The latest Canadian study confirms yet again that legalization of cannabis did NOT actually cause carnage on the highways like the fearmongers had predicted. And that is for a country that legalized the herb for everyone over 18 at the federal level, while individual provinces could set it higher (currently 18 in Alberta, 18 in Quebec until it was raised to 21 in early 2020, and 19 for all other provinces). Despite the generally lower age limits in Canada, these results dovetail nicely with those of most studies of the several US states that legalized it for people over 21.
And yes, the most recent study looked at Alberta (18) along with Ontario (19), both provinces whose legal toking ages are equivalent to their drinking and smoking ages. Neither province showed significant increases in traffic-related ER visits post-legalization, whether for young people or otherwise. Really.
In other words, regardless of the age limit chosen, cannabis legalization was NOT a disaster after all. So what are we waiting for? Let's do the Alberta model (legal at 18 for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, period) in all US states and territories. Yesterday.
It would be better if the minimum age was lowered to 18 for alcoholic beverages, Cannabis and Tobacco because young adults who are 18-20 years old would have their rights respected. There would not be an increase in smoking or vaping among people who are 18-20 years old because the allure of tobacco products is going away for people of all ages. Cannabis legalization and with a minimum age of 18 would not mean an increase in hospital visits or car crashes. People know what responsibility is and are expected to follow it.
ReplyDeleteEven Alistair Cooke agreed with you:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jgn3DlAH7A
Never understood this line of logic. It’s illegal to drive drunk and illegal to drive high and there are severe legal consequences for both. Look at the damage alcohol has down for highways in both countries (US & Canada) yet it’s a substance we still tolerate and have as a social drug.
ReplyDeleteAlcoholic beverages are beverages which require responsible behavior and consumption. Unfortunately, some people are irresponsible when it comes to alcoholic beverages which then gets blamed on the alcoholic beverages but instead the blame should be blamed on the person who made the irresponsible decisions.
DeleteIndeed. It is pseudo-logic.
DeleteThe health Minister of Russia wants the drinking age to be raised to 21 in Russia.
ReplyDeleteIt is medical fascism.
DeleteProbably because they’re trying to shed their reputation of being a nation of heavy drinkers and they have been some steps to combat alcoholism since 2006. According to them, they saw teenagers take up drinking more during lockdown (so did adults) because of stress, so they’re trying to curb access.
DeleteRussia is trying going about reducing binge drinking and alcoholism the wrong way. Russia should keep it drinking age at 18 and increase taxes on alcoholic beverages. A drinking age of 21 would be the wrong answer.
DeleteBut it’s not a surprise. Imagine being 18-19, and being cut off from your friends or your peer group who are still very much important to you at that age, and being told you have to stay inside indefinitely. Teenagers/young adults don’t always cope with adversity in healthy ways, but it doesn’t mean that a temporary uptick means that they’re on a downward spiral. Instead of addressing any potential mental health concerns, you punish them, and that’s wrong. People of all ages reported on relying on vices more throughout lockdown. If adults are drinking more where teens are in the home, then some teens will emulate that behavior and see it as normal.
DeleteThat is correct. In the U.S., people think that people who are 18-20 years old are separate from the general society. Hence, the discriminatory laws, such as the drinking age and gambling age. Society would rather believe in fiction than believe that young adults who are 18-20 deserve their rights. It's a shame.
DeleteAnd it shouldn’t be so, they may be more vulnerable in some ways, but for all legal intents and purposes we’ve called them adults. We don’t take away rights from elderly adults, and neither should we take away rights from young adults simply because some will make mistakes. Risks (to an extent) and making mistakes is a part of growing up.
DeleteIf anything it goes to show why 21 is probably a bit late to introduce drinking. People become legal adults at 18, and go off to college or whatever path they choose for themselves but alcohol is still seen as a taboo and when they get their hands on it the thrill of it being a forbidden fruit can cause excess drinking. If you set at 18, where many teens will still be at home, they can have their first legal drinks with their parents who can teach and encourage safe and responsible drinking. Colleges will be able to do the same thing for their first year students. All I know, is that if you tell someone that they can’t do something or you try to make it taboo they’re going to rebel.
