According to this article:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/brea … =223353661
So where is the age of majority? Is it 18 or 21? This issue has always irritated me since I was that age. This second class citizenship for those of an age falls within the no-man land consistently makes my skin crawl.
Either you make everyone under 21 years a 'minor' in all aspects of their relationship to the 'majority' or everyone over 18 are adults with all the responsibilities and obligations left to adults. But this quasi, half-assed relationship is not fair to these young people.
I welcome your thoughts.....
This should be so simple - age of majority should be the same age our country can ask its service men and women to die for their country - 18!
Leave it to politicians, the pious, and know-betters to screw-up such a simple and logical concept.
The key is to identify the supporters of such legislation - then vote their butts out!
As you said, everything changes yet all remains the same. I was making that same rallying cry in the early seventies, I am just as fervent about it today. Those that continue to promote such things I will vote out of office.
Every parent knows that maturity is a process, not a sudden event that corresponds to a certain age. That's why wise parents gradually ease up on the supervision, instead of suddenly ending it because their child has reached a certain age.
The fact is there is no one age that's appropriate for all adult activities. While 18 is fine for certain things, we don't raise the driving age to 18. I don't want 18-year olds to be able to legally purchase handguns without parental consent. I think it's prudent to require school bus drivers to be 21 instead of 18. Ditto for the age to enter a casino.
There is a case for raising the smoking age. The fact is that very few smokers start after age 21. If we can discourage smoking by less mature teens, they may never get addicted. Besides, far more smokers, almost all of whom started in their teens, eventually die from smoking tobacco than from smoking weed.
I see your point. It's a fair point. Still, I support state rights, the tenth amendment. Each state can choose for itself.
Eh, I think its a tad hypocritical to say that the federal government shouldn't pass laws that restrict freedom, yet have no problem when a state does it.
States rights should be recognized when the states are acting in accordance with people's right to live freely.
I never said states should pass laws that restrict freedom. Those are your words and apparently, your opinion.
Conversely, it's just as hypocritical to say the states shouldn't pass laws that restrict freedom, yet have no problem when the federal government does it.
How am I putting words in your mouth? You support the right of a state to pass such a law..yet, I guarantee you and the other conservatives on this board would scream bloody murder if the federal government tried to do the same thing.
Does a minimum age for adult activities violate the Constitution? No.
When I hear the cry of states rights, I think of George Wallace and Jefferson Davis.
The constitution provides for the idea of federalism, and I acknowledge that but the 14th amendment 'equal protection' applies to residents of California as well as those in Georgia.
Could the state of Virginia ban interracial marriage on the basis of 'States Rights'? 'Loving vs Virginia in 1967 ruled from the Supreme Court says that there are limits to what a state can legislate for its residents.
I don't like the idea of some adults under state government allowed to make make law for other adults solely on the basis of age of those adults. This is not a choice, some states allow a right turn on red and others do not, that is well within the proper purview of 'states rights'. This is beyond the pale, these 18 year olds here have the right to vote, so where is the fairness with the legislature mandating based on perceived danger of tobacco, attempting to protect a sliver of the adult population from their rightful choice. That is not 'states rights'.
So even though the amount of fatalities based on alcohol for those 18-21 is high, what is the very next to highest group?
The two next largest groups were between the ages of 24-35 and 36-44, respectively. So what do we do with these people?
When I think of state rights, I think of Thomas Jefferson and the greatest constitution on earth. The federal government has an important roll, and there ARE laws that need to come from Washington. You mentioned some instances when states were curtailing basic freedoms and the federal government needed to step in and protect rights. I believe that local governments, however, tend to do a better job of representing the views and ideology of local constituents. I know you will disagree, but I do not believe that this an issue that needs to be decided at the federal level. I believe each state can handle this without federal intervention.
It sounds as if you're arguing to lower the drinking age to 18. And the handgun purchase age without parental consent as well.
We tried that experiment with lower drinking ages in various states during the 1970s. What we found is greater alcohol accessibility by younger teens when 18-year olds can legally buy it. We found more drinking and driving. Since the national age-21 policy,, which was signed in to law by Reagan in 1984, there has been a significant decline in alcohol-related traffic deaths among teens. The studies attribute an average 13% decline to the uniform drinking age.
