Monday, December 04, 2006

Why bother keeping the law the same???

So although it has been decided to keep the drinking age 18 and above, rather than raising it back up to 20, it appears that some bars are taking matters into their own hands.

Does this mean someone could open a bar and ban all over 40s, so as there are no seedy creepy older guys in the bars??? (see stereotyping is BAD) It is ridiculous. Even if 18 and 19 year olds are deemed to be less socially responsible with their drinking, they can always be asked to leave, or kicked out, if the bar staff or bouncers feel that they have had too much to drink.

I have also been told that there are a number of bars in Wellington that are refusing entry to people under twenty and have no doubts that this will be happening in most major cities.

I would appreciate if anyone knows of any bars which are doing this to list their name and city of location under comments.

21 comments:

Pamziewamzie said...

That is, at least, one good thing about being 20 now :)

Thank god we can still drink, Welly girl...

Lyndon said...

Manager says age is not a prohibited ground for discrimination.

Manager is not right.

http://www.hrc.co.nz/index.php?p=415

welly_girl said...

I am with you on that on Pam, btw did you know you are a day older than me!!!

Seamonkey Madness said...

So what you are saying is that bar owners aren't allowed the right to decide who is and who is not allowed on their private property?

Interestingly enough over in the UK some pubs/clubs bar under-20s as well. But then again NZ doesn't quite have the yoof/chav culture that the UK does.

Tom Joad said...

'ACT On Campus opposes the Bill on the grounds of individual responsibility. While a minority of young people are irresponsible with the way they drink, this is no reason to disadvantage the responsible majority who harmlessly enjoy themselves.'

haha, ACT party members will tell you it's a civil liberty issue that 18 year olds MUST be allowed to drink in clubs. Members of the same party will also tell you that it is a civil liberties issue that bars owners be allowed to bar these same 18 year olds from said clubs. Is that a contradiction? Maybe not, but it seems ridiculous to me.

So i suppose you would argue that we should take individual choices (and drink) but if every pub in NZ banned 18 year olds, then well thats just fine. What if they banned all women, I wonder? Is that discrimination?

It seems to me everyone is keen to say what should happen (ie, bar owners should be able to ban age groups, 18 year olds should be allowed to drink, etc etc) but no one is actively engaging the problem from which this stems, which is underage and binge drinking.

Certainly private industry isn't doing anything. The idea of them-self regulating alcohol advertising is laughable, so the government does it, but still there are more liquor stores than we can shake a stick at.

Lyndon said...

Not that I'm a lawyer...

Bar owners are offering goods (and services I guessw) and possibly (I'm not sure) providing a public space.

Within that context, they can say who can and can't come on their private property unless it's because they're, for example, jewish, or brown, female, swedish, married, a national voter, or bisexual. Or old.

Failure to wear a ties in not a prohibited ground. Nor for that matter is active personal dislike (unless of course it's equivalent/based on a prohibited ground - but a complainant would presumably need to be able to show that was the case).

That would be the law. I have no problem with that.

Tom Joad said...

Well, according to the Human Rights Commission:

Discrimination occurs when a person is treated unfairly or less favourably than another person in the same or similar circumstances. Discrimination may be unlawful if it is based on one or more of the following grounds.

AGE.

Pamziewamzie said...

it's a civil liberty issue that 18 year olds MUST be allowed to drink in clubs. Members of the same party will also tell you that it is a civil liberties issue that bars owners be allowed to bar these same 18 year olds from said clubs.

Which is where that convenient philosophy, utilitarianism comes in....

Pamziewamzie said...

Oh yeah and shit - happy birthday for the 7th Welly Girl!!

Seamonkey Madness said...

Here's a novel idea. Why doesn't an 18 year-old who has enough cash, contacts and business nous open a bar specifically for 18 and 19 year-olds and ban everyone 20+?

Oh but wait...that would be discrimination.

