Rudd wants to lift legal drinking age | National News | Breaking National News in Australia

Bring it on.

This is another example for revenue collection in court fines to saddled all young people between the age of 16 and 21 also charge and fine their adult suppliers/dealers for secretly selling, obtaining, smuggling, producing alcohol, with doubling the liquor licensing fees, penalising rural pups and hotels, killing entertainments, festivals, and the tourism trade.
Imagine this is an Industry that brings billions of Dollar revenue for those fat cat pollies if they succeed in this drinking age lobby.

The secret Drugs use haven't done any cure but escalated to epidemic proportions across this nation and the same will be happen with this NONSENSE Rudd policy in legal drinking age.
Don't we know for haven sake this Labour government is trying all means to prop up their own mismanagement with more ridicules obstacles and lies by setting up legal thieving policies..!!
Aussies how dump are you, you must be "21" before you can have a social drink with no fears to be fined by those Rudd's alcohol Commissioners ..???
Would it better we have schools with well educated teachers that can teach their students about manners, values and responsibilities..???

When will Rudd have enough control over people's lives? From carbon taxes to internet censorship to this, Rudd is going to go down in history of the Prime Minister that wasn't seen but whose presence was felt.

I think it is a good idea to raise the legal drinking age, but along with it, give sensible education to youngsters about the dangers of alcohol and nicotine addiction. My son, who's now 20, thinks he needs 6 drinks to "feel it" and this kind of ridiculous peer pressure is widespread! They need to realise that alcohol is also an addictive drug, which can addle their minds very quickly, and ruin their lives!
Better to educate them so that they realise that in moderation, it could be a pleasant social experience.

Talk about being taken out of context.

I watched the show and Rudd made an, "Of course" response to the question but quickly began backing out and watering down his repsonse. I thought at the time that the media would swoop on his initial response and they have not let me down.

Predictor. Surely manners, values and responsibilities are squarely the domain of parents. Perhaps if parent were doing a better job of teaching their kids about respect for themselves and others before they got to school, we wouldn't be having this debate. And no, I'm not a teacher.
On the surface of things seems kids today are far less able to responsibly approach alcohol consumption. This is likely a factor of general maturity levels and increased affluence; that is a greater number can afford to consume at greater levels than at any time in our past.

RE: Predicktor from Moore Park. This is not another way of raising revenue by the Government, quite the opposite. Alcohol is heavily taxed and to reduce the polulation of those able to purchase (by raising the legal age) that would infact reduce the revenue from alchol tax for the government. This is not a fascist decision, nor is it one that looks to encroach on civil liberties. Its about limiting a drug that harms a person's developing brain. Next time you read the newspaper, have a look at how many horrible stories are related to alcohol. And if you think about it, they've got the rest of their lives to drink booze, so three less years isn't going to harm anyone.

The media should hang their head low. Talk about taking a comments made out of context.

There is no set age limit for stupidity and to say we live with risk may be true but it’s not our risk if someone else kills you or a family member when they drink and drive. It’s their risk at our expense.

Allowing others to kill people just because the government doesn’t want to miss out on precious alcohol tax revenue is no doubt why they keep the .05 systems in place. It’s not about saving peoples lives its about the government getting their fair share of the tax loot.

Allowing a system whereby people are allowed to drink in moderation up to .05 only says to people its okay to drink and drive. So in actual fact there is no proper mentality behind the actual regulation.

Zero alcohol limits would say to everyone it’s not okay to drink and drive. This is a regulation that at least has a realistic mentality about it. Changing drink age limits won’t make any difference.

How can people be expected to regulate themselves into taking the right quantity of alcohol during the right timeframe and then be expected to get in their cars and make an accurate decision? It’s bogus regulation that is flawed.

The government is at fault for the loss of lives because it’s their duty of care to provide laws that are at least sensible and accurate enough for people to follow. Allowing people to have some drugs in their system is not an accurate law that can ever be enforced.

A zero tolerance law needs to be introduced for all alcohol and mind altering drugs. Until this is done the government is at fault. Currently the government is running a broken system that never will work and it’s only a revenue-raising scheme under the .05 system.

