Drinking seems to have become so ingrained into university culture now, that it’s hard to imagine degree life without it. However, that’s precisely what one government think-tank has recommended; raising the drinking age from 18 to 21.
Alcohol-related illnesses and injuries cost the NHS approximately £1.6 billion a year, and in Wales the cost of dealing with drink-related crime and disorder is £365 million a year. These are just some of the reasons why the Institute for Public Policy Research has suggested that raising the drinking age is the solution.
The UK has ‘lost the plot’ in how it regulates alcohol, argues Jasper Gerard, columnist for The Observer in an article published in the Institute’s journal, Public Policy Research. Gerard believes that the social effect of binge drinking is now so severe that the government should be practising ‘tough love’. He argues: “By raising the age threshold it is at least possible that those in their early and mid-teens will not see drink as something they will soon be allowed to do and therefore might as well start doing it surreptitiously now.
“Instead they might see it as it should be: forbidden.”
It’s a common idea that the habits young people adopt will often carry on until their later life, but some university students do not believe that drinking is a habit they will continue. Victoria Gale, a third year Cardiff Ancient History student, thinks that drinking is just a part of student culture. She commented: “Drinking is so central to university life that you can’t ignore it.
“Just look at freshers’ week. There are drinks promotions everywhere you look; it’s basically sold to you as a week to get wasted. I’m about to leave university now, but I don’t think that I’ll drink as much as I do now forever, it’s just because of where I am and who I’m around.”
However, contrary to public belief it’s not just older people that can suffer from drinking heavily. The number of drink-related deaths among 15 to 34-year-olds has increased by almost 60% since 1991, the Office for National Statistics revealed in February, and alcohol abuse in Wales causes the premature deaths of 1,100 people every year.
These shocking figures prove that university students should be more aware of how much they drink, and come at a time when the government has launched its new ‘drink responsibly’ campaign.
The televised adverts show a man and a woman ‘seeing’ themselves drunk before they go to order a drink, opting to condemn their possible future actions and drink responsibly. But some students are dubious of its effect, one Cardiff student said: “To me it just looks like the drunk people are having a great time, I don’t think it really has the shock factor at all.”
How the government then can change young people’s views without raising the drinking age seems dubious. Alison Rogers, Chief Executive of the British Liver Trust, thinks that teenagers can recognise the damage alcohol can do to their health through clear communication. She said: “The combination of cheap prices, easy accessibility and the rolling back of barriers to consumption – including the removal of aisle restrictions in supermarkets, the 24-hour licensing laws and the licensing of garages – all combine to send the message that drinking ‘anytime anywhere anyplace’ is acceptable and normal.”
But little has been done by the British government and the Welsh Assembly to turn young people off binge-drinking. And it’s not only long-term health problems that those who drink alcohol in excess need to consider. Current figures say that 367,000 violent attacks a year are caused by alcohol in England and Wales. Professor Jonathon Shepherd, of Cardiff University’s Violence and Society research group, has come to the conclusion that a drinking age rise should be implemented, in line with the USA. He said: “The research evidence is that raising the minimum purchasing age to 21 years would reduce alcohol-related harm substantially.”
Whether raising the drinking age to 21 is the solution to binge-drinking problems though is questionable. The Royal College of Physicians have recommended banning all alcohol advertising, but the Portman Group, which regulates the alcohol industry, disagrees. Chief executive of the group David Poley told the BBC: “What we really need to do is change the drinking culture through education rather than making drinking a social taboo by raising the drinking age.”
If the drinking age was raised it would have a massive impact not just on young people but businesses too. Bars and clubs with a big student customer base may also suffer, and adults under 21 may feel they need to buy alcohol illegally. Students’ unions, which get a large amount of their income from alcohol sales, may also feel disadvantaged.
Cardiff University Students’ Union president, Joe Al-Khayat, does not think that new legislation would help the binge-drinking problem. He said: “I wouldn’t like to think any student would be forced to break the law, but that said it would be difficult for any student between the ages of 18-21 to suddenly have their rights curtailed under new legislation.”
