not allowed to purchase alcohol outside bars until age 20. The argument put forward was that 18 to 20 is the most vulnerable age bracket, and that a split drinking age would help to delay young people’s acclimatisation to binge-drinking culture by ensuring that their drinking occurs in a controlled environment with limited access to alcohol.
Arguing that the drinking age should stay at 18, the negating team pointed out the absurdities that the law change would create – notably, the inconsistencies between rights would leave an 18-year-old alcohol-free but still legally able to work as a prostitute in Mosgiel. They further highlighted the dangers of on-licence drinking with the toast-worthy example of Monkey Bar, “where you certainly can coma on a couch and they won’t do much about it.”
The guest panel, which was comprised of Mayor Dave Cull, Student Health Director Dr Kim Maiai, Dunedin South Labour MP Clare Curran, and OUSA President Logan Edgar, was put to good use between each six-minute offering from the debaters, answering questions sent in via text or the more tech-savvy Twitter hashtag #splitagedebate.
Notably, Curran opposed the idea of a split age, remarking: “Legislative measures should be addressing behavioural issues, not age issues.” Following Mayor Cull’s concern that drunkenness was treated among students as “almost cool,” Edgar declared his intentions to put a “Great Wall of China between the student population and Dunedin South” to isolate those who are really to blame for ruining Scarfie culture. Edgar is currently calling for tenders for the construction of the wall, which is due to commence in 2013.