Totally agree, 18 year olds vote and fight in wars. However, in many states, they are not allowed to imbibe alcoholic beverages. There are many 18 to 21 year olds who are more wise and mature regarding imbibing alcoholic beverages than those over 21 years of age. Maturity and stoic realistic intelligence is a state of mind, not necessarily a number! There are some sheltered over 21s whose maturity level is analogous to a young teenager while there are some 18-21s whose maturity level is analogous to a 40 year old. Generalizations is moot regarding the issue at hand.
The same goes with tobacco. I find that proposal to be highly moronic in its context. The same abovementioned reasoning applies. There are some 18-21s who are highly responsible regarding tobacco choice while there are over 21s who AREN'T! Maturity is not necessarily related to chronological age in many cases.
Brain research in recent years finds the judgment centers of the brain continue maturing into the early 20s. The average 18-year old has less mature judgment than he or she will three or four years later.
In addition, the younger people in our culture are when they start imbibing, the greater the risk of addiction. Younger drinkers get addicted faster than more mature ones. Americans who don't start drinking until after they reach 21 have much lower rates of alcoholism than those who started earlier.
I agree with you. Just pick an age already. Whether it be 18, 19, 20, or 21, draw a clear line, and then leave it the heck alone. There's a lot to be said for consistency.
There is nothing surprising about this at all. For years, there has been a strong push to remove tobacco from society, and this is simply another angle to push on in the ever growing fight to end the rights of people to live as they wish. The do-gooders never stop; they know how you should live and will force you into their mold. It may take one law, it may take a dozen small chips at your freedoms, but it WILL happen.
Think that's overboard? Look at who is backing the bill: the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Hawaii. Not the coalition to limit tobacco to adults, the coalition to get tobacco OUT of Hawaii. Just another small step in the agenda.
The nanny state is alive and well, with young adults in Hawaii just the latest victim.
I don't know about you, but I'm darned glad smoking was banned on domestic plane trips. I also appreciate no smoking in indoor public places in Illinois. You can argue that those laws protect the freedom of some people to not breath harmful fumes by limiting the freedom of others to produce those fumes. I'm on the side of the airplane passenger to not be forced to sit between two smokers, which used to happen before the federal law banning smoking.
How about this for ridiculous.
Most of it has been fixed now, but Britain used to have the silliest laws regarding sex and age of majority.
You could legally have heterosexual sex at 16...
...but not legally purchase porn until 18.
Whatever you feel about porn, that's silly.
Yes, our young people are infantilized to AN EXTREME DEGREE in this postmodern, American society much to the detriment of their mental, emotional, and psychological development! No wonder so many young adults in our society have a very low maturity level when they enter adult society or the real world.
Get rid of the laws. What? Are parents incapable of teaching their children the dangers of drug abuse? Must the state be the parents' parents?
Laws do have to apply to 'minors'. Does not libertarianism provide for the protection given minors in our society? There needs to be a difference in their relationship with the law relative to that of adults.
My issue is that access to tobacco and alcohol should be restricted to adults 18 and over, because I can legally hold them responsible for abuse of adult privileges. Since those under 18 are the responsibility of parent or guardian, they cannot be held legally responsible for choices that they make in the same way, so restrictions are necessary. Is it ok under libertarianism for a liquor store to sell a 10 year old a bottle of Scotch?
Precisely because children are the responsibility of parents is the reason specific laws are unnecessary. Parents are in a much better position to decide how mature their children are, and thus know what age is appropriate for them to consume alcohol or any other drug, than some arbitrary line the government puts in. I was a responsible enough kid at 15 to know that drinking too much is bad for you, and drank anyway without killing anybody, but there are some people at 21 I wouldn't trust with a half pint of light beer. it's no black and white thing, and it's unfair to punish the responsible ones for the sake of an irresponsible few.
After all, alcohol abuse is nothing to do with the law. Both the UK and France have the same age limit for the selling of alcohol: 18. However, the UK has a considerable binge drinking culture that does not seem to be a problem in France. Why is that? Well, culturally, it is acceptable for French children of a certain age (maybe 12 and over) to drink alcohol with their parents at dinner, so perhaps the novelty value of drinking has been lost by the time they are 18 and they drink it more sanely as a consequence. Here in the UK, it seems to be a thing (that I don't quite understand myself), to get absolutely smashed as soon as you turn 18, and then you do that every weekend until you get sick or have a car accident or something. It's a cultural thing that can't be cured by a simple regulation.
