Free interactive seminar and forum held from 10.00 am to 12.30 pm on Tuesday 1 March 2005 at St James Court Conference Centre, 12 Batman Street, West Melbourne
This interactive seminar explored strategies for the prevention of alcohol-related harms to young people. Researchers and practitioners came together to address the question of whether raising the legal drinking age could be an effective strategy.
The speakers
Is there a scientific rationale for raising the drinking age to 21?
The role of parents
The youth perspective
Is there a scientific rationale for raising the drinking age to 21?
Associate Professor John Toumbourou , Centre for Adolescent Health, The University of Melbourne
Associate Professor John Toumbourou explained that the issue of minimum drinking-age reform has been raised because:
- the problem is sufficient to warrant "politically led" cultural change
- there is evidence that legislative change would significantly impact the problem
- legislative change would address underlying influences that are driving harmful youth alcohol use.
Australia currently has high rates of alcohol use by young people and a trend for use at younger ages. The patterns of alcohol use by young people are of concern because the majority of the alcohol consumed by young people is drunk at levels that exceed the recommended levels for adults. Research associates current adolescent binge drinking patterns with brain damage, and we currently have the largest cohort of young women binge drinkers in our history.
It was noted that the possible developmental harms caused by alcohol are being overlooked, such as:
- early use increasing levels of dependence
- heavy use by young women contributing to neglect of infants and children
- favourable attitudes to other substance use
- brain damage.
It is very difficult to measure these harms.
The evidence supporting minimum drinking age reform includes:
- alcohol does less harm at age 21 than at age 18
- reducing the age from age 21 to 18 consistently increased alcohol-related harms in New Zealand
- increasing the age from 18 to 21 consistently decreased alcohol-related harms and alcohol use in the United States
- an experimental legal age enforcement trial reduced harm.
Since the change in the minimum drinking age in the United States , there has been a 16 per cent reduction in alcohol-related harms and alcohol use. In a comparison between Victoria , Australia and Washington State , United States it was found that binge drinking levels are higher in Victoria .
Changing the legislation to increase the drinking age to 21 years would directly reduce the alcohol industry's focus on youth:
- an invigorated market for alcohol-free entertainment would de-link recreation from intoxication
- access to alcohol at younger ages would be reduced.
Changing the legislation can change parental attitudes:
- parents are currently the major source of alcohol for young drinkers, and their attitudes to alcohol may change if the legislation is changed
- in New York State the age 21 law led to less favourable parental attitudes.
Legislative change may reduce peer influences:
- the law plays a powerful symbolic role in shaping cultural norms
- most people obey the law
- fewer young people drinking means less pressure to drink.
If the legislation is changed, it will be important to combine harm minimisation with developmental prevention strategies. The legislation should be phased in gradually to maximise opportunities for public education, and enforcement should use civil rather than criminal penalties and include diversion practices.
A few red-herrings
- young adults have a right to drink
- BUT society has a responsibility to enact strategies known to reduce suffering and net costs
- it is considered better to encourage a Southern European drinking culture
- BUT their open approach is challenged by high youth tobacco and inhalant use and Australian culture is more like Northern Europe where early age alcohol use increases the risk of alcohol disorders
- age 21 may push binge drinking into older ages
- BUT this is likely to be less harmful.
^ Top
Raising the legal age of drinking: Where do parents fit in?
Ms Bernadette Ward , Lecturer in Public Health, La Trobe University , Bendigo
Ninety-three parents in Victoria were interviewed for a study on adolescent drinking carried out by Bernadette Ward and her colleagues. These parents could probably be classified as the "worried well" - so it may be that parents whose children are more likely to have risky/high risk drinking patterns were not recruited. The study was carried out using focus groups and interviews.
It has been found that parents have more influence on their children than they think:
- Parental values, behaviour and rules are important to adolescents - this includes, but is not restricted to, alcohol.
- Parental support and control are critical influences in adolescent alcohol use.
- Where high parental support exists, adolescents are more receptive to monitoring.
- Parental goals for socialisation are linked to parental style and practices.
What are the key issues?
Many parents have limited knowledge about the physical properties of alcohol and the associated long-term risks. Some parental strategies may have good face validity in reducing adolescent alcohol consumption but instead may be contributing to the "normalisation" of alcohol consumption and ongoing harm. There are conflicting messages about alcohol use and many parents feel isolated and powerless to do anything about adolescent alcohol consumption - they have a reactive rather than proactive stance. These issues are exacerbated for parents from rural areas.
It was suggested that the Ottawa Charter can be used as a health promotion framework. The Ottawa Charter advocates:
- building public health policy
- creating supportive environments
- strengthening community action
- helping people develop their skills
- re-orienting health services.
Building public health policy
- A change in public policy may be seen as a positive when it comes to encouraging healthy lifestyles.
- Need to ensure that there is a policy and it is supported and enforceable. Some of the parents interviewed did not want to be dictated to, or felt that changing the drinking age would not be enforceable.
Creating supportive environments
- We need to create environments that are safe, and enjoyable for all members of the community,
- Parents' perceptions of safe environments. Parents felt that if they allow their children to drink at home their children will be safe.
- Other aspects of community safety. Parents were concerned about the availability of cheap alcohol and the advertising to young people.
Strengthening community action
- Ensure that there is support for mechanisms for community to participate in decision making (particularly young people). Parents were concerned about lack of support from other parents and the community, and the permissive attitude toward drinking in our society. They didn't want to be seen as the "baddy".
