Opinions - All Privileges at 18-- your thoughts?

[Cathay]

I was talking with someone this weekend who suggested that all privileges should be allowed upon reaching one's eighteenth birthday. By priviliges, she meant:

>ability to purchase and consume alcohol
>purchase cigarettes
>purchase or own up to 1 ounce of cannabis
>enlist in the military
>gamble
>purchase lottery tickets
>drive

Do you agree with this? Is this fair?

[yaba]

Yes and were I am living thats how it is except for the cannabis, its still a class C !
And here you can buy lottery tickets at 16. And join the army at 16 (with parents consent)

[runitsthepolice]

I think you should have to be 21 to buy alcohol from a store but you should be able to drink and possess it at 18. Same for weed. This will limit access of younger teens. Also I think you should be able to drive at 16 years old.

[Evil GIR]

Yeah I think you shouldn't be able to buy alcohol unless your over 21 too as there is too many chavs and yobs getting wasted in the uk then running around stabbing everyone.

[RDP]

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

Yeah I think you shudnt be able to buy alchol unless your over 21 too as there is too many chavs and yobs getting wasted in the uk then running around stabbiong everyone.

I agree, here we have too many problems of unemployed miserable youths who have nothing better to do than get drunk and become agressive and rob people who have more than themselves. I think parents should be able to gradually introduce sensible drinking, but to allow 18 year-olds to buy cheap, strong alcohol is a recepie for trouble.

[mickey_bee]

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

Yeah I think you shouldn't be able to buy alcohol unless your over 21 too as there is too many chavs and yobs getting wasted in the uk then running around stabbing everyone.

The age restriction however has absolutely no effect on stopping them getting alcohol.
If underage little s**ts are getting alcohol when the legal limit for it is 18, what makes you think they will suddenly miraculously be unable to get it when the age limit is raised by 3 years?
E's, coke, mushrooms, LSD, cannabis, speed etc. are all completely illegal yet swim could get hold of them even more easily than alcohol when he was underage!
Prohibiting stuff doesn't stop people who want to get it, getting it. FACT.

[PsychoActivist]

I voted yes. Though it's not that I think that once your 18 you should be able to buy alcohol, it's just that I believe that the age limit should be the same for alcohol purchase as it is for going to jail and being tried as an adult. Even though the draft doesn't really exist anymore, (does it?) if you are old enough to go off to war and kill people and stand a chance at "dying for your country" that country should also allow you to buy alcohol.

Privileges and punishments should be given at equal age. Whether 18 would be the appropriate age for this or not, I'm not quite sure where exactly I stand, but I certainly believe the age limits should be equal there.

[Nature Boy]

Not that I care about alcohol, if weed were to attain a similar legal status, I would prefer the age to be set to 21 as a safeguard against prohibiting it again. Once you take measures, within reason, to curb teenage use (and I don't mean proximity to schools bans) then the "won't someone think of the children" argument goes out the door.

[cannabis-sam]

In my opinion if you're old enough to die in the name of your country at 16 you should be allowed to use drugs at 16. If you're allowed to drive a car at seventeen you should be able to take drugs, if you can work and pay taxes at sixteen you should have the same rights as everyone else. I think 14, 15 is a bit on the young side, but I think it's better to let them do it at sixteen than to have them get an older brother or sister or a fake ID and get it anyway.

Depends what you define as being an adult.

cannabis-sam added 7 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...

Maybe cannabis should be 16 or 18 and alcohol be 21 I guarentee alcohol related crime would go right down.

Also theres plenty of chavs over 21 who cause plenty of problems.

[amadeusstoner]

If you are considered old enough to die for your country I believe you should be allowed to have a drink.

[Pope Albacore]

Originally Posted by amadeusstoner

If you are considered old enough to die for your country I believe you should be allowed to have a drink.

I agree with this to a point. In my experience, it seems that most people(everyone is different) do not really reach a mature state of mind until they are in their late 20's to early 30's but good luck making the age of "legal" deviance older than 21. Keep in mind this is just my opinion. That being said I believe that a bombardment of education in the subjects of drugs, alcohol, and firearms should be dished out until the age of 21(if not further in life). At this point I believe that everything should be permitted. Still, the debate for pushing the age further past the 21st birthday is open.

Education is important here. Handing liquored up idiots guns and keys to SUVs is always going to be a problem. Human beings are just motherfuckers.

-Pope Albacore

[KomradeShivi]

I don't believe there should be an age limit to anything.
But then again I don't really believe in laws either....

[Evil GIR]

Originally Posted by KomradeShivi

I don't believe there should be an age limit to anything.
But then again I don't really believe in laws either....

So you beleive in murder and theft then ?
Without laws all the ass holes out there would quickly turn the world into a mad max play pen or the wild west. I dont wana live in a world of the surviavl of the fittest wins, or thoes with the best weapon.

[Coconut]

Can we not let this degenerate into an anarchism debate? Try to stay directly on-topic.

I agree with Nature Boy in this case, in terms of Cannabis. With alcohol, adults are responsible for as much reckless, drunken behaviour as teenagers, perhaps more.

[nate81]

anarchy is romantic but impossible to sustain for people. We're pack animals who demand someone to make our decisions for us (in general).

I agree that a country who asks their young to risk their lives should let them get drunk or high too. Good policy IMO.

[doggy_hat]

>ability to purchase and consume alcohol: 21 to purchase, 18 to legally possess or to be drunk. And no age limit for minors to drink with parent consent. That way parents can legally allow there child to drink small quantities and get accustomed to the idea of moderation before they're exposed to alcohol elsewhere.

>purchase cigarettes: 21 to buy, 18 to legally possess, no age limit with parents' consent. I think it should be 21 to buy in order to limit high school aged kids access to tobacco via an 18 year old friend. Most minors don't seem to realize how completely pointless and damaging cigarettes are, and are already addicted by time they realize they wish they didn't smoke. So I believe the age limit should be higher, and hopefully people will know better by time they're old enough.

>purchase or own up to 1 ounce of cannabis: 18 to buy, no age limit for parents' consent. You can't really get fucked up from smoking alot like you can from drinking excessively, it's not particularly habit forming like tobacco, overall it's rather benign, so I think it should be legal to buy at 18.

>enlist in the military: Getting paid to go to a foreign country and kill people should be outright illegal.

>gamble: No age limit. I don't really understand why this is even illegal in some places.
>purchase lottery tickets: No age limit.
>drive: 18 years old. I don't think 16 years olds are mature enough to be trusted behind the wheel.

[shivakiva2112]

Yes, you should be allowed all these privileges at 18. Actually, I'd go a step further and say that qualified applicants be allowed to purchase any substance legally, with the degree of qualification increasing proportionally with the degree of risk inherent in the recreational use of said substance. Also, 2 years of mandatory military/community service starting on the 2nd day of the 19th year of life of every able citizen.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by shivakiva2112

Also, 2 years of mandatory military/community service starting on the 2nd day of the 19th year of life of every able citizen.

No. I'd rather take my punishment and go to prison than bow down to slavery.

This kind of attitude is linked very closely to drug prohibition, where the state thinks it can tell the people what to do because it knows better than us and we need to be ruled.

Adults should be able to possess, buy or manufacture any substance, but private individuals or organisations which supply the necessary materials, or the substances themselves, should restrict sales to over 18s or over 21s.

[shivakiva2112]

Originally Posted by Coconut

No. I'd rather take my punishment and go to prison than bow down to slavery.

It isn't slavery, it's birth right...I believe this would solve many problems in America, it would be the one compulsory service that every person would have to take part in, rich/poor, black/white...it could be a great equalizer.

Even taxes aren't compulsory for everyone, poor people don't pay them. And I think if everyone's children were in the army (including the rich D.C. politicos) we would be less inclined as a state to go about invading other countries...the government has a good defense when they say that the army is an all-volunteer army, public opinion means fuckall to the Armed Forces because there is no compulsory service. If the Armed Forces were merely the long arm of the people, the politicians would have to make smarter decisions about where the military goes and what it does while there.

Not to mention that many people would elect to do community service instead, giving the state a readily available supply of cheap labor, which could be used to fix up our sagging infrastructure or produce low cost food supplies.

The fact that the Army is a volunteer army means that still the only people who join are people who have, essentially, no way out, and many of them (no offense to members of the US Armed Forces) are well below average intelligence. I don't want to depend on the uneducated working poor for my national defense, but I don't want to sign up for a four year tour either...now 2 years sounds a little better, especially if it gives me an opportunity to do some public service, to travel, to achieve and maintain a high level of physical fitness, and have some general National team-building with my fellow citizens of youth.

I'm sure this sounds overtly nationalistic and I want to add that I am not a nationalist, or even a statist, I am a citizen of Earth and all people are my brethren/sistren. But as a pragmatist I recognize that nation-states exist and that they are all flawed, I want mine to be less flawed and I think that compulsory military/community service and the license to drug plan are two unconventional (in America) ways that we could fix things up around here.

[pinksox]

The fact that the Army is a volunteer army means that still the only people who join are people who have, essentially, no way out, and many of them (no offense to members of the US Armed Forces) are well below average intelligence.

That's not necessarily true. All four of the Military Academies, are among the top colleges in the U.S. and the education they offer is near second to none. Competition to get in is highly competitive and on par with what one would find at any Ivy league school...except they expect their candidates to excel athletically as well as academically. If one is not a straight-A high school student with excellent ACT/SAT scores and a decent athlete to boot, they're going to have virtually zero change of getting accepted by one of those institutions.

SWIMS daughter has wanted to be a doctor since 3rd grade...she's in high school now and the Naval Academy is one of the top choices on her list.

Even among the enlisted if one doesn't have a high school diploma/equivalency, they're going to have a difficult time getting in...and if you're not smart, you're not going to be selected to any meaningful position. They don't put idiots in charge of million/billion dollar equipment.

Anyway...SWIM doesn't think setting the drinking age at 21 is a bad idea...for several reasons actually.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for mentioning the academies, I wish your daughter luck in her efforts.

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by shivakiva2112

It isn't slavery, it's birth right...I believe this would solve many problems in America, it would be the one compulsory service that every person would have to take part in, rich/poor, black/white...it could be a great equalizer.

Forcing someone to labor against their will, with the threat of police and prisons if they refuse, is slavery. It doesn't matter how pretty a dress you put on it, it is still slavery. My birthright is to be a free individual.

If war is your concern, you should look toward shrinking or disbanding existing armies, not creating new ones.


ECL
(Though it would be almost poetic - a wonderful illustration of human nature and civilization - if the first black president were the one to bring back slavery.)

[Pope Albacore]

Originally Posted by shivakiva2112

Yes, you should be allowed all these privileges at 18. Actually, I'd go a step further and say that qualified applicants be allowed to purchase any substance legally, with the degree of qualification increasing proportionally with the degree of risk inherent in the recreational use of said substance. Also, 2 years of mandatory military/community service starting on the 2nd day of the 19th year of life of every able citizen.

I could say that as far as a degree goes...I could work with you on that. That speaks of one being educated on the facts and possible dangers of substances. As far as mandatory military and/or community service goes...that rings the bell to the tune of of Germany circa 1934.

-Pope Albacore

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by Pope Albacore

As far as mandatory military and/or community service goes...that rings the bell to the tune of of Germany circa 1934.

A lot of nations today have such measures.

People should be able to volunteer to join a military at a certain age, but no be forced into it.

Why limit the availability of any drugs past a certain age? If accurate, factual and objective information is freely available to the public then everyone past a certain age should have unlimited access. Accidents will happen but this is called evolution. Those who are stupid enough to ignore common sense and safety measures won't last.

[El Calico Loco]

I've often suspected that many of the ills in my increasingly childish and narcissistic society can be traced to the extended adolescence we foist upon our young. I think some things might be better if there were a single age at which point everyone was considered an adult and expected to act like it - one age at which individuals gain all the benefits of adulthood and are considered responsible for their actions.

I'm not sure what the age should be. I think the Hebrews might have it right at 13. If you're old enough to reproduce, you're old enough to ruin someone's life, so maybe one ought to have some sense of responsibility by then. But I'm a bit of a radical. 18 might work.


ECL

[Junkhead23]

Originally Posted by Pope Albacore

I could say that as far as a degree goes...I could work with you on that. That speaks of one being educated on the facts and possible dangers of substances. As far as mandatory military and/or community service goes...that rings the bell to the tune of of Germany circa 1934.

-Pope Albacore

Actually you will find that Britain did this until 31 December 1960. It was called your national service. My grandad did it in the RAF and we were the good guys.