Extended adolescence

One thing that must be mentioned about the legal age of consentual sex is that what is considered an adult has changed drastically in just the past decade and is getting worse. People just don't want to grown up nowadays. Here's a great article on extended adolscence. People don't seem to undestand that in order to mature, you have to move out on your own into the real world. This will of course translate into a higher age of sexual consent in the future(ie 21-23 compared to 18 now) The issue of exteded adolescence of course affects much MUCH more than just the legal age of sexual consent. Were raising a generation of adult babies with no idea of responsibility.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE8D.htm

"Probably the most significant development of this crossover culture is to be found in the media. Viewing figures attest to the popularity of the Cartoon Network among 18- to 34-year-olds. Two of the biggest commercial Hollywood hits in 2001 were Shrek and Monsters Inc. Like Chicken Run and Toy Story before them, these animated productions resonated with an embarrassingly old audience.

The celebration of immaturity is continually affirmed by the media. Role models such as Oasis lead singer Liam Gallagher, now more famous for getting drunk than making albums, and fervently girlish girl bands are icons of arrested development. Middle-aged actors are continually on the lookout for roles that allow them to exhibit their youthful side. John Travolta nearly bust a gut being a darling in Look Who's Talking, while Robin Williams demonstrated that he was adorable as Peter Pan in Hook. Tom Hanks is always cute - a child trapped in a man's body in Big and then as 'Forest Gump', the child-man that personifies the new virtue of infantilism.

Peter Pan, the boy who would not grow up, would probably have little incentive to run away if he was living in London or New York or Tokyo today. At a time when captains of industry are enjoying outdoor adventures and zapping each other with paint balls, little boys can look forward to a life of playing. You no longer have to shut your eyes and pretend you are in Neverland - it is all around you.

In the original version of Peter Pan, all the lost boys return home to their mothers; the call of adulthood cannot be postponed indefinitely. Creator Sir James M Barrie may have been obsessed with the world of children, but he couldn't have imagined that one day popular culture would celebrate those who refuse to grow up. 'Hope I die before I get old', sang The Who in the 1960s. Today, growing old has become a lifestyle option that can be avoided, so there is little point in dying before you get there.

Our society is full of lost boys and girls hanging out at the edge of adulthood. Yet we find it difficult even to give them a name. The absence of a readily recognised word to describe these infantilised adults demonstrates the unease with which this phenomenon is greeted. Advertisers and toy manufacturers have invented the term 'kidult' to describe this segment of the market. Another word sometimes used to describe these 20- to 35-year-olds is 'adultescent', generally defined as someone who refuses to settle down and make commitments, and who would rather go on partying into middle age.

You no longer have to shut your eyes to pretend you are in NeverlandIt is important not to confuse adultescents with those referred to as 'middle youth'. Middle youths are a generation ahead of adultescents. They are 35- to 45-year-olds who regard themselves as being at the cutting edge of youth culture; they are going through a phase known as 'middlescence' - a state of mind that fiercely resists the usual trappings of encroaching middle age.

One reason why words like kidult and adultescent have not entered everyday language is because society does not know how to deal with the gradual erosion of the line between childhood and adulthood. Anglo-American culture is ambiguous in its response to this development. The occasional outcry against some absurd manifestation of this trend is drowned out by the powerful message that growing up is a troublesome and unpleasant activity. And since the refusal to grow up is often interpreted as an attractive option, words that suggest that there might be something wrong in living in a state of extended adolescence are unlikely to gain common currency.

Indeed, promoters of extended adolescence tend to give the rejection of adulthood positive connotations. KidultGame magazine celebrates people who like to 'have fun' and who are 'not ashamed of their 'passion' for playing games (5). Experts lend intellectual credence to the virtues of living the life of Peter Pan. Therapists urge adults to get in touch with their inner child. Regression, rebirthing and primal screaming are some of the alternative techniques offered for those embarking on the quest for permanent youth. Lenore Terr, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, argues that far being from a worrisome sign of immaturity, the urge to play is a healthy one (6).

Society has come to accept the idea that people do not become adults until they are in their late thirties. As a result, adolescence has been extended well into the twenties. It is interesting to note that the Society for Adolescent Medicine, an American doctors' organisation, now states on its website that it cares for persons '10 to 26 years of age'. Recently the MacArthur Foundation has funded a major research project called 'Transitions to Adulthood', which situates the end of that transition at 34. Some social scientists claim that delayed maturity has become an accomplished fact. Stephen Richardson, a California-based social psychologist, argues that in our time we do not reach maturity until the age of 35.

But does it matter that we are gradually losing sight of what distinguishes adults from children? After all, there have always been sad men and women who took great delight in childish things. Nor is the desire to remain young a peculiarly recent development. Throughout history people have relentlessly sought the secret of youth, and tried to slow down the inexorable process of aging.

The infantilisation of contemporary society is driven by passions that are quite specific to our times. The understandable desire not to look old has been replaced by the self-conscious cultivation of immaturity. People in the past wanted to appear young and attractive, but not necessarily to behave like children. The present-day obsession with childish things may seem like a trivial detail - but the all-pervasive nostalgia for childhood among young adults is symptomatic of a profound insecurity towards the future. Hesitations about embracing adulthood reflect a diminished aspiration for independence, commitment and experimentation.

