A lot of conversations this weekend about raising the legal age to drink in Ireland from 18 to 21. Will this help curb our drinking culture? I don't think so.
I'm not necessarily against legislation designed for social engineering (i.e. to change people's habits). Less smoking is not a bad thing. Less plastic bag waste, ditto.
However, I'm not convinced raising the legal age at which one may drink to 21 will change people's habits.
Why not? Well, for a number of reasons. First, there's "Drinking at home". You can stop someone buying drink for themselves until their 21, but you can't stop their parents giving them alcohol. From my experience, many people I know were allowed a glass of wine at 16, a beer at 17. There was a sense of maturity and 'coming of age' about it all. Sometimes, you got drunk, and sometimes even vomited. But, all at home where you were safe and sound. With the decline in pub numbers already quite obvious, increasing the age at which people can drink will simply increase the time people spend drinking at home, with their parents - or indeed their friends.
Then, you have the opposite of this. The "Cider Binge". This kind of drinking often occurs around the same time. There is less parental guidance, and more drunkenness and vomiting.
This period is usually over at 17 (at the latest). Raising the legal limit for drinking will also extend this period.
Also, there's the question of "Delayed Rebellion". Anecdotally, I've heard a huge dearth of stories about people who didn't really get into drinking until later in life, and ended up going completely off the rails. Some people (with no scientific backing, but with some weight of experience), claim that those who start drinking later, end up drinking longer. And often to the excess that crashes lives. There is some sense in this - think of being 16, 17 or 18 and being able to drink yourself into oblivion. Next day, you feel rotten to the core. Your head hurts, belly is contracting and there's an overheated chill running up and down your flesh. You'll never drink again. You do this six or seven times over three to four years, and soon you start to figure out your limit. Soon, you start to get sick of missing the 'day after' because you're creased into a couch. Soon, you start to get sick of missing the night itself, because everything after 9.30 is a complete blank. Sometimes you go through periods of feeling guilt for not being able to remember - because you've no idea how badly you lost control. At 16, 17 or 18, this is (roughly) harmless. It's the kind of thing that's been done for generations. It's also something you grow out of. And growing out of it takes time and experience.
Then, there's the simple question of being a "Culture that respects inebriation". No matter what anyone says, the Irish love a few drinks. And I for one, am completely behind this. Yes, alcohol can destroy lives, but it can also be the source of great fun, loosening up that builds bridges. Homer Simpson said it best when he raised a toast to alcohol: "Cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!" The Irish like to be 'affected'. Be it by communion wine, pints, shots, glasses, pills, powders, sprays... Raising the legal age at which one can buy alcohol may - if it's enforced stringently - push people toward other methods of inebriation. Coke and smoke being top of the list here. But, maybe you can get people back into sniffing glue or inhaling deodorants. I'd love to read the book about professionals and middle classes, piling into office block cubicles to "Spray up" - Professionals Perfumed: Inhaling An Escape.
All in all, it seems to me that raising the legal age at which one can drink is a mis-placement of effort. What needs to be done is to encourage a more responsible approach to drinking and inebriation. The first thing that probably needs to be tackled is the "I've had seven pints, and I'm not affected at all!" attitude. This not only adds to public disorder, but also drink driving ('Sure, I'm fine! I'll chance it!). We need to learn how to know when we're drunk, when we need to start taking it easy, and when we need to stop.
On Raising the Legal Drinking Age in Ireland
Sexing Up The Dossers
A conversation over lunch introduces me to the concept of "Sex hair", which my wife tells me is also called "Bed hair". This is a popular barnet treatment, whereby the young lady of the day spends three hours trying to get her hair to look like it might if she just spent 15 minutes in the sack with some sexy hunk (although, hunk is not the mot juste - that was a word used when I was a teen).
It raises the question of what sexual liberation has done. What has it done to the younger generation?
My thinking is that sexual liberation, of itself, has done nothing to the younger generation. What we often blame liberation for is actually the meeting place of two issues - "Irony" as the humorous genre of the day and the marketing of sex to younger individuals.
The latter first, because I'm a fuddy duddy, and like to do things backwards (oooh, reverend!). Sex is no longer just liberated as an idea (or, indeed act). It's now actively marketed towards young people. If she wanted, Emily - my five year old daughter - could have Playboy bunny dolls (not dolls of Playboy bunnies, but Bunny toys, in fluffy pink, with the deliriously fashionable logo. Of course, it's probably just a matter of time before I could buy Playboy bunny dolls...). Luckily, Emily doesn't know what she wants. But apparently, four year olds now want thongs (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/warning-against-sexy-childrens-clothes-1265024.html).
Sex is now being marketed toward children. Playboy do a range of pencil cases. Some 'musical act' (marketed with 'Pester Power') sing a song with the lyrics "I'm just a love machine/feeding my fantasy/Give me a kiss or three!" Nine year olds are wearing tops with Vs to get them comfortable with showing off their cleavage when they're older. And belly tops, so they learn to understand the allure of a sexy stomach. Much of this is excess, as they've been learning from the age of four that making sure you can get laid is of the utmost importance.
You can blame anything. You can blame everything. Sex is being beamed directly to our children's minds: Bratz dolls, Teen mags, soap operas, ads, ads, ads... if you're not doing it, you aren't doing anything is the message. But of course, I should lighten up. No one wants to see our seven-year olds in flagrante delicto. All of this, it's ironic, isn't it? It's funny because we don't mean it.
But do the kids know that?
The second problem, after the marketing of sex to children, is that of irony. Irony requires some level of sophistication to interpret. Toward adults, irony can split your sides, and leave you ROFL. Towards children, the best of irony may well be considered the 'truth' - the way it is, or the way people think it should be. Because irony - at its best - is subtle. However, children are not ready to understand the subtleties of irony because they don't have the experience or the education to see the point of it. So when you think "Won't it be funny to see Stacey-Jane in a thong" or "Why don't we put Britney-Christina in a basque for the birthday party?" They don't see the irony. They think: It's good to be sexy. Important. Vital. And if they figure out irony, they may well think "Oh, my parents don't want me to have sex. But if I do that guy, it'd be really ironic, because it's what they don't want me to do - and they always get a kick out of hearing about things they think shouldn't happen."
It all ends up with these kids getting promiscuous, getting pregnant or getting some STD. Or, it just ends up with these kids completely messed up in the head because they feel they don't want to have sex, but they should be. Kids are idiots. They are not fully-formed people, much as others would like to think they are. They need guidance and discipline. Of course, I may well just be being ironic...