ReplyDeleteExactly.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteA person who is 18 years old should be treated as an adult. Alcoholic beverages are not harmful to those who are 18 years old. Junk science falsely accuses alcoholic beverages of being harmful to those who are 18. A person who is 18 years old should not be considered developing. Therefore, the drinking age should be lowered to 18.
DeleteThe drinking age of 21 is a discriminatory minimum age for responsible drinking of alcoholic beverages. The drinking age of 21 does not deserve to be enforced. Increasing enforcement to enforce the ageist drinking age of 21 is counterintuitive and is a waste of resources. Alcoholic beverages are not harmful to those who are 18 years old. Only a person who believes in junk science would believe that. A drinking age of 18 would not allow those who are 17 or under to drink alcoholic beverages, including if provided by those who are 18. The drinking age should be lowered to 18.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteHistory shows that when you age-restrict substances, they become more attractive to youth. Alistair Cooke was right. Drinking age laws don't work. They are a great deal of trouble to enforce, and they do far more harm than good.
Delete18-19 year Olds are young adults, not "teens". Attending an institution of higher education should not make a person less of an adult. What matters is that a person is able to make responsible decisions when it comes to alcoholic beverages, not medical facism as supported by the anonymous commenter. The minimum age to rent a car should be lowered to 18, buy guns and serve in the military. A person should not be a full grown adult to drink alcoholic beverages responsibly. A person who is 18 years old would know and follow alcohol responsibility.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteProtecting people from themselves from harmless activities is tolitharianism, it is tyranny.
DeleteThe generation when the drinking age was lowered to 18 was a different generation. It was a generation that didn't place emphasis on alcohol responsibility. Young adults who are 18-20 years old should not be put into the same statistics as those who are 16-17 years old. If you want to review statistics, then they need to be done correctly. Young adults who are 18-20 years old are responsible drivers.
DeleteMr or Mrs. Anonymous, I think you're leaving something out.
ReplyDelete"The 21- to 24-year-old age group had the
highest percentage (27%) of drivers with
BACs of .08 g/dL or higher in fatal crashes
compared to other age groups in 2018." To play devil's advocate if you really cared about crash rates, why are you only discriminating against 18-20 year olds?
Exactly, ageists support the ageist drinking age of 21 because they have ageist opinions of people who are 18-20 years old. Discriminatory attitudes lead to discriminatory laws. As for the statistics, creating a stronger culture of alcohol responsibility for people who are 18 and older would decrease drunk driving crashes among that age group.
Delete@anonymous3214 To possibly give the benefit of the doubt you're not trolling, you bring up a lot of points and there are many common-sense solutions to the drunk driving issue raised.
ReplyDelete1.) Yes, 18-19 year olds are technically teens, but in the legal system we either recognize them as adults or minors. In most countries, including the US (more or less) they're adults. Which means that they deserve the respect and autonomy that average adults are entitled to.
2.) You bring up that many of them shouldn't be treated as adults because they're still at home or supported by their parents. While we all want to strive for self-sufficiency, would you revoke the rights of those 21+ who still live at home or attend college? what about elderly adults who may need support? Would you strip them of their independence? vulnerability does not stop just because you're an adult. If parent's decide that they want to help to their young adult sons or daughters as they get started in life, that's their choice. Under most circumstances, parent's are not obligated to do so, but if they do that's an agreement that is made between the adult parents and their adult sons or daughters. That doesn't mean young adults should lose decision-making power over their own lives.
3.) Alcohol is not inherently harmful, if you are taught moderation and social responsibility. Young adults should know the consequences of drinking and driving and we have laws on the books for that purpose. The drinking age here in Alberta is 18, and everyone who has a full driver's licence falls under the same standards when it comes to permissible BAC levels while driving. Whether 18 or 38. You choose not to follow it, you get a huge fine and licence revoked.