These are business people, making a business decision. If keeping under-20s out makes business sense (in that it increases profit/turnover etc), then why shouldn't they? Or is now the fasion of the day to discriminate against successful entreprenuers?

And I'm sure there will be 18 year-olds in those bar...working behind it pulling pints. =)

Heine said...

While bars are public establishments the owner can insist on criteria to exclude younger people from the bar, which in due course is popular with licensing trust officials if it prevents underage drinking or antisocial behaviour.

Bars ban white shoes, football colours, torn jeans... already. Surely if a bar owner is not allowing 18/19 yr olds to drink there he is making a personal choice to forgo a healthier turnover to create a less youthful atmosphere for his clientele.

I personally don't care who goes into any bars. But the best thing you can do about that is not go in the first place... choice is a wonderful thing! :)

Rich said...

In Sydney there heave been threats of litigation against bars which allow girls entry and refuse males.

I know a bar in an overseas ski resort where the doorman has the ability to remember everyone who's ever been in and how much they spent. They then admit the queue in order of spendiness. The trouble is it means the place is really dull, being full of bloated plutocrats and there partners. The owner's a wealthy man though.

Martli said...

"haha, ACT party members will tell you it's a civil liberty issue that 18 year olds MUST be allowed to drink in clubs. Members of the same party will also tell you that it is a civil liberties issue that bars owners be allowed to bar these same 18 year olds from said clubs. Is that a contradiction? Maybe not, but it seems ridiculous to me."

ACT supports Adult's right to make their own choices, as long as they don't affect the same right for others. 18 seems a reasonable age to be considered an Adult and so at this age you should be allowed to purchase drink alcohol if you chose to. At the same time however, if the person selling you alcohol choses not to sell you their property (ie the acohol you wish to aquire) then it is their choice to give up the money they recieve and you'll have to try your luck elsewhere. Just becuase you can drink doesn't mean you have an automatic right to buy all of the alcohol in the world. I can live in a house if I chose to, but this doesn't mean I can automatically live in anyone's house.

Tom Joad said...

ok. I agree with the concept except for the last bit. BUT.

The HRC dictates it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics, including age. Concession is made for, say, consensual sex, buying alcohol, etc, being age restricted. What is the difference between stopping a moslem coming into a club (or a man etc) and stopping someone legally entitled to consume alcohol from consuming it, simply because of their age? Its not a rhetorical its an actual question. I assume we agree it is inherently wrong to stop say, black people coming into your club, because that is racist.

I'm more interested in solving the problem which this issue revolves around, than sticking rigidly to some fated philosophy. For example - a big part of the problem of binge drinking is people drinking at street parties or at the beach or in a public place, and causing trouble there, or driving from that place and killing somebody. Is it not patently obvious that telling 18 and 19 year olds that they can drink, and then stopping them doing so in a supervised venue BECAUSE they are 18 or 19, is going to exacerbate the problem of unsupervised (and therefore higher risk) drinking?

Tom Joad said...

'Just becuase you can drink doesn't mean you have an automatic right to buy all of the alcohol in the world. I can live in a house if I chose to, but this doesn't mean I can automatically live in anyone's house.'

This doesnt really make sense - the analogy is obviously flawed. BUT I see what you're saying, and personally, I wouldn't mind going to a club where the youngest person in there is 20. That would suit me fine. In fact, it might even make more money for the business, and I know ACT is all for making more money. But what if this ability to make money comes at the expense of worsening the problem of youth drinking, whereby ACT campaigns to keep the drinking age low, and then supports the right of publicans to keep young people out of their pubs, forcing young people to source alcohol from an off-licence, and obviously consume alcohol unsupervised.

Obviously 1 bar choosing to stop 18-19 year olds in will not have this effect in total, but what if it catches on? If it is a business decision for one club, and it sticks, won't it be a logical business decision for another club, and another?

Seamonkey Madness said...

