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?

totally shatzy drugs and alcohol might accentuate an emotion, mood or tendency but in no way does it create it that violent tendency as in the youths case was already there and he obviously has no respect for the elderly no drug will change that it is a trait he has learned

<--------- getting scared I actually see well formed comments and returns drawn out in lengthy post. **silently applauds**

Anyhow ... Don't get me wrong by my 1st post meandering towards raising the legal ages for topics at hand. Though I would believe from a certain stand point if you take range of ages and say these people are allowed and these people are not allowed you will always get the few who don't fit within the spectrum. Though on a whole I think you may accomplish the goal you seek, just not get the result you wished. ** confusing wording**


Example : Law makers decide to raise the age to purchase guns to 21. They do this with the wish of keeping guns purchased by minors down also thinking crime and death and murder will follow. The law is passed and yes the actual number of guns "purchased" by under aged people went down. Yet crime rose from gun theft, illegally purchased guns and those guns taken from adults to commit crimes.

So did the law do what it was suppose to? Yes, It keep minors from BUYING guns legally.

Did it accomplish what the wanted.. ie lower death rate, crime rate etc... ? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

As for the sex and drinking issues. I think it is odd that all the things I did as a kid I now see as problems. But don't get me wrong... when the 17 yr cashier winks and smiles I am thinking anything but raising any other then what instinctively just arose in the jeans.

CYA [img]eek.gif[/img]

i see your point but again, the issue about the
crime thing didn't happen because the age limit
was changed... it was an issue on guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
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?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's sort of what i mean, the problem lies with the person, and drugs, alcohol and cars will probably only lead to more dangerous tendencies. But then you put an age limit on him, which will only 'hold' him back legally untill he's older, when he will still have a 'bad' personality.
I can see how the age limit doesn't work, but i hate to see a kid like that having the full plethora of things that might just make him worse.
I mean, rationally i understand what you mean and i agree, but emotionally i have trouble with this image in my head of those moronic kids who are really too dangerous for others.

Ok- i am a newbie here but and old fart elswhere...

the word i am having a hard time with is "legal"...
most of the issues you all are discussing have nothing at all to do with legalities.

People (kids, teens, sub-adults) are going to do what the hell they want to do without the "legal" subtopic.

I believe it all boils down to "responsibility".

Is a 16 year old "responsible"? (some yes- some no) hell is a 40 year old "responsible" again, some yes, some no. But in the eyes of the LAW...the 40 years old IS.

I will continue this if i seem to be making any sense to y'all.

dave

hey FD! glad you came by!

i see what you are saying... but cya's first
post was referring to whether or not the legal
age should be decreased.

then... it just went on tangent [img]eek.gif[/img]

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

whats new ive been here two? three? days and ive already noted the pattern tangents are very prevelant

heh heh... we are a simple bunch.

well.... everyone but me....

ok... and maaaaaaaaybe cya.... [img]redface.gif[/img]

i understand and thanks for the welcome...

one can not discuss (with any type of validity) "decreasing" anything until it is established that the original issue is a solid foundation of facts which form a genuine reason for change.

i know that sounds like bullshit to some- but in this world of rules it is the basis of all laws.

what is it you folks want to decrease the age limit on?

i am anything but SIMPLE

i think its perfectly legitimate to consider
the reasons for a current legality.

its against nature.

in the ever consistant war for supremecy...
man will find ANY way possible to maintain
his arrogancy over nature.... even down to
the tooth and nail.

however, no one can argue that nature wins
hands down. so therefore, i think its absurd
to repel against natural tendencies based on
fickle 'reasoning'.

let me also buffer by adding that if it were ok
for a teen to become pregnant... it should also
necessitate that teen from being a 'dependant'.

if a teen became pregnant, that teen should
be an 'adult' in all areas of the law....
and not be ridding of the coattails of mummy
and daddy just because she can.

Very well... if they are going to act like an adult they should be adults. But what about work, school, keeping them off the welfare system only to have more and more kids because the income is so low they don't have much to choose from in the way of a more (hmmm here we go .. I can see this one being taken to extreams) rich life.

CYA

the negativity surrounding the welfare system
is unjust... and absurd. that negativity is
the by-product of a capitalistic society telling
you to WORK WORK WORK... nothing more.

also... capitalism will not survive UNLESS there
are poor and/or the welfare system. capitalism
is a system based on greed. therefore, as long
as one is lacking or deficient... they strive
to get more.

this is why i DESPISE capitalism...
its whole basis is propaganda!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

**********thinking this one out***********


Anyone??


CYA

let me put it to you like this....

what if EVERYONE knew that a single mother living
in arkansas can get:

#1 -- her entire pregnancy, plus the last 3 months BEFORE she was pregnant...paid off completely....

