We also have similar issues with binge drinking, and with underage drinking. I don’t have a lot of faith in social engineering solutions.

DUI is of course a very different concept then underage drinking. One, while specific campaigns may be tailored for certain age groups, the behavior is considered reprehensible by society and punished similarly for all age groups. Two, and perhaps more importantly, it is clear why it is a bad idea to drink and drive, and the harm that results is clear as well.

Drinking in NZ is complicated by the “binge drinking” culture that seems to be either (and it depends who you believe) the result of the “six o’clock swill” culture of the 50’s, or the introduction of “alcho-pops”. My son at his 21st birthday was very proud of the fact that he had “hosepiped” a litre of beer and then held it for 5 minutes before chundering it over the lawn. “Hosepiped”? Get large funnel, put in one end of 1″ hose, put other end in mouth, pour beer into funnel. He was most upset when my reaction was “Is that what turns you on?” He was even more disenchanted the next day when my total lack of sympathy for his hangover came to the fore. On top of that was the message that I had difficulty drinking a 750ml beer in two hours without going to sleep. But the binge drinking aspect of young teens (12 - 16 y-os is a major concern.

So, for that reason, I heartily welcome any “social engineering” that might help reduce the problem.

We had a similar, and continuing, government funded anti-DUI campaign over the past five or so years. That HAS had some impact, and I totally agree with the idea.

If someone were to introduce a “parental responsibility” campaign to reduce teenage pregnancies in NZ, I think that would be a darned good idea. Remember Keisha Castle-Hughes? Acadamy Award winner? Now pregnant at the age of 16… How do you “argue” against that? But, given her personal circumstances, how wrong is it…?

Obviously, we have to have some age for ‘adult’ and this is going to be somewhat arbitrary. However, as it is inherent in this concept, particularly in dealing with contractual obligations, that rights and responsibilities are tied in tandem, I don’t see a problem with that. I think that a successful society could be built on that age being 13, and also that 18 or even perhaps 25 would be workable. I have no particular problem with that age being 18. In American society at least, it closely mirrors the point when most people leave their parents home, at least on a temporary basis to attend college.

What I am talking about more than the legal age prohibitions is societies attitudes though. Like the abstinence controversy above. Another example would be anti-teen drinking commercials I sometimes hear that try to tell teens that drinking isn’t ‘cool’ and ins’t ‘fun.’ Clearly, a lot of adults regard drinking as ‘fun’ which is why they do it. Telling teens it isn’t fun is flat out lying to them. If you can come up with real reasons to tell kids not to drink, great, but if you have to lie to make your point, perhaps it is a point you shouldn’t be making.

One can build a fairly compelling argument that X behavior should be illegal until full contractual age is reached simply because dealing with X in a responsible manner is an implicit contract. In that case, you would argue that a teen cannot drink alcohol, because he hasn’t yet reached the age when he can be obligated to drink responsibly. Having a rite of passage to adulthood tied with being responsible is a good thing, and I think greatly changes how that rite is thought of. In such a circumstance drinking is not being an adult but having the ability to drink responsibly is being an adult.

I have never seen this particular line of reasoning being used though.

I think it is probably beneficial to have some of these priviledges extended before full adult status. I don’t know that the particular ones matter so much, in the U.S. driving is legal at 16 in most states. Of course young and inexpirienced drivers cause problems, but I expect that moving the age would not solve those problems, merely change the age at when they occurred. Obviously, it seems that certain things like volunteering for the military would have being of legal contractual age as a prerequisite.

There are other examples. I have never seen any arguement as to why porn is bad for a 15 yo but ok for a 35 yo, yet many parents who enjoy pornography from time to time forbid it to their children. Keeping it out of the eyes of very young children who may not understand it is one thing, but basically if you are old enough to want it, you are in my opinion probably old enough to see it. Making it less of a forbidden fruit would probably solve more issues than it would create.

How about the minimum age for carrying a gun?

Minimum drinking age?

Minimum full contractual age?

How is about the right to vote - what age?

What is the minimum age for volunteering for military service?

All of these (bar one - guns) are currently being hotly debated once again in NZ. I have very mixed feelings about all of these, as you might recall from my postings when the minimum drinking age was reduced from 20 to 18. That debate, along with the minimum driving age, has resurfaced. On the latter, there was the case this last week of a 15 y-o getting his provisional licence, taking possession of his birthday present - a high powered Japanese sports saloon - and killing himself three hours later doing 135kph. He had not been drinking.