As far as libertarianism is concerned, each libertarian may have his or her own opinion as to whether it is "OK" to sell liquor to a 10 year-old, but none of them would advocate violence to prevent the transaction from occurring, which is the key difference, and why fundamentally I am against age-limits on the selling of alcohol, in addition to the fact that it adds a novelty value to young people who might want to consume it precisely because it is illegal.
Of course some are. So is it okay for those kids to use drugs because they happened to get crappy druggie parents?
No, it's not okay if they have bad parents, but that's where America is now. The government has to come in and do what parents should be doing; personal responsibility isn't valued like it should be.
I am just saying, if you leave things to parents, people with bad parents don't get those things. You either care about that, or not. There are ways other than laws to assure badly parented kids are still covered, but these programs need funding. But if you just say -- leave to to the parents and that's it -- that means some kids get screwed over.
I want to hear you say "I find the use of violence acceptable to prevent individuals under the age of 18 (or whatever you prefer) from obtaining alcohol", because that is what we are talking about here. There is nothing stopping you right now from agitating for a cultural change that would encourage more responsible alcohol consumption and/or funding groups that do so. Arguing for laws is arguing for violence, nothing more.
I simply don't believe that the government is the answer. You peaked my interest when you said, "There are ways other than laws to assure badly parented kids are still covered. . . " If these ways do not include the government, please enlighten me. I'm very interested in solutions.
I'm not interested in whether it's "okay", I'm interested in whether it is justified to use violence to prevent the act from occurring.
It's not uncommon for parents to allow their children to drink alcohol with them, but that's not considered a grave national problem for some reason. We trust the parents in that case, but we're not supposed to trust parents to know when to allow their children to consume drugs, if any. It's none of my business, except if the children are experiencing serious neglect or are being forced to consume drugs. I mean, it goes on anyway, despite the laws, which is something we have to accept. My position is to simply remove violence from the situation, which can only exacerbate any problems that currently persist.
If you are personally against children consuming drugs, you need to agitate for a cultural change, because the laws are not helping.
Meanwhile, Innersmith, in the world of libertarianism, if Government law is so unnecessary as you say how about an answer to the question: Can the liquor store owner sell scotch to the 10 year old, just because she wants a bottle and can pay for it?
The law helps parents, instead of leaving them on their own. Would you really repeal all minimum age laws for alcohol, tobacco, gambling and guns on the grounds that it should be solely up to parents??
How, exactly? There's evidence to suggest that the laws create the opposite effect intended, and therefore inhibit the parents' ability to regulate their children's behaviour. My other point is that there are responsible 15 year olds who are punished by the laws - so we say screw them over a handful of families who are irresponsible? That is not how to run a society.
Yes I would.
== Yes I would. ==
Thanks for your direct reply. I respectfully disagree. I don't think it would be advisable to allow 15- year olds to buy handguns without parental consent. Nor do I think 12-year olds should be purchasing cigarettes or alcohol. But you're free to advocate for repeal of all age-purchase laws.
The laws help, innersmith. A responsible society has to create an age of majority and otherwise. Where on earth do things you advocate actually work in practice? If that is libertarianism, it always sound great in theory. But like I said about minimum wage, ninety percent of the worlds nations operate with one, Is it possible that they know and have experience of a reality that you are unaware of?
Paul, I still believe that having the franchise and being eligible for the draft constitutes being an adult across the spectrum of privileges and responsibilities set aside for adults only. I don't think it is fair on those that are over 18 for others to decide they are not old enough to do this or that when they can be held responsible as and adult in every other way. I am only interesting in restrictions on those younger because the current law does not make them responsible for their behavior and actions. It has to be either 18 or 21, I would resent this quasi thing that says that I am to be treated as an adult in the responsibilty area, but am not allowed to drink or smoke. Who gets to make that decision for a select few, who would have the temerity to impose such a thing?
Innersmith, the 'line' has to be drawn somewhere, I just ask that it be one number (age) and consistent.
How about this compromise? When and if the draft ever returns and we start drafting 18-year olds, then those drafted should have the same rights that 21-year olds now enjoy. Until then, however, it's appropriate to recognize that maturity is a gradual process, not something that happens on one's 18th birthday. We experimented with a lower drinking age during the 1970s, and found it led to increased drinking at even younger ages.
Well, Paul, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Yes, there is no draft, but if I recall those males 18 and over still have to register with selective service, same difference. I always have a problem with second class citizenship, for me and many others the age of majority is at 18. If it should be 21, then we need to define those that are younger as 'minors' in the eyes of the law and treat them as such as presently the lattitude is given in our society to those 17 and younger. Why should the adult at 18 have their choices resticted because those younger tend to violate drinking ordinances more frequently?
