The Public Department Commission on Demographics, Family Protection, Children, and Traditional Family Values recently floated a policy idea that would raise the minimum age for purchasing strong alcohol to 21. This proposal drew cautious responses from lawmakers who prefer careful consideration before changing purchase rules. The commission framing suggests a link between alcohol access and broader social goals, including family stability and youth protection, rather than a sudden nationwide shift.
According to the commission’s briefing, the plan would limit the sale of spirits above 16.5 percent alcohol by volume to adults aged 21 and older. The proposal aims to pair the drinking age with other age-related milestones and to synchronize policy levers that influence youth risk exposure while keeping implementation gradual and manageable for retailers and enforcement agencies alike.
One member of the commission, Sergey Rybalchenko, who leads the Demography and Family Protection subcommittee, argued for connecting the alcohol purchase age to the broader idea of raising the military age in the future. He suggested that any ban should be introduced in stages rather than imposed in a single, abrupt step, citing the need to observe social impact and to adjust policies as experiences accumulate. This approach reflects a concern for stability in both families and communities, as well as for orderly enforcement across different jurisdictions and retail environments.
In a related discussion, Sultan Khamzaev, a former State Duma deputy and head of the Sober Russia initiative, met with Mikhail Murashko, the head of the health ministry, to explore practical controls on alcohol and tobacco purchases. The core idea was to restrict payment methods for these products, proposing that transactions be conducted only via bank cards. Proponents argue that limiting payment options could help curb impulsive buying, improve age verification, and support enforcement efforts. Critics, however, caution about the possible inconveniences for consumers and the need to safeguard privacy and financial inclusion.
Overall, the dialogue underscores a broader public interest in aligning age-based restrictions with efforts to reduce alcohol-related harm among younger populations. Supporters emphasize that a phased, clearly communicated approach would allow for evidence gathering and policy adjustment, while opponents call for careful consideration of economic impact on retailers and regional differences in consumption patterns. The debate continues as lawmakers weigh how best to balance public health objectives with individual freedoms and practical implementation concerns. This ongoing conversation highlights the role of family protection advocates in shaping policy, alongside health authorities and economic stakeholders, in a broader effort to support healthier communities and resilient families [Attribution: Public Department Discussion Documents].