"Obviously 1 bar choosing to stop 18-19 year olds in will not have this effect in total, but what if it catches on? If it is a business decision for one club, and it sticks, won't it be a logical business decision for another club, and another?"

Which brings me back to my argument. If all the bars in a town decide to ban under 20's (for whatever reason they may choose), then why doesn't an 18 year-old scream 'Enough is enough!' and open up their own bar for 18 & 19 year-olds?

And also
"forcing young people to source alcohol from an off-licence, and obviously consume alcohol unsupervised"

Yes, we are forcing young people to drink. WTF!? Tom, am I forcing you to drink through some subliminal telepathic thought direct to your brain? Is that why you choose to drink - because I force you?

Going one step further in the 'what if-bars-do-not-serve-under'20s-then-they-are-going-to-have-to-drink-unsupervised' argument.
WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?

Martli said...

If the trend catches on then I imagine it would open up a huge market for pubs that serve 18 and 19 year olds. There is no doubt that 18 and 19 year olds spend a lot of money on alcohol - any smart person can see this and take advantage of it.

I think we both agree that this sort of discrimination is wrong. The difference being you see it neccesary to tell everyone it's wrong and hence they're not allowed to do it (and I suppose by law they may not be), while I acknowledge that it's wrong, but support the right of people to chose what happens on their own property. In my opinion, there is no difference between a black person being denied entry and an 18 or 19 year old being denied entry, apart from the fact that an 18 or 19 will eventually grow out of it (this obviously doesn't make it any better). But what it boils down to however is the rights of the property owner to choose who comes onto their property. In my opinion, if a person doesn't want a black person on their property based on their race then they should be entitlted to make this choice, they're just a dickhead if they do. I can't imagine that in this day and age many people would hold high opinions of a racist bar-owner. I don't believe in forcing my own morals onto other people.

If a group of mormons comes to your door wishing to come in and speak to you about their faith, are you obliged to let them in? Is it discrimination on the basis of religion if you (politely) tell them to fuck off?

Heine said...

Tom... what gave you the idea that ACT was all about the money?

That is as stupid as me saying the Greens are just there to hug as many trees as they can. If your your political arguments are that sound then why even bother to get out of bed everyday?

SMM, the left don't think about the role of parents because they believe Govt knows best, that Govt can do a better job than parents and so on.

Tom Joad said...

and therein, monkey, is the problem with your whole argument. You go on about 'choice' and 'personal responsibility' to the point that you (and i mean you, collectively, like-minded) will wash your hands of problems that need addressing.

Are you denying that we have a problem with a youth drinking culture? I hope not. WE're not alone, as a country, but its patently obvious that underage drinking is a problem. In fact, drinking of most ages is a problem, but it is a particular type of problem amongst young people.

So, when I say we are 'forcing' young people to drink in a certain environment, i'm taking into account a little thing called 'present day reality.' THat is, young people are drinking, LEGALLY, thanks in part to your party (at least you might claim it so.) So you have supported their right to CHOOSE to drink, and now you are saying nobody is FORCING them to drink, despite the reality that they ARE drinking and that this IS causing a terrible problem. A problem, which, I am sure, we have all come into contact with.

Yes, the parents shoulder blame. So do the kiddies. So does effective advertising. But pointing the blame finger is clearly not the solution, and neither is your philosophical argument for letting bar-owners dictate the terms of engagement, and campainging for the liberty to drink at 18, yet refusing to acknowledge or address the problem beyond 'nobody should be forced to do anything.'

Intriguing.

But fair points, Martli.

Tom Joad said...

''SMM, the left don't think about the role of parents because they believe Govt knows best, that Govt can do a better job than parents and so on.''

Heine, you have to be kidding me. Mine was a lame dig, in amongst an argument, which you didnt address. And this is your response? A rambling, obviously ridiculous smear?

I get out of bed each day because I can only spend so long with your mother.

Heine said...

Well you're right about the lame bit. My mother thought the same :)