#2 -- all hospital/clinic expenses (shots et al)
paid for one year after the child is born

#3 -- $800 a month living expenses paid in the
form of a check.

#4 -- $400 a month foodstamps

#5 -- $250 a month WIC

#6 -- assuming the single mother also worked and
made less than $17,000 a year (which she would)...
she would also receive $4000 in a fat tax refund


now level with me, cya... if everyone knew that...
don't you think most everyone would hop on that
wagon?

therefore... its best to look down on them... they are trash.

I never said they were trash you just see a lot of steroetipical people on welfare that have police records, so many kids running around it looks like a day care ( they get more for each kid ya know) and a history of drug / alcohol abuse along with usually domestic violance.

But what I am courious about is "doesnt you rlast post contradict your post before that one?" In that you seem to side with people on welfare then slam em in the next

CYA

i'm not slamming them at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
let me put it to you like this....

...snip...


now level with me, cya... if everyone knew that...
don't you think most everyone would hop on that
wagon?

therefore... its best to look down on them... they are trash.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


Then that was sarcasim??

CYA

bingo.

Ahhhhhhhhhh gotcha [img]wink.gif[/img]


CYA

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
let me put it to you like this....

what if EVERYONE knew that a single mother living
in arkansas can get:

#1 -- her entire pregnancy, plus the last 3 months BEFORE she was pregnant...paid off completely....

#2 -- all hospital/clinic expenses (shots et al)
paid for one year after the child is born

#3 -- $800 a month living expenses paid in the
form of a check.

#4 -- $400 a month foodstamps

#5 -- $250 a month WIC

#6 -- assuming the single mother also worked and
made less than $17,000 a year (which she would)...
she would also receive $4000 in a fat tax refund


now level with me, cya... if everyone knew that...
don't you think most everyone would hop on that
wagon?

therefore... its best to look down on them... they are trash.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'd try for a while, but i think i'd get bored.
Oh wait, only single mothers [img]frown.gif[/img]

please explain your statement...if you would? [img]redface.gif[/img]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
i see your point but again, the issue about the
crime thing didn't happen because the age limit
was changed... it was an issue on guns.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exactly my point... well side point anyhow. I see limits as they are now and hear talk of them going up or down who knows.. but will it have the result they are looking to get.

CYA

well... one of the biggest problems in the legal
system (imo) is that there are billions of
subordinate laws built on top of already existing
laws... these subordinate laws are established
to compensate for the brevity and/or other areas
not forseen or covered by the already existing
laws.

thats a real problem to me.

why?

well...i think its absurd to compensate for an
established law by passing a subordinate law
because it adds complexity (and therefore confusion)
to something that should be clear cut from the
start.

for example (EXTREMELY EXAGGERATED) :

(foundational law)

a person can own/carry a handgun.

(subordinate laws)
a person can own/carry a handgun except X, Y, Z etc.

X, Y, Z cannot own/carry a handgun... but can
opt for a rifle.

persons X, Y, Z can opt for a rifle unless... A, B, C

etc etc etc etc....

i realize that this is done in order to blanket
all possible situations that may arise from the
already established law. but doing so creates
such a mass of confusion and semantics that
loop-holes are not only much more prevailent...
but an obvious side-effect.

its an unending loop. you cannot defeat this
problem without resorting to more subordinate
laws.


i also think its important to consider the reasons
behind a current legality because society will
change. now, i realize that this statement opens
up a pandora's box of hypotheticals and established
cases where it doesn't.... but i think that
progression of the human condition, by way of
morality and emotional entrapment, will surely
evolve to a higher, better, and more reasonable
solution.

ok... that was an optimistic lie.

one can claim that the erradication of the
slave laws opened to a brighter future for
the oppressed and yadda yadda yadda....
but we all know thats simply not true.

the only thing it did was create a more diverse
and more calculative way to enslave and oppress
others. its on another level.

you could say that we should consider the foundations
of laws in the effects to change them... and
so it does. but it is not a change for the
better, as we are so deluded into thinking.

it is a change for the more pragmatic.

cya- does it matter what age limit there might be on anything?

is your point that if the age limits were lowered there might be a significant change in...(what?)

just asking...

dave

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by Father Dave:
cya- does it matter what age limit there might be on anything?

is your point that if the age limits were lowered there might be a significant change in...(what?)

just asking...

dave</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


I was just proposing a hypothetical situation from my observation with current events. We have 18 yrs in a war where they could die but if they screwed their 16 yr old girl friend back after chugging a brew before they left for war they could go to jail. Certain situation like that. So on one hand one would say they will do it either way why not make it legal for those who choose to do so responible and just punish those who abuse it more affectivly.