Growing up slowly

More than a few parents must be puzzled by the reluctance of their twentysomething children to leave home. Look at poor Giuseppe Andreoli, an anatomy professor at Naples University and a former member of the Italian parliament. In 2002, the Italian courts ruled that he must continue to pay his 30-year-old son Marco £500 per month until he found satisfactory employment. Marco lived with his mother and was in no hurry to fly the nest. The judge felt that Andreoli continued to have responsibility for his son's maintenance until Marco found a job worthy of his own 'aspirations' (7).

The term 'mummy's boy' has acquired new meaning. A couple of years ago, a British Gas TV commercial captured the dilemma faced by some mothers and fathers who have discovered that parenting can become a life sentence. It shows an elderly couple asking a middle-aged couple: 'Don't you think it's time you set up on your own?' It appears that the son and his wife moved in after finishing university, and decades later still found the warmth and comfort far too attractive to abandon.

Back in 1997, when I reported in my book Culture of Fear that it has become common for parents to accompany their children for university interviews and campus open days, a puzzled sub-editor accused me of fabricating this development. As someone educated at a university in the 1970s, she thought it inconceivable that students would allow their parents to accompany them on an occasion that so powerfully symbolised their independence.

Promoters of extended adolescence give the rejection of adulthood positive connotations

 

Her reaction served as a striking reminder of just how recent is the entry of the parent on to the campus. In the past five to 10 years, the busybody parent has become a fixture of campus life. At open days and other promotional events, parents are often more vocal than their children. Some universities in Britain and the USA publish literature expressly oriented towards parents, in a manner that suggests that life at university is an extension of the school experience.

Not so long ago, many British students would have been embarrassed to be seen in the company of their parents. University provided an opportunity to break free of parental control. It was common for students to set up house on their own or with friends, and some rarely visited their parental home even during Easter and summer breaks. Today, this aspiration for independence has taken a distinctly pragmatic turn. Many students are happy to revert to the relationship of dependence that characterised their school years. Far from resenting parental involvement in campus life, undergraduates accept it as natural.

A growing proportion of students are also opting to live at home with their parents. In Britain in 1994, the percentage of first-year full-time undergraduates known to be living in the parental or guardian home was 14.5 percent. By 1999, this figure had risen to 20.1 percent. The UK university admissions service UCAS reports that the number of university and college applicants who want to live at home while studying is on the rise.

This trend is often explained as the outcome of the students' economic hardships. Yet while many students opt to live at home for this reason, economics is not the whole explanation. According to UCAS chief executive Tony Higgins, many students 'often like the security of their home, their family and friends around them when they start at university'. This desire for security is expressed in other ways, too. For example, the fact that many students continue to pay rent on their student accommodation during the Easter and summer breaks does not discourage them from spending their holidays at home. Economic problems do not seem to act as a barrier to young people spending large amounts of money on entertainment and travel. A survey published in 2001 indicated that 20 percent of 16- to 24-year-olds spend an average of £3000 per year on travel.

The stay-at-home trend operates even during the post-university years. The most striking confirmation of the process of infantilisation is the growing trend for young women and especially young men to continue to live at home into their thirties. The 2002 Social Trends survey found that nearly a third of men aged between 20 and 35 live with their parents, compared with only one in four in 1977/8. Other surveys indicate that the number of men aged 30 to 34 who still live with their parents has increased by 20 percent over the past five years.

Hillary and Roger Smythe were looking forward to a quiet life, without the children. As far as they were concerned they had 'done children' and were keen to explore new possibilities on their own. But a few years ago they were taken aback when their son Matthew decided to return home after his girlfriend walked out on him. 'We tried every trick in the book, but Matt will not shift', says Hillary, with a hint of resentment.

James and Ruth Alcock face a slightly different dilemma. Their 28-year-old son Tom has never left home. Both the Smythes and the Alcocks fear that parenting may turn into a life sentence. Their concerns are widely echoed by thousands of other adults who have unexpectedly found their grown-up children living with them. In her book The Nesting Syndrome, Valerie Wiener characterises these grown-up children as 'nesters'. In Japan they call them 'parasitic singles' and in the USA they are referred to by a variety of names - boomerang kids, co-resident adults or returnees.

Britain has only recently become aware of the phenomenon of the boomerang kid. In 2001, Jane Falkingham of the London School of Economics expressed her surprise at the discovery that many elderly people live with their children, not because they are in need of their care but because they are still supporting their offspring. In July 2001, a study commissioned by Abbey National confirmed this claim, and pointed out that the proportion of young adults who return home after initially fleeing the nest has nearly doubled from 25 percent in 1950 to 46 percent today. A survey commissioned by BTopenworld in 2002 claimed that 27 percent of first-time home leavers return home at least once, and that 'one in 10 newly independent kids move out and are back again up to four times before they leave for good' (8).

The growing number of stay-at-home adults is part of a wider international phenomenon. In Japan, 70 percent of single working women aged 30 to 35 live with their parents. The number of adult children residing with their parents in the USA has risen steadily since the 1970s: 18million 20- to 34-year-olds currently live with their parents, which is 38 percent of all young adult singles. Middle-aged parents are much less likely to find themselves with empty nests today.

There is now a veