The legal drinking age: stout Crikey readers whine

Crikey readers weigh in on the prospect of raising the drinking age to 21, the Green Loans scheme and Barnaby Joyce's role as Opposition financial minister.

Drinking age:

Max Laughton writes: Re. “Should the legal drinking age be raised to reduce road deaths?” (yesterday, item 12). Dr Alex Wodak stated in yesterday’s article, “Just imagine trying to defend this policy against concerns that a 20-year-old Australian is considered mature enough to vote and even die serving his or her country but not considered mature enough to enjoy a beer with the family at Christmas!”

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

5 thoughts on “The legal drinking age: stout Crikey readers whine

  1. shepherdmarilyn

    Rudd did say he couldn’t think of any reason to raise the drinking age to 21 or did the media all miss the reality in the rush to have a beat up about not much.

  2. Graham Cairns

    Ummm … that’s not a gum tree, old or otherwise.

    It’s a mangrove – and it was used because the outdoor setting being used for the clip was at risk of being inundated by the rising tide.

  3. Tom

    ‘On a sweet tooth’ – having just finished the absolutely brilliant Bad Science ( by NHS Doctor and Guardian columnist Ben Goldacre, my first though was to Google Dr Rosemary Stanton, nutritionist (Dr Ben does not like or trust them very much!!). Imagine my surprise when it turns out Dr Rosemary actually has a science degree in biochemistry as opposed to the usual “I have a doctorate but am technically not able to call myself Doctor as my correspondence based degree, (US$600) is from the university of MyBackShed in Utah which mainstream academia for some reason refuse to acknowledge. A sensible, knowledge based bashing of some VERY poor journalism. In my empire, every so called health journo across all mediums would be tied down and have Godacre’s book read to them twice before they can again put pen to paper. Anyone else who chooses to read it will also understand the abject idiocy of ‘Brain Gym’, that people who ‘detox’ are gullible morons, nutritionists (without proper science degrees) are the biggest bunch of hoodwinking ratbags ‘the market’ ever produced, how the weirdest religious cults don’t get within a million miles of the fanciful stuff espoused by proponents of homeopathy and most beautifully, just how absolutely crap the press is when reporting science. Dr Rosemary, well done!! if when next you write you give Cochrane and Systematic a plug I might even look you up on Amazon.

  4. chinda63

    He’s also got a koala sitting near him.

    If it was a kookaburra I’d be getting suspicious, but I suspect all that is going on here is the visual referencing of various pieces of Australiana.

  5. meski

    @Tom Richman: Two words – strawman argument.

    A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details