Great discourse, I look forward to similar discussion on other issues of the day, thanks
For the sake of consistency, would you raise the driving age to 18, since that is the adult activity that takes the most young lives? If so, then I might support your call for consistency.
You'd also have to amend the Constitution to change the minimum ages to serve in the House, the Senate and the Presidency. All are well above 18.
Accused criminals younger than 18 are sometimes charged as adults for certain serious crimes. The USA is notorious for imposing life sentences upon minors for crimes committed before 18. We used to execute them until the SCOTUS stopped us. If we aren't going to give them rights, then we should hold them equally accountable with adults. Which means we stop charging juveniles as adults.
Here are some other things that persons under 21 aren't allowed to do, at least in the Land of Lincoln:
* purchase a handgun without parental consent
* drive a school bus
* enter a casino
* work as a bartender
* become a police officer
* be licensed as an interstate trucker
* be elected to the legislature
I hear you Paul, minors under 18 can drive, but with restrictions, curfews and such that do not apply to adults that can to be held responsible for their own behavior, I cannot say that for anyone under 18 in the same way. But to protect the idea of consistency, I would raise it to 18 in a heartbeat.
I would not change the Constitution, we are talking about eligibility for a job, not basic rights of fellow citizens.
I am opposed to treating minors as adults and treating adults as minors. It is interesting how the Supreme Court recently rules that those that commit a capital crime as a minor cannot be subject to the death penalty. So, everybody recognizes the 'line'. A 17 year old has neither the rights nor the responsibility of adults and should be treated accordingly. I say we should stop charging junveniles as adults, there is my consistency. Nobody is saying that they should get off, but that the way the legal machinery operates on their behalf should be different as he or she is a minor, under the law.
Age related qualifications for jobs lean a great deal on experience and not so much that the 18 year old intrinsically is a child in the way the 17 year old is considered in our society. We all make these arbitrary decisions as to who gets to do what, I always questioned how valid they are.
For me, having the obligation to choose your leaders or be old enough to lay down your life for your country in military, who says that I can't have a drink or choose gamble if I wish?
Since you mentioned draft registration at 18 as a justification for lowering all ages to 18, logically shouldn't that apply only to men, since women are not required to register?
On the contrary, Paul, I fervently believe that this requirement for registration should apply to women as well, in all fairness. After all, I don't want to be sexist in regards to how privileges and responsibilities are apportioned in our culture.
Maybe is should, but it does not so apply. Consequently, the argument that 18-year olds should be treated like adults in everything because they are treated like adults in one thing currently applies solely to young men. Perhaps some day it will include young women, though that issue doesn't appear to be on anyone's political agenda.
"though that issue doesn't appear to be on anyone's political agenda"
Right Paul, but if we are serious about an egalitarian society, woman cannot complain about inequity in society if they are not willing to carry their share of the burden, that is a given. The pressure to amend this is going to come sooner rather than later.
The two things: sacrificing our most prized possession, our very lives and being considered mature enough to make critical decisions about who is going to lead us are huge and clearly delineates between one status verses the other.
by dutchman1951 8 years ago
Should the Courts allow this? Why would a Foreign government be allowed to sue any US State? Have we already lost State rights? What the H... are we doing, even entertaining a idea like this for?
by Demas W Jasper 2 years ago
It's ironic? The Democrat/Dixiecrats used to be the champions of state's rights the Repubs are now!AT a senior center today the Pledge of Allegiance was said which includes "and to the republic for which it stands." Power closer to the people and the businesses that pay the taxes...
by ga anderson 5 years ago
The conservatives are going nuts.The fanatics are screaming, "Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge."Tea Party and Republican politicians are flocking to get on camera in support of rancher Cliven Bundy.But, Is this rancher right?The gist:A cattle rancher grazes his cattle on public land. His...
by TheSituation 9 years ago
What do you all think about this one? Seems like some good fodder for my fellow hubbers.
by Peeples 3 years ago
What are the positives of allowing individual states more control?I find it kind of weird that we are the "United States" yet the goal seems to be independent states making their own laws which can contradict other states. What are the positives of allowing states to have the ability to...
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
... are trying to encourage those who fall in the Medicaid gap they created to move out of their State? Hospitals in those States are reporting increased unpaid (meaning you paid) emergency room visits from this group.
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|