Helping people develop their skills
- People need information so that they can make informed choices about the use of alcohol. Parents seem to be getting information from each other and most would like more education for their children at school. Parents felt they were more in control if they provided the alcohol themselves.
Re-orienting health services
- Health professionals must work from a base of evidence on what best works, to foster the health of people.
- We have to be careful about the line between education as empowerment and education as compliance.
- Many primary health care providers are not comfortable and mindful of the needs of young people.
Take-home messages
- Alcohol consumption is a community issue.
- Policy change needs to occur within a health promotion framework.
- Structural problems need to be addressed.
- The community (particularly young people and parents) need to be heard and involved in decision making.
- Parents need to feel empowered to provide adolescent support that is evidence-based
- All sectors need to be orientated towards the needs of young people.
^ Top
Why a parenting program?
Mr Dale Stagg, Coordinator, How to drug-proof your kids, Focus on the Family Australia
A national survey by the advertising agency Clemenger Communications found that five of the top ten national concerns of parents relate to drugs:
| Drugs in schools |
65% |
| Undetected drug dealers |
63% |
| Increase in drug-related crime |
61% |
| Easier availability of drugs |
59% |
| Earlier exposure to drugs and sex |
58% |
The objectives of the Drug-proof your Kids program are:
- To help parents establish strategies for their families that will prevent drug use and reduce associated harm
- To educate and empower parents with skills and strategies that will influence their children's choices
- To increase parental awareness on current drug use
- To provide parents with relevant and reliable information
- To encourage parents to examine conflicting behaviour.
The principles of the program are:
- Importance of strong family relationships
- Purposeful communication makes a long-term difference
- Being aware and staying informed.
Part of the program notes that children grow up and change and that parents should be aware of their children's changing interests, such as:
- Who is your kid's best friend?
- What is his/her greatest fear?
- What is your child's biggest complaint about the family?
- What is his/her favourite kind of music
- What embarrasses him/her the most?
- What is your child's favourite TV program?
- What would your son/daughter wish for dinner on their birthday?
- What makes your child really angry?
- Where does your son/daughter prefer to do homework?
- What person outside the family has most influenced your child's life so far?
The program aims to show parents how to educate kids to make good choices by:
- Helping children establish boundaries
- Encourage responsible behaviour
- Build a stronger self-image in children
- Help kids know the truth about drugs
- Develop stronger social and communication skills in kids
- Encourage accountability
- Help children choose the right friends.
Lower amounts less often
It was noted that the message of lower amounts and less often "has a fashionability rating of zero". The challenge is to determine the factors that create this attitude and find ways to change it.
^ Top
Youth perspective
Jen Rose, Policy Officer, Youth Affairs Council of Victoria (YACVic)
Ms Jen Rose reported on discussions with the Youth Reference Group of the Youth Affairs Council. The general attitude of the group was that education is more important than changing the legal drinking age.
There was a general feeling that young people have difficulty accessing information about the physiological affects of alcohol. They want answers to questions such as: How much is too much? How does it affect them? What are the developmental harms? It was noted that young people often don't recognise long-term harms.
It was felt that any change in legislation would reduce the ability of young people to use alcohol responsibly. There was also concern that changing the legislation would affect recreational options; for example, seeing bands. At present there are few recreational opportunities for young people under 18 years old, and there was concern that this would be extended to age 21 if the legislation is changed.
Changing the legislation could possibly extend adolescence. Would this lead to a change in the voting age and driving age? When will young people be allowed to grow up? Will it push young people to the use of other drugs?
Ms Rose noted that if this debate continues it will be important to engage young people. It was stressed that young people should be included in the decision-making process and encouraged to reflect on this issue.
It was concluded that the issue is to change drinking patterns rather than the law. Changes in drinking patterns may be influenced by focusing on health promotion.
^ Top
Young people at risk
Mr Peter Wearne, Youth Substance Abuse Service (YSAS)
Mr Peter Wearne began his discussion by asking "What sort of society do we want to live in?" He suggested that we should not try to legislate to control people's behaviour and that communication and discussion would be more appropriate ways to make young people aware of the harmful effects of alcohol.
He suggested that a more appropriate way to deal with this issue is to regulate alcohol advertising and promotion in the same way that other drugs are regulated. It is important to empower parents and the community, and to look at the issue in terms of minimising acceptable harms and risks.
Legislative changes bring with them the associated issues of civil compliance and penalties. If someone is unable to pay a fine will they go to jail? There needs to be a discussion about how this would work.
This is a discussion about the values and the direction of our society. There are also factors other than research that should be considered, such as, what works.
The key issue is how to encourage young people to take responsibility. This could be done by using a "bottom-up" approach and engaging the key stakeholders: the community, young people and parents. It was suggested that drug use should be approached from a philosophical perspective and that the meaning and purpose that young people attribute to drug use has to be determined. Changing the legislation is sending a message of delayed responsibility.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it was agreed that the issues raised during the seminar should be part of an ongoing discussion of this topic. It was noted that the current legislation does not provide any recommendations about the use of alcohol by young people, and that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) does not advise on specific drinking limits for young people. It was agreed that this seminar was just the beginning of the debate.
Readers who wish to contribute to the discussion are invited to submit up to 200 words. Contributions will be edited and collated, and published in the DrugInfo newsletter and on the website. Send your contribution to the Editor, DrugInfo on email druginfo@adf.org.au, or fax to (03) 9328 3008.
^ Top