4.) The issue raised about university students having alcohol related incidents on campus is because if you have a drinking age of 21, that automatically means that more than half of the campus population is drinking illegally. It pushes it underground because they do not want to get in trouble. As Edwin pointed out, if you make it 18, they can gather safely with their peers on college bars where things are a bit more monitored and colleges/universities have more freedom to instill the concept of responsibility. As one 20-year-old commenter said, students don't want to implicate themselves so they don't seek help. If everyone is old enough, that anxiety is gone.
5.) In order to have freedom, society sometimes has to accept the risks that some freedom comes with. That's an inescapable truth. We definitely should stress social responsibility, but some people won't always do the right thing. We already tried banning alcohol for everyone. Prohibition was a failure. Some young adults will make stupid choices, that does not mean that the majority who are responsible should be punished or vilified. Young adults will make mistakes, you don't stop making mistakes once you become an adult. 18-20 year olds may make more of them, but that doesn't justify stripping an entire class of adults of their rights.
You are absolutely right. Thanks.
DeleteVery well-said, StraightOuttaYYC. I couldn't have said it better myself.
DeleteOh, and in terms of statistics, they can change and you have to look at it in it's entire context. For example here in Alberta, in 2016, it was true that males between the ages of 18 and 21 were most likely to be involved in a collision impaired crash .Males between 18 and 21 years of age are most likely to have been drinking before the crash.
ReplyDeleteIn 2018, it was males between the ages of 20 and 21. "In terms of involvement per 1,000 licensed drivers, males between 20 and 21 years of age were most
likely to have been legally impaired. There were over three times as many male impaired drivers as
female impaired drivers."
However the year prior to that (2017) it was "In terms of involvement per 1,000 licensed drivers, males between 22 and 24 years of age were most
likely to have been legally impaired. There were over three times as many male impaired drivers as
female impaired drivers." The age range of who is responsible fluctuates every year. Are we going to keep changing the legal drinking age every year to keep up? are we going to ban young males from drinking?
Indeed, the ageists need to be very careful what they wish for...
DeleteTo the anonymous troll: the 21 drinking age is an ageist abomination and the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition. The best it can possibly do is temporarily delay some alcohol-related deaths and injuries by a few years at most (what we would now call "flattening the curve" in the lingua franca of 2020-2021), and at worst, it actually makes alcohol far more dangerous than it has to be for 18-20 year olds by forcing it underground. The majority of 18-20 year olds legality to one degree or another regardless of legality. Google "Miron and Tetelbaum" and you will see that the supposedly lifesaving effect of raising the drinking age to 21 has been nothing but a statistical mirage.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, punishing an entire demographic group because of the behavior of its worst members is illiberal and authoritarian and has no place in a free society. 18-20 year olds are legal adults in practically every other way, so setting the drinking age higher than the age of majority is completely arbitrary.
Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
@anonymous3214 Generation Z is already becoming a relatively tobacco-free generation as is, thanks to education and massive campaigning starting from elementary school. There was an uptick in the use of vaping products among teens, and that has also declined significantly within the past year. It's not a secret that teenagers are curious human beings and experiment. That doesn't necessarily mean they're become the next generation of smokers.
ReplyDelete1. https://www.verdict.co.uk/generational-smoking-trends-covid/
2.https://archives.drugabuse.gov/blog/post/fewer-teens-are-smoking-and-drinking#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20teens%20who,to%20use%20alcohol%20and%20tobacco.
3.)https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/14/canadian-teens-are-smoking-less-tobacco-but-marijuana-popular.html
4.)https://news.gallup.com/poll/187592/young-adults-cigarette-down-sharply.aspx
5.) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/21/generation-z-has-different-attitudes-says-a-new-report
Still, at 18 you're an adult. What an adult does to their own body (even if bad for them) is not my business. Light up, as long as you're not doing it in my face.
DeleteYou can't have a choice if you're addicted.
DeleteAnonymous, if that's what you honestly believe, then perhaps you should be advocating for capping the amount of nicotine allowed in commercial cigarettes to a non-addictive level. But for some reason, you are not. Your argument also falsely assumes that raising the age limit to 21 actually works to stop enough 18-20 year olds from smoking. As for the productivity argument, that basically just reduces human beings to mere means to an end rather than ends in themselves.