On the other hand I see pregnant 14 yr old walking around with fathers of the kid who are no more then 15 and wondering WOW I hope they dont drink. Maybe we should raise the bar "legal age to do anything" in the hopes of saving someone who may choose to NOT do something just because there is a law.

Perfect example.. the seatbelt or helmet law? Did they change anything??

Where do I stand on this topic? Unlike most started here in the forum I am netural waiting for good replies that may help sway me one way or the other. And there have been many.

CYA
[img]eek.gif[/img]

Courtisy of the Mountain Mail ONLINE:

Laws will be strictly enforced
Dear Editor:
The weather is warming, school?s almost out, and summertime activities are just around the corner.
Traditionally, one of those summertime activities has been ?woodsies? when the kids gather outside in the woods to party.
That, in itself, is not a problem, but a problem starts when alcohol and/or drugs are introduced into the picture and our young people succumb to the temptation.
Because of past incidents with situations like these, the Chaffee County Sheriff?s Office, working in conjunction with officers from the Bureau of Land Management, will be monitoring these parties more closely this year.
Underage drinkers, people supplying alcohol to those who are underage, or anyone found to be in possession of drugs will be arrested and dealt with according to the law.
What does that entail? Well, if you are found to be drinking underage, you will be summoned into court to answer to a judge who will most likely take your money via a fine and may assign you to do work in the form of community service.
You will be fingerprinted and your picture, or ?mug shot,? will be taken at the sheriff?s office. You will be introduced into ?the system? as a law violator.
Your parents will be called to the sheriff?s office to take possession of you, return you home, and they will be told all the details of why you are there.
If you?re providing alcohol to underage drinkers, you could get a fine, community service and some jail time to boot. And, of course, drug possession carries all the penalties that go along with that kind of crime.
Why the hard line stance? Simple. We at the Chaffee County Sheriff?s Office consider our area youth to be very important people.
The vast majority of them are great kids and young adults. There are, however, a few who seem to go out of their way to try and corrupt that by introducing alcohol and drugs and encouraging others to participate.
In the past couple of years some of the problems that have stemmed from these affairs have been fires getting out of control, areas strewn and littered with trash, kids injured in fights, law enforcement officers being attacked, alcohol poisoning, drug overdoses, vandalism, sexual assaults and people injured in car accidents as a result of drunk driving.
Because of these acts, the laws already mentioned will be more stringently enforced starting this year with regards to these parties.
Our officers do not work on a commission basis, so the fewer young people they have to arrest, the happier we will all be.
The sheriff?s office is here to serve and protect everyone in this community, so lets work together to make this a happy, safe summer, and thank you for your help and cooperation.
Lt. Keith Pinkston,
patrol and investigations
supervisor,
Chaffee County Sheriff?s Office


--- it is article like these or ideas that shape public opinion as to weather or not laws need to be changed or age limits imposed or raised.

I am seeing from both sides of spectrum. Kids will do what kids will do yet in the other hand in appointing law enforment officals to make sure that the laws we have in place are used to try to make the public safer in the area of ... sure they are drinking way out of the way, not hurting anyone and no one knows the differance... but what if one of them decided to drive home after such a party then what happens?

It could be argued that weather a law was in place that said this person had to be 21 or 50 to drink it wouldn't make any difference in the fact that the person chose not to abide by the law and would do so no matter the limit.

Though how many of you wear your seat belt or try NOT to speed thru a school zone because of fear of the law and what could happen outside of running some little kid over? So do LAWS do what they are intended to do and would raising the limited age on items decrease the number of people who chose to dis-reguard them. Or would lowering the limits now in place allow people to make a more conscious effort in self governing what they chose to do??

Any more thoughts?

CYA

<font color="#c0c0c0" size="1">[ May 09, 2003 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Cyalaytr ]</font>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">
I am seeing from both sides of spectrum. Kids will do what kids will do yet in the other hand in appointing law enforment officals to make sure that the laws we have in place are used to try to make the public safer in the area of ... sure they are drinking way out of the way, not hurting anyone and no one knows the differance... but what if one of them decided to drive home after such a party then what happens?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

what if i decide to use some nitrate and oil, mix it all together and bring the resulting stuff to say... a train station and set it off?

What if's are easy, kids aren't the only ones who drive when they're drunk, many adults do it too.
The crime is not the result of the alcohol, but the person, and if that person chooses to do so, that is his fault, the alcohol cannot be blamed.

It's sort of wierd, how in the article you posted alcohol is viewed as the source of corruption in these kids, while alcohol actually removes bounds, making you (in my opinion) more you, in a way.