With no measures declared by the Welsh Assembly or the British government on how they will tackle the binge-drinking culture, apart from the odd advert we will have to wait and see if better education prevails, or if things get worse. So until then, students will be free to stagger home after a night out clubbing at the Students’ Union and for most, the only consequence will be the hangover the morning after.
1. Chris White
“Alcohol-related illnesses and injuries cost the NHS approximately £1.6 billion a year, and in Wales the cost of dealing with drink-related crime and disorder is £365 million a year.”
And since tax revenue from alcohol sales comes to £14bn a year, they can fuck off.
2. fromtheus
All the 21 year old drinking age has done in the United States is separate college students into abstainers and dangerous drinkers. The studies citing the wonders of the 21 year old drinking age seem to neglect the deaths caused by the student doing 21 vodka shots on their birthday to celebrate their new “right”, the fact that it costs universities a fortune to monitor students, etc.
Also, there has been no decline in the number of really young (grade 8) dangerous drinkers since the age was raised in the 1980s.
Let’s have a factual discussion—most of the published research on the wonders of age 21 comes from neo-prohibitionist think tanks.
3. Mark
To be fair Chris I think the damage cost to British businesses in lost working hours, and in terms of the cost to the Welfare State, is over £14 Billion. I work in the Heath (hospital) part time and on the weekend you can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of admissions are drink related, either directly from drinking too much and passing out or from getting into fights or accidents. Not only does this cost the Trust, these people have to be found beds, so at a time when beds are in short supply and people are being put of waiting for crucial operations and treatment drunks are using up bed spaces for purely selfish reasons. It’s the same with the druggies of course, you can spot them a mile away, all trying to scam some painkillers. People think that the NHS is letting down the public but frankly I think the public are letting down the NHS.
Anyway, all that aside, there’s not a lot one can do about it from a practical point of view. No Government is going to limit the right to buy alcohol, it would be electoral suicide, so all they can do is make it more expensive (alcohol is cheaper in real terms than ever before) but that wouldn’t be popular and I doubt it would do any good either.
4. Chris White
Perhaps Mark, although weren’t drink-related admissions to hospital in Cardiff down by 6,000 last year compared to the year before?
5. Mark
No, I think they actually rose slightly. They just stopped counted injuries that occurred down to drunkenness i.e. people falling down and hurting themselves or getting into fights when drunk as drink related and merely classed them as accidents or violence related.
6. Rob
So an 18 year old can serve his country in a war but cannot have a drink!
7. Mark
Well a 16 or 17 year old can serve but not drink.
8. Rob Prior
There are many arguments against raising the drinking age to 21, both practical and philosophical.
Firstly from a practical viewpoint. Countries like the U.S where the drinkning age is 21 still have big problems with alcoholism. If young people want to drink there is nothing the state can do to stop them from obtaining alcohol, even if they do it illegally, one need only look at the prohibition era for evidence of this. A rise in the drinkning age would only result in the police having to waste more time dealing with people who aren’t real criminals.
Secondly, think of all the bars, pubs and clubs which rely on the 18-21 market. Now imagine the unemployment caused if all those places were forced to close down and the billions lost to the economy and to tax revenue.
Thirdly it’s electoral suicide. As Mark mentioned, no party will hope to gain support from the young on a message of ‘Vote for us and we’ll take away your freedom to drink.’
But the argument is much more fundamental then that. If the age were lifted to 21, what that would effectively say to under 21’s is ‘You are still a child, you are not old enough to make your own decisions’.
The issue is ultimately freedom. I believe in a society where people are allowed to do whatever they like, as long as they do not physically harm anyone. A free society allows it’s citizens to put anything they want into their body, including alcohol.
Mark, you mentioned that the ‘public are failing the NHS’. But I think the NHS, as an instrument of the state, exists to serve the public, not the other way round.
Binge drinkning has been a part of British cultue since the industrial revolution and before. There used to be a pub on the end of every street in the 19th century. Historically we are drinking less than a century ago, even young people. If binge drinkning is to be rid of, it will be through a change in social attitudes towards alcohol and drunkeness, rather than the state effectively pointing a gun to people’s heads.
9. Thomas Carroll
In my opinion, this is a non-starter. As Rob says, it’d be electoral suicide for the government to ban alcohol for 18-21 year olds(first time voters). The reason alot of young people don’t vote is because they feel most decisions made by the government don’t really affect them. Take away their drink and voter turnout amongst youths would go through the roof.
I wouldn’t put it past the government to be publishing this in an attempt to appeal to older voters, just so that it looks like they’re making some efforts at reducing teen drinking.
10. ratslinger
We are now living in a country run by a liberal PC self-righteous elite comprised of finger-wagging nannies and sancitonious pucker-lipped old harridens and bluestockins! (mentioning no names) All supported by the puritanical muslims and christians and ethnic groups to boot!
Ban this, ban that, tell massive lies about passive smoking, ban smoking everywhere, ban chips and crisps, ban porn, lock up men for rape with no evidence, hand out asbos to people for expressing an opinion, fine people for not recycling or being a yummy mummy, persecute car drivers (even though it’s having children which is the worst thing anyone can do for the planet by far)...
People should remember that the only european in the past to ban smoking and hunting was that great liberal teetotal veggie Adolf Hitler. Perhaps he was New Labour?
Why can’t we just ban finger-wagging nannies instead? Or better still, send them to pakistan or somewhere – then we can just all get on with our lives in peace… driving cars, getting drunk, eating chips, smoking, watching porn, going hunting – all at the same time, if we can…
11. Jamie
Just a point ratslinger – as I recall, Hitler did drink moderate amounts of alcohol and ate some meat…
12. ratslinger
Jamie
Oh no he didn’t matey! Teetotal veggie who hated smoking and hunting – the nazi party was in part based on a hippyish ‘back to nature’ green agenda – they are really the spiritual fathers of the modern green movement as well as all the puritanical self-righteous stormtroopers of political correctness and the nanny state.
Hitler would have loved to live in our anti-smoking anti-drinking anti-hunting green times – he’d probably be a candidate for the green party today, or new labour, lecturing us all about recycyling…
In fact, apparently, Adolf Hitler has now been cloned and is sitting in the cabinet as Harriden Harman. I read it on the internet so it must be true…
13. Thomas Carroll
Ratslinger, it shows a real lack of political ability if you use non-controversial Nazi policies to try and accuse other people of being like the Nazi’s.
And so what if Hitler was a vegetarian
(which isn’t totally true). It has absolutely no relevance to this article or debate.
14. ratslinger
Au contraire Mr Carroll!
It has absolute relevance to this debate, as both the Nazis and the 21st century Puritanical self-righteous Nazis who want to ban drinking, ban smoking, ban hunting, ban cars, ban eveything THEY don’t like share the same authoritarian instincts. They want to enforce their views on others so do not believe in liberal tolerance of others’ tastes or lifestyles. Their attitude is always: ‘why can’t you be like me?’ And make no mistake, if these people could they’d soon be building isolation camps for those who differed from their ways of living.
The green movement was central to the rise of the Nazis and those same instincts can be seen today in the sanctimonious bullying hectoring attitude of the stormtroopers of environmentalism, the anti-drinking anti-smoking lobby and vegetarians.
If you can’t see the connection matey it’s your lack of political ability that needs honing.
PS Love your use of the phrase ‘non-controversial Nazi policies’ by the way! And defence of Hitler’s obsessive vegetarianism – which gives an insight into his puritanical mind, so is rather important, actually, when profiling his pschology. If only he’d had a nice drink or three, a nice smokey cigar and a Vienner Schnitzel or Bratwurst or two… maybe he would’ve calmed down a bit, y’know… chilled out and done a media studies course or somefink…
15. Thomas Carroll
This is ridiculous.