Delete(Mic drop)
How about we advocate for making it easier for college students to vote, not drink and smoke.
DeleteWhy is that mutually exclusive? In fact, for the record I actually support lowering the voting age to 16. But that is a topic for another conversation.
DeleteAnyway, back to drinking and smoking, I should also note that a genuine Pigouvian argument about externalities would also support hiking the excise taxes on both substances. That is a non-ageist way to do it, and I would be fine with that.
(Mic drop)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAn excise tax is not a discriminatory law against young adults who are 18-20 years old. You seem to justify ageist laws against this age group because you can.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@anonymous3214 Again, you're infantilizing
ReplyDeletelegal adults. Residential students who don't live in the state/territory/province in which their school resides, can get an absentee ballot. I encourage young adults to vote (although a good handful of them still don't for a number of reasons) but I can walk and chew gum at the same time. If you're old enough to vote and serve in the military, you're old enough to drink and smoke. No one is encouraging nor discouraging. It's all about the choice of the individual.
Young adults who are 18-20 years should be allowed to drink alcoholic beverages responsibly, it should be their right to do so. Claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to drink alcoholic beverages is justigying age discrimination against that age group. Regardless of whether the excuses are made, it is justifying the discrimination made against them. Young adults who are 18-20 years should be allowed to decide if they want to use tobacco products or not. Justifying a smoking age of 21 because it supposedly harms productivity goes against individual rights. The voting age is already 18, there's nothing to say about that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteDo you have any evidence to prove that the US army was lacking in capability when the smoking age was 18? Listen, it's simple for me. Either you are a grown up or not. It is bizarre to say that you given be a gun to go defend and maintain national security, vote for leaders and policies, get married, have sex, purchase guns, drive cars, go to adult prison, do jury duty, own credit cards and take on debt, etc. but they still should be treated as children? they are adults. Unless, you want adulthood to start at 21?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIn other words, no pleasure and all responsibility?
DeleteArbitrary much, Anonymous? I noticed you still listed 18 as what the age of consent for "casual" sex should be. So in other words, you are saying that it is OK for people over 21 to have sex with 18-20 year olds, all while while otherwise denying them full adult rights? Because I believe that there is a name for that, and it isn't anything good.
DeleteSo make the age of consent 21?
DeleteThe age of consent should be 16 in every state and territory of the United States. Totalitarianism is what anonymous3214 supports.
DeleteFor the record, I don't believe the age of consent for sex should be any higher than 18. Like Edwin, I would be fine with it being 16 (for noncommercial sex) as well, but I would be fine with 18 as well. Regardless, whatever age they set, I also think there should be a close-in-age exemption of three or four years if one or both people are below that age. Otherwise, such laws end up harming the very same young people they are supposed to protect. Then again, I believe that at 18, and not a day later, everyone should have full adult rights and responsibilities, period. Everything on the list above should be no higher than 18, except perhaps the age to be President or VP of a nuclear-armed superpower such as the USA, and even then, 35 is still too high IMHO.
DeleteVery much agreed with Ajax the Great .
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe age of consent should be 16 with no exceptions. "Power Play"?, that's absurd thinking.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteLet me break this down into two categories:
Delete• 18-19 year olds are adults, so it's their choice. Some will make the wrong choices, but that's what freedom is. Central planning is always worse as the state makes even worse choices than private individuals given its imperfect knowledge.
• 16-17 year olds may not yet be legal adults, but again no law can be perfect. The alternative would be a graduated system whereby 16-17 year olds are legal from those under 21 or whatever. A totally confusing system, completely impractical.
A person who is 18 should be considered to be of the age of consent. It is irrelevant to say whether a relationship is appropriate or not. It should not be the duty of the government to determine whether a relationship is appropriate or not. To get the government involved in determining relationship to be appropriate or not is totalitarianism. A person who is 18 or older is am adult and should be treated as such. Furthermore, the age of consent should be 16.
