Premium
Safety first: Beliefs of older peers supplying alcohol to underage friends
Author(s) -
Lam Tina,
Fischer Jane,
Salom Caroline,
Ogeil Rowan,
Wilson James,
Lubman Dan I.,
Burns Lucinda,
Lenton Simon,
Gilmore William,
Chikritzhs Tanya,
Aiken Alexandra,
Allsop Steve
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
health promotion journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.515
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 2201-1617
pISSN - 1036-1073
DOI - 10.1002/hpja.378
Subject(s) - legislation , alcohol , logistic regression , medicine , public health , occupational safety and health , suicide prevention , human factors and ergonomics , psychology , social psychology , environmental health , poison control , demography , law , political science , nursing , sociology , biochemistry , chemistry , pathology
Issue addressed Underage drinkers most commonly source alcohol from older peers. However, few studies have examined older peers’ supply‐related beliefs and motivations. Methods A sample of 270 risky drinkers aged 18‐19 years were interviewed in Australia where the legal purchase age is 18. They were asked about their provision to underage friends, awareness of secondary supply legislation (intended to prohibit such supply) and 24 psycho‐legal beliefs around supply. Results Half (49%) provided alcohol to a 16‐ to 17‐year‐old friend to drink at a party they were both attending at least twice a year. Three‐quarters reported provision was okay so long as the recipient(s) were in a safe environment, and 46% reported “everyone gives alcohol to teenagers if they are in a safe environment.” There was significantly higher agreement that “my friends would think I was mean if I did not give alcohol to a friend under the age of 18” (37%), compared to “my friends would think I was uncool if I did not give alcohol to a friend under the age of 18” (26%). Two thirds (69%) felt more responsible for an underage friend's safety if they provided the alcohol. A multivariate logistic regression revealed supply was more likely if the supplier: was aged 18 compared to 19 (95% CI OR: 1.57, 4.84), male (1.06, 3.27), of a higher SES quintile (1.08, 1.80) and believed alcohol supply to minors was morally acceptable (1.01, 1.33) and normal (1.04, 1.38). Knowledge of regulatory strategies (68%) designed to prevent supply to minors, and their perceived deterrent value did not significantly impact supply. Conclusions Supply of alcohol to underage peers was perceived as morally and socially acceptable in a group of 18‐ to 19‐year‐old risky drinkers. So what? Opportunities include harm reduction initiatives that prioritise caring responsibilities towards friends, as opposed to relying on external enforcement measures alone.