Mr Rudd did not say that that he supported raising the legal drinking age to 21. He said that if he was exposed to strong evidence which supported it, then his government would need to look at the issue. This is a far cry from suggesting, supporting or doing it.
Will he raise the legal drinking age? Of course not. The drinking of young people is a solid revenue raiser (alcohol is taxed) for the government. Young people also tend to vote Labor. It wouldn't be in Rudd's political interests to raise the legal limit.
Should he raise it? Of course. Young people's brains haven't even fully developed until they turn (at least) 21. Education, awareness campaigns and raising the age limit. Works for me...
Dr Patricia Petersen

Batman Calling ! ! !

At Aged 18, You Can Go To War And " KILL " People, So " WHY " Can You " NOT " Be Able To " DRINK " At The Age Of 18 ? ? ?

A " DOUBLE STANDED ", If I`ve Ever Seen Or Heared Of One ! ! !

Batman

I saw the footage as well, and the Prime Minister merely said that it was his personal opinion about raising the age limit on drinking. He has no plans or legislation plans to actually lift the limit but since people keep bringing it up, he has said that if someone can show him evidence that doing so would be effective then that's what he would push towards.

Drinking age regulation is decided by state governments Not the federal government. Kevin Rudd said he'd "personally like to see the legal drinking age lifted to 21"
Rudd was merely expressing his opinion.

There is a drinking history/culture in Australia which unfortunately promotes and applaudes drinking from a very early age. We celebrate with alcohol with toasts and "social" drinks to catch up. The yard glass mentality that dicates that at the age of 18 you must get "legless" officially, you are then allowed to behave badly and have an excuse. I am aware of a teenager that was teased because he was not getting legless at the age of 14, he was a bit of an outsider.
How can we expect our kids not to drink if the example we show them is that to be happy and social you need a glass of alcohol in your hands. Unfortunately, it is not a simplistic answer, we the adults have to change before we can expect any change in the younger generation. After all it is a drug we are talking about it kills, it destroys lives and feelings and families, yet it is legal and applauded.
The legal drinking age has become almost irrelevant because parents buy their kids the alcohol believing that maybe if they control what their kids drink somehow its ok. If the parents dont buy it older friends brothers or sisters buy it. The change has to come from the examples of trusted and respected family members and other cultural change.

Good post, Equalizer.

Our first currency was rum - and we've never gotten over it. Anyone ever heard of the Rum Corp or the Rum Rebellion? Most will draw a blank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sout...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_Rebe...

We've been an alcoholic society, maintained and fed by a co-dependant government since the very beginning.

Tony Abbott used the same line of slack, opportunist logic and narrow vision as Batman666 does.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/...

War? - Yes, you're old (or, more precisely, young and dumb) enough to join the army - to kill and die in some foreign land for vague, dubious reasons. Any older and you start getting too smart for it. They'd probably take you at 14 or 15 if they could.

Driving? - 16 years and 9 months (not 18) is FAR TOO YOUNG to have a driver's license. If we are serious about saving lives, these laws desperately need changing and tightening (no knee-jerks please).

The vast majority of kids this age simply do not have the neccessary skills, starting with basic concentration. But it's politically unpopular so we keep pussy-footing around - and our kids keep dying in carloads.

And, lastly, the right to vote. I'm not even sure that whole age group, 18 - 21, is old enough for that - they sure don't act, think or talk like it. As a group; most individualsI; I certainly didn't. Most over 25 or 30 will admit it.

The overall maturity, the neccessary experience, the insight into the community are just not there - generally speaking.

There are, of course, exceptions, as always. And they do stand out. But they are just that - he exceptions, not the rule.

There is no line of logic, maturity, or morality to be drawn between killing or dying (in war), driving a car, voting in local elections or teenage (late childhood) binge drinking.

But, as I've noted previously, why wouldn't Tony Abbott jump on the back of 18 year old knee-jerks and media hysteria - he's that kinda guy. A real winner...

You all forgetting something ?
The government should control the age of pregnancies while they're at it!!!
Not old enough to drink until 21 - please....
But old enough to have a kid and get paid for it at 16 and under Der!!!