DeleteI agree with Edwin. Call it what you want, there's nothing inherently immoral about a 30-year-old "hooking up" with an 18-19 year old. Once you're an adult, age gaps should start to matter less. Are they at different life stages? Sure. Whether they decide to pursue a relationship is their business. Not every older person is out there to looking to cause harm. Many times, it's the other way around where the younger adult will initiate a relationship. Manipulation and abuse can happen between two people of the same age. There is no black and white when it comes to these things. What should be clear is that you must have respect for one another and clear boundaries and I think most decent people would agree that manipulation, coercion or abuse should not be tolerated.
DeleteAlso, try telling an 18-year-old they can't do something. They will often push back, and they have the right to do so. Stop infantilizing adults. What happens between two consenting adults is not yours or the government's business. 18-19 year olds are plenty old enough to advocate for themselves.
Well said.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe government should not be micromanaging the lives of people, especially if they are 18 or older. The U.S. is supposed to be a liberal democracy to create a free and fair society where rights are protected. Young adults are in this category. What Anonymous3214 supports is totalitarianism, it is wrong.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAnonymous3214 is an ageist troll. This person should be kicked off this blog permanently.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYour question is nonsensical. A person who is 18 years old is an adult and can enter a relationship which she or he chooses. Your question is a rhetorical question to justify your ageist attitudes against people who are 18-20 years old. It is not a real question.
DeleteI'll take that as a yes, lol.
DeleteYou're a troll and your not welcome here.
DeleteYou're* lol.
DeleteLighten up a little lol. I'm really not trying to troll.
DeleteI'm actually kind of enjoying debating you, and showing how your arguments are wrong and flawed.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAgain, who are you to assume whether someone pursuing a relationship you don't know about is wise or not? Maybe the 30-year-old cares about him/her enough, maybe they enjoy each other's company? they may share similar passions or hobbies. You're painting everyone with a broad brush. Some 18-year-olds live on their own, work a full time job, pay for their car insurance or rent, and conduct themselves as adults just fine, while you have 30-year-olds that still live with mom and dad. Your problem is that you lack the ability to see things from a nuanced perspective.
DeleteAgreed.
DeleteYour average 19-year-old may like to play video games, post silly Tiktok videos, work out at the gym, watch Netflix, they may attend college. The same could be said of a 30-year-old as well. You have people in their 30s that are obtaining higher education, and they to like netflix binge watching, like working out, and is a gamer as well. They have some things in common despite the age gap. Like I said, once you're a legal adult, dating shouldn't be strictly just about age, examine the individual for who they are.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIt shouldn't matter what your opinion is of people who are 18-19. A person who is 18-19 is foremost an adult and should be treated as such.
DeleteT@ anonymous3214 they are still adults as well. Listen man, no one is forcing you to date them, but leave others alone.
Delete"Forget government interference, it is it really wise for a 30+ something to have that relationship?"
DeleteThis is a question of government interference and the role of the state. Whether it's "wise" or not is irrelevant. In a free society, the state does not interfere with the choices of consenting adults, and people are free to make unwise choices if they want to.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIndividual rights are for the individual, whether it benefits the person or not.
DeleteWhat if we took away your right to smoke?
ReplyDeleteSomehow I don't think he would like that. Just a hunch.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYes, you are Anonymous3214. You support raising minimum ages and you support current ageist minimum ages. Your obsession with depriving the civil rights and civil liberties of young adults who are 18-20 years old is shameful. It should not be the government's duty to protect adults, including those who are 18-20 years old from themselves. It should be the government's duty to protect the rights of adults, including those who are 18-20.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSaying the phrase "under 21" is an inherently ageist phrase because it disregards the adulthood which those who are 18-20 years old have and should continue to have. It a phrase which reeks of discriminatory attitudes. The drinking age and smoking age should be lowered to 18. I am not reckless and I don't approve of recklessness. A person who is 18 years is not harmed by drinking alcoholic beverages. Only allowing people who have attained supposed "development status" is ageist. People should be allowed to drink at 18. Most of what you said about government is actually common sense that most people follow. The foremost role of government should be to protect civil rights and civil liberties.
DeleteAt 21 you still can't run for federal offices, apply for social security benefits, or rent a car without paying extra fees. Is that also ageist?
