Age Limits

With everyone except a few here being of legal age to do about most anything the law abides.... And prolly having done most of them either by now or started way before the legal age, what is the opinion of this crowd of such legal age limits in the US such as driving, sex, driving, smoking, voting?

Outside of voting I am pretty sure most or the majority of the people one could speak with has done most or all of these things (except maybe voting early as that would be GAY) before their legal age.

Yet as I grow older I wonder why the age limits are not increased as I see more and more teen pregnacies, teen achohol abuse, smoking (though on the decline in some areas), and driving fatalities. This could be due in part to the actual numbers of teen out there but I think the ratio is still on the rise per capita.


Any thoughts??

*** ah what it would be like to be young again and experiancing all those things for a 1st time again.

CYA

i do not agree in the age limits set for
drinking, smoking, etc. nor do i agree in the
socially assumed age for sex. i do not feel
these things should be regulated in this manner.
i also disagree that the age limits should be
increased... as it is known that if there were
no limits, the problem wouldn't be as bad.

as for sex...
there is no indication that teen pregnancy
has increased. of course you can nit-pick and
see that there is an obvious flux in pregnancies
involving teens if you were to examine a year
to year basis or even a 20-50 year comparison.
but what about an overall comparison between
centuries? i think that the reason society
has such an 'understood' snub for teen pregnancy
is because of other issues... or the social
condition.... not vice versa.

having and maintaining a sexual acceptance age
is absurd and against nature. absurd because it
promotes a stiff generalization among people
in addition to promoting the practice of segregation
based on ageism.

if anything... someone should make a law stating
that people OVER a certain age shouldn't drive.
i'm thinking 65.

if its ok to segregate and restrict based on
the lack of knowledge/experience... it should
also be extended to the opposite extreme and
be removed from those that are obviously incapable
of maintaining a legitimate grasp of reality.

i've been in MANY 'close calls' in dealing with
the elderly on the road... some highway, some
inner-city... and ALL of them have been because
the elderly driving has been (in what seemed
to me) a state of obliviousness.

if we are going on ability to drive.....then there wouldn't be many drivers at all....in fact, it would only be males between the ages of 16 and 65....now you wouldn't want that would you?


as for the age limits, i believe they are set to high. the main reason people do things is because they know they aren't supposed to, but reducing the legal age for drinking for example, an 18 year old would be far less likely to go out bing drinking, and then do something to stupid to hide....(can't think of any good examples)...the point is....if anything, it should not be raised.

while i agree age should not be a determining factor in whether someone is allowed to do something or not i dont believe lowering ages will change anything for the better

your belief gravy train about people only doing things cause they are not supposed to is realatively true but it by no means swings the other way in other words just because it is no longer illegal does not mean people wont do it

in New Zealand the legal drinking age is 18 it used to be 20 about 3 years ago and in the last three years binge drinking in New Zealand youths has gone up not down as your belief would suggest

i drank in night clubs when i was 15 and the legal age was 20 im now 19 and still drinking in nightclubs when the age is 18 i know in New Zealand at least it is not whether it is against the law or not that determines whether youths will decide its popular and go out and do it.

your support as to why drinking should not go
lower doesn't really support you at all.
OF COURSE there will be splurges on any new
legality. OF COURSE binge drinking increased
in that age group... its legal now... as well
as exposed.

its easy to compare statistics on exposed sources.
no doubt that the study could account for those
who would binge drink secretly.

but imagine if there were no legal age at all.

oh and about the voting thing....

i think that voting should be permitted as long
as you are of working age. that is... if you
are old enough to earn a paycheck and be taxed,
you deserve the right to a say in how your
government uses that tax.

my personal belief was it actually wouldnt make any difference i was merely stating the change that New Zealand has been through and the result i dont think it makes 1 iota of difference whether or not an age limit goes up or down if you want something bad enough you will find a way

my other point was that whether someone does something or thinks something is "cool" or popular is not determined by whether it is illegal or not, there are just as many people who will shy away from something cause its illegal as those who will see it as a challenge to overcome

<font color="#c0c0c0" size="1">[ May 08, 2003 09:54 PM: Message edited by: The 4 Horsemen 11 ]</font>

i completely agree with that post.

it's easy to say that you need to draw a line, but it still means you seperate a group by a number that doesn't always apply to their aptitude to handle that which they are forbidden or allowed to do.

Alcohol limit for beer & wine here is 16. Strong alcoholics 18. Driving 18 and sex 16 i believe.
But a legal system is only a guideline, which is something a lot of people forget. Plus i don't get more 'able' to handle in the week where i become of legal age. For practical reasons they just put a line somewhere, but that line seems to have no use besides making it easier for those who want to regulate to decide if something is allowed or not.

Still, allthough i think the borders are not quite consistent with the idea behind most laws and states, i still fear for some when the laws would completely vanish. I've seen 13 year olds walking around plastered and pushing around elderly people. That was just pathetic, and very sad. Some people just seem beyond saving, and it's stupid to assume that an age restriction would 'save' them if they don't want to be, but it's such a waste, i mean, 13 years old! sure they're people with rights, sure children are patronized as 'lesser' people, but at 13 i wasn't able to do and be as i am now, heck, i'm still growing!
This dilemma is really bothering me, what would i do if i could decide on these laws.

To make this even more interesting, i just got back from having a few drinks with some friends. Since i am 'allowed' to use alcohol i use it (no seriously, i didn't drink before the legal age, i was always kind of late with that, and my parents never use any alcohol, so that way i was sort of an alcohol virgin untill the big party times started, at about 17 (did i mention i was late?).)
Does that make me being drunk any less than being drunk if i wasn't of legal age?
There's many adults who shouldn't drink, because they get agressive or destructive, yet they drink. Whereas there's a lot of kids who can decide for themselves and have a drink, leading only to mellow behaviour.

Aarg, i'm not sure what i'm trying to say with this.

<font color="#c0c0c0" size="1">[ May 08, 2003 10:04 PM: Message edited by: zelazny ]</font>

the plastered 13 year old punching the old person
is not a reflection on the drug nor the age limit
but a reflection on what he values....

or perhaps... what he was taught to value?