“The green movement was central to the rise of the Nazis”
Are you having a laugh?! Pick up a history book. You’ll find that post-Depression Germans weren’t all suddenly hit with the urge to be eco-warriors and vote for the Nazi party.
And now you’re saying if Hitler had a “nice drink or three” and eaten some meat he’d have “calmed down a bit” and assumingly, you mean he’d not have gone postal on the rest of Europe? Are you actually trying to somehow blame vegetarianism/teetotalism for his massacres?
PS: Please point out where and when Hitler banned Germans from cars, smoking and alcohol. Oh wait, never mind, he didn’t…
16. edwinwebb@hotmail.com
The point is that fundamentalist puritanism was central to the nazi attitude – as it was central to the green ‘back to nature’ german nationalism blood-and-land pagan obsessions of people like wagner after the creation of the german state in 1870.
There were other factors, but fundamentalist worship of german folklore and the land/countryside and a belief in purity (racial and otherwise) was central to nazi dogma. It WAS a part of nazi ideology.
The green movement has always been big in germany -and they just love stripping off and going back to nature – you should watch some SS films of the 30s, comparing these strong naked nazis going swimming in a lake to the weedy cockroachy jews. The green movement and the nazis were connected – and still are in modern extreme fascist movements like combat 18.
And actually, Hitler did ban smoking in certain places and fox hunting too – causes now espoused by nazi…er… new labour. All hail the new puritans…
17. Jesse Scharf
a wise person once said that once you evoke the ‘nazi’s’ to back up your argument then you lose. governments have always restricted out behavour in different ways…lets not try and create a link between trying to create a world that is not underwater from global warming (cars) and where going to the pub doesn’t give you lung cancer (smoking), to mass genocide and totalitarianism.
do the white, middle class, western males of this world really feel discriminated against? grow up, we’ve never has it so good.
18. ratslinger
Oh yeah? And which ‘wise person’ was this then? Joseph Gerbils? Mrs Schikelgruber? Perhaps if one if discussing the growing anti-semitism among muslims in europe mentioning the nazis would be more than a little apposite…
OK – let’s use the phrase puritanical totalitarian interfering sanctimonious busy-bodies instead of nazis. Same thing really, in attitude if not action.
The biggest problem the world is facing is over-population and over-consumption, not cars – and humanity will not survive the 21st century due to people’s selfishness and unwillingness to curb their breeding habits.
The idea that passive smoking is a lie you have swallowed hook, line and sinker – there is absolutely NO danger from smokiness in pubs. Do some research and stop parroting what you hear on bimbo hysterical scare-mongering news programmes. In fact, banning smoking will harm children: there IS evidence to show that children growing up in smoking households are damaged (though many other factors are at play – less educated poorer people are more likely to smoke, for example, and they have worse diet and health). In common with most people, you incorrectly interpret statistics here. Please read some Richard Doll.
And you’re the only one mentioning ‘white’ or ‘male’ here – but yes, poorer white men are disadvantaged compared to rich women and ethnics. I prefer to see people are individuals, not as a race or gender, but each to his own I suppose… We do live in a nation more obsessed with classifying people, by race, gender, religion etc, than any since nazi Germany. You probably love that.
I know – let’s ban people from having more than 2 children per couple throuighout the world eh? And let’s ban dangerous cancer-causing mobile phones too – and deodorants/cosmetics containing chemicals proven to cause cancer? Oh no, but that would affect you wouldn’t it, so you selfishly would resist any moves to do so.
Hypocrite. Grow up eh?
19. Rasputin
Jesse, you may be thinking of Godwin’s Law, which states that in any internet discussion someone will inevitably mention the Nazis and any reasoned, intelligent debate will collapse.
It’s amazing how true it is, too.