DeleteComparing the 21 drinking and smoking age (which the USA shares with only a very few other countries) with most of the other things you mention is comparing apples and oranges. And seatbelt laws are not even really universal, since New Hampshire still does not have one at all, and more than half of the states that do barely even enforce them as they only have "secondary enforcement" as currently written. As for brain development, the brain actually continues developing well into the 30s and 40s and likely beyond as well, so 21 is completely arbitrary. And while the brain is still developing beyond 18, it is no longer developing at a *fundamental* level as it does during early adolescence, and it is on the same spectrum as further development beyond 21. If the case for an age limit of 21 for either substance is so obvious, why has almost no other nation on Earth caught on yet? I can count on one hand the number of non-Muslim countries that set the drinking at 21, plus my other hand for those that set it at 19 or 20. All the rest are 18 or lower, often much lower, and loosely enforced if at all.
Deleteanonymous3214 wrote:
ReplyDelete"At 21 you still can't run for federal offices, apply for social security benefits, or rent a car without paying extra fees. Is that also ageist?"
Actually, it is. If you are treated as a responsible adult in the eyes of the law at age eighteen, then you shouldn't be subjected to any further restrictions based on age.
Well you're more trusting than I am, because an 18-year-old President or Senator frightens me.
ReplyDeleteBecause you're an ageist.
Deleteanonymous3214 wrote:
ReplyDelete"Lol my obsession? Sir, I'm not the one calling people bigots simply because I don't think people under 21 should drink or smoke. You are a very reckless person because you don't care about the health and safety of those who are still undergoing crucial brain development. The government mandates that we wear seatbelts, don't smoke in restaurants or indoor places, don't speed on the highways, don't walk around the streets naked, and a whole bunch of other things. That's the government already promoting public safety and most of society accepts that. You're a fascist because you don't tolerate other points of view."
You are clearly a socialist who thinks the government should stage-manage people's lives. I think you are reckless, Sir, in trusting the government with too much power over citizens. Hasn't history taught you anything about the risks with governments becoming too dictatorial, or that socialism and central planning simply don't work. And yes, you ARE also ageist. Don't forget that 18-20-year-olds are legal adults. Why don't you just advocate banning alcohol and tobacco entirely? No, wait, we've tried that already haven't we?
"Well you're more trusting than I am, because an 18-year-old President or Senator frightens me."
ReplyDeleteAny you would trust someone like Donald Trump even though he has the maturity of a twelve year old?
Basically if the public wants to elect an eighteen-year-old as president, then shouldn't it be their choice? The age argument could be used to justify other requirements such that a candidate should pass an IQ test. But we don't do that, because that's not how a democracy works
ReplyDelete18-year-olds barely have any real life experience outside the protective bubble of school or their parents.
DeleteThis is arbitrary. Most 21-year-olds don't have that much "experience" either. They're mostly either still at college, training, or are just starting work.
DeleteDo you think real world experience should matter for high levels of office?
DeleteIdeally, it would, as would a candidate's wisdom, intelligence, and moral integrity. But in a democracy, we leave these things to the electorate to decide upon.
DeleteDo you believe that joining the military isn't risky or potentially dangerous.
ReplyDelete(crickets chirping)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo be fair, not all positions in the military are necessarily dangerous. I still think that any one who is old enough to do anything in service to their country should be legal for everything. This anonymous guy isn’t gonna change my mind. It doesn’t matter that the original age of adulthood was 21. We lowered it to 18, because if you’re old enough to go to war and vote, then you’re an adult and should have all the freedoms of an adult. Immature or not.
DeleteDepends on the Mission Occupational Specialty but there is always the risk.
DeleteThe age of majority is better set at 18 than at 21 with all the rights and privileges that come with being of the age of majority of 18, which is reasonable.
DeleteWell, that’s the age that you graduate high school typically. So I’m not sure what you do with people for an extra 3 years.
DeleteStill, I have always wondered how these numbers are picked. I am fine with 18, but how did we once settle on 21 instead of 20 or 22.
