Age: how important is that number?

[Yakk]

Just quickly: (tangent, traffic, ignore this, just a bunch of citations)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... N65128.DTL
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

To test these ideas we began by examining aggregate data. We combined the states into two groups: a test group, the states that raised their speed limits; and a control group, the states that did not. We calculated the change in overall fatality rates that occurred after the new speed limit: the test group improved 3.5% more than the control group.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/65-lives.html
HTH!

[tessuraea]

That's the idea though. I'm not really for raising speed limits or lowering drinking ages, but you can't separate changing one law because everyone breaks it from changing another for the same reason. Either it's ok or it's not.

That's if you make--and change--laws based solely on principle.

I tend to think it's better to make laws pragmatically, but guided by principles. Look at the situation and possible effects.

Example: marijuana use. Not overly harmful stuff, pretty much nonaddictive and easily less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Used widely even in areas where it's illegal with minimal ill effect. Some medicinal use. Pragmatically, it would make sense to (in the U.S.) at least reduce it from a Schedule I drug to something doctors are allowed to give patients for medical use. On principle, either marijauna should be entirely legal or alcohol and tobacco should be outlawed; pragmatically that might be a bit much of a change all at once either way. Outlawing alcohol leads to all kinds of not-fun.

It's not *just* because everyone does it--it's because everyone does it and there aren't any particularly awful negative effects. (And "everyone" is the wrong word: I don't!) Lots of people speed, but that leads to a higher accident rate and higher fatality rate.

[Jauss]

Which leads me to a lesser point, that maturity has a lot to do with what is expected of you. Kids in some parts of the world grow up a lot faster than others simply because they have to.

Maturity comes with experience? Not really.

Maturity comes with the decision to be mature about things.

Experience is sometimes instrumental in knowing what the mature choice in a given situation *is*, and in motivating you to make it, but no matter how old you are, you can still choose to be immature, and vice versa.

Agreed.

Tessuraea also speaks the truth words.

[Lester :P]

I think the age milestones set up by society are sufficient.

It's reasonable to assume they are there for a purpose, and were chosen on more than just an arbitrary number.

I am guessing that 16, 18, 21 were chosen because, historically, that is where most people fit. Some are ready earlier, some later, some never.

But in the end, those ages work for most American age milestones, and the system continues to prove itself right by the examples set by young people.

Why is it reasonable to assume this? Because people before us have used it? Because it is commonly accepted? Flate earth anyone? If you can prove to me that these ages aren't arbitrary, please do.

22/7- An age limit is a test to discern what rights someone has, it's just a test with a single question, i.e. how many times have you gone around the sun?

The 12 year old drinking age was an example of how such rules make people act more dangerously, somewhat akin to unsafe sex arising from teaching abstinence and only abstinence, personally I wouldn't have any legal drinking age, it seems rather pointless and asinine.

[Dibley]

The 12 year old drinking age was an example of how such rules make people act more dangerously, somewhat akin to unsafe sex arising from teaching abstinence and only abstinence, personally I wouldn't have any legal drinking age, it seems rather pointless and asinine.

I think you probably meant 21. I agree, by the way.

[Toeofdoom]

Well, for me, age does not affect what I do, except that I get paid less being only 17 and cant vote yet. If I wanted to drink or smoke or whatever, I would, but I dont want to. I never bothered to get a learners permit either...

I'm also regularly mistaken for over 21, physically or behaviorally or whatever. I dont think its important really... but I dont really feel like a teenager. I dunno.

[22/7]

I tend to think it's better to make laws pragmatically, but guided by principles. Look at the situation and possible effects.

This I can pretty much agree on.

Example: marijuana use. Not overly harmful stuff, pretty much nonaddictive and easily less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Used widely even in areas where it's illegal with minimal ill effect. Some medicinal use. Pragmatically, it would make sense to (in the U.S.) at least reduce it from a Schedule I drug to something doctors are allowed to give patients for medical use. On principle, either marijauna should be entirely legal or alcohol and tobacco should be outlawed; pragmatically that might be a bit much of a change all at once either way. Outlawing alcohol leads to all kinds of not-fun.

I've yet to see a truly unbiased study on marijuana, as it's the kind of thing that gets funded by someone with an agenda. As far as it being "less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol," I think that's debatable, but not in this thread.

It's not *just* because everyone does it--it's because everyone does it and there aren't any particularly awful negative effects. (And "everyone" is the wrong word: I don't!) Lots of people speed, but that leads to a higher accident rate and higher fatality rate.

This is true (the speeding part). It's also been shown that the vast majority of people who are pack-a-day smokers started before they were 18 (and that if you can make it to 18 without starting smoking, you probably won't ever start).
As for the harmful effects of underage drinking, if it's done at 18, 19, 20, that's one thing, but drinking heavily at the age of, say, 14, when one's body is still developing quite rapidly, should probably be avoided.

22/7- An age limit is a test to discern what rights someone has, it's just a test with a single question, i.e. how many times have you gone around the sun?

Now there's a semantic argument.