ReplyDeleteDon't give the ageist any ideas.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteA person who is 18-19 years old is foremost an adult and not a teen. The age of majority should remain at 18 with all the rights and privileges that brings with it. Refusing to acknowledge the rights of people who are 18-19 years old is ageist discrimination. People who are 18-19 years deserve to be treated like adults. There should be no compromise when it comes to the age of majority or its rights and responsibilities. No one's rights should be denied because of ageism.
DeleteAnonymous, the word teen isn’t necessarily synonymous with being a child or minor. The legal system either recognizes you as an adult or a minor. Individuals who are 18-19 are adults who just happen to be under 20. Simple.
DeleteAgreed, but ageists are ageists.
DeleteAnd how quickly you change your stance, considering you were calling 20-year-olds immature kids.
Deleteanonymous3214 wrote:
ReplyDelete"You know what I have a compromise. Why not just make everything an even 20 instead. At 20, you're no longer a teen."
Okay to be fair, if you made everything twenty, including the age of full legal responsibility, it would at least be consistent, if still somewhat impractical. Also remember that the average person only lives to about age 75 and so you can't delay adulthood too long otherwise people don't have enough adult years left. And so eighteen is still a better age for adulthood in my opinion.
Indeed, the age of majority has been 20 in Japan for as long as anyone can remember. But even they are phasing it down to 18 by 2022 (albeit still keeping the drinking and smoking ages at 20, but enforcement seems to be kind of a joke for those there).
DeleteIndeed, any place that sets the age of majority higher than 18 always seems to carve out exceptions (often arbitrary ones) due to the impracticality of setting it that high.
DeleteAn extra two years is not really burdensome, your average 18-19 year old today from a relatively financially stable household still lives with their parents or relies on them for support in some way. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to still work, vote, or drive. They honestly wouldn't be treated that much differently from current 16-17 year olds.
ReplyDeleteA person who is 18-19 years old should be treated as an adult. A person who is 18-19 years should not be treated like a person who is 16-17 years old. It is bigotry to think that is justified to treat people who are 18-19 as less than adults because they are "teens".
Deleteanonymous3214 wrote:
ReplyDelete"You can also have the same emancipation process that would allow self-sufficient 18 and 19 year olds to be granted full adult status earlier."
This sounds impractical. Granting adult status earlier to some on the basis of their financial status creates some problems. Firstly, it sets a slippery slope as to how one defines self-sufficiency and could be open to fraud and abuse. Secondly, it would be difficult to enforce. If the drinking age is to be set lower for those granted earlier adult status, would they need special permits to show they are legally allowed to drink? This system would be open to further fraud as well as creating even more bureaucracy for those selling alcohol.
Your argument could also be extended to 16 and 17 year olds who are self-sufficient. But would be impractical for the same reasons as stated above. It's best to just have eighteen as the consistent standard for adulthood for everyone.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteOn the contrary, pushing adulthood to 20 would have an impact. First, as I said, people graduate high school at age 18 (typically). Once you finish high school, any further education is up to you. Outside of that is either a trade school/apprentice program, the army, or getting a full-time job. Not every parent wants their son/daughter to go to college, or join the military. If the age of majority was 20, your parents would be in charge of making decisions where it concerns you for two additional years after it makes any sense to do so.
DeleteYou would need your parent's permission to sign a contract. You wouldn't be able to buy a car in your own name, sign for a bank loan or credit card, sign a lease for an apartment, join the military, get a marriage license, buy property, etc with out their involvement. For 18-19 year olds in abusive situations, they wouldn't be able to leave as easily if there is mistreatment or abuse in the home.
However, there is nothing wrong with 18-19 year olds living at home. Yes they are adults, but they are young and just getting started in life. Not every 18-year-old living at home is being a "leech". They may still have to work or attend college (or a combination of both) or contribute to the living expenses as a condition of being allowed to stay. They shouldn't lose their status as adults because they want to stay home and save up.
The age of majority should be 18, the drinking age should be 18, the minimum age to smoke tobacco should be 18, the minimum age to smoke Cannabis should be 18 and the minimum age to gamble at casinos should be 18. A person who is 18 should not be an emancipated minor to to the things that they should be allowed to. That is why rightfully, the age of majority was lowered to 18 in the 1960s and 1970s. It is bigotry to make the point that revocation of rights is justified. It is bigotry and oppressive.
Delete"They shouldn't lose their status as adults because they want to stay home and save up."
ReplyDeleteWell said, Straightouttacalgary.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWhether a person is independent or not is irrelevant. A person who is 18 years should be considered an adult and should be treated as such. Furthermore, people who are 18-19 years old would like to become independent like anyone would. Therefore, young adults who are 18-19 years old should be allowed to continue their journey towards achieving their independence. The age of majority should never be higher than 18. Infantilization is tyranny and totalitarianism.
DeletePretty much agree. No one is saying independence happens overnight. A big part of independence is being allowed to make your decisions (even bad ones) and learn and grow. That won’t happen if you keep delaying adulthood.
DeleteAnd the brain development argument should not be the main criteria for determining rights. Punishing adults under 21 for any lingering frontal lobe development not within their control is wrong. We never use the brain argument where it applies to the elderly. I think the right question is whether an 18, 19, 20-year-old is developed enough to function as an adult, and my answer is yes, so I find it weird how in the US that answer changes depending on the activity.
ReplyDeleteScience should not be used to determine civil rights and civil liberties. To use Science to determine civil rights and civil liberties is totalitarianism. Civil rights and civil liberties should be determined from the perspectives of a free and fair society. A person who is 18 years old is responsible enough to be of the age of majority and to have the rights and privileges which come with it. The frontal lobe excuse is not a good excuse to deny people who are 18-20 years, their civil rights and civil liberties.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere should be no such thing as "underage adults" when referring to someone who is 18-20 years old or older. That term should be an oxymoron. It is ageist terminology.
DeleteWe would love to have them for a visit, but they should be able to drink in the land of the free.
Deleteanonymous3214 wrote:
ReplyDelete"Correct me If I'm wrong, but if you're not independent, should you really be called an adult?"
Yes, you should. You cannot base adulthood on weather or not someone is 'independent'. Pensioners are not financially independent, neither are stay-at-home house wives. Are you saying they shouldn't be considered adults?
Lol, Bingo.
ReplyDeleteAnd again no one is saying that you become fully independent overnight the moment you hit 18. We’re just saying that while they establish their own way in the world, they should be allowed full rights and privileges as an acknowledgment of that.
ReplyDeleteIf there is any further trolling here I will delete the entire thread of comments. This is your final warning.
ReplyDeleteBe warned, I will no longer tolerate any trolling on this blog. If it continues, I will delete the entire threads that contain trolling comments.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous, this is my last message regarding this whole topic as this was technically suppose to be a thread about cannabis and car accidents. All your hypotheticals and questions can be answered by simply reading the blog at your own leisure. Everyone in this thread gave pretty good explainations for why we believe what we believe. If you believe that 21 should be adulthood, fine, you're free to believe that, but the reason you're being met with hostility is that you are looking for every reason to take people's freedoms away (including mine, even though 21 is a matter of months away for me) for no good reason other than "that's what it used to be" you're not alone in your views, but this is not the blog for it. No one is encouraging me to do anything. This is one of the few blogs that views the rights of young adults in a favorable light with well thought out arguments. You're not looking to have your view changed, you want to be combative. Until you do, take care.
ReplyDeleteI reported anonymous to the administrator when they started being condescending towards you. I felt they crossed the line and I felt I had no choice.
DeleteI noticed that too, and it was uncalled for and he only did that because he's frustrated no one is buying into the arguments.
DeleteHe handled it pretty maturely though. 20-year-olds are still adult individuals who deserve basic respect.
@grantma808 don't let that troll upset you. I certainly am not encouraging you to do anything you don't want to do, but you are 20, that means you are a grownup, an adult, and I won't apologize for saying adults can do what they want with their bodies, even if they are young. Anybody who thinks otherwise, is a member of the nanny state.
DeleteI apologize if you felt that I was being condescending to you. That wasn't my intention, honestly. I respect that you'll make your own decisions, I was just saying don't feel pressured, especially since you noted that you were in college. Enjoy the rest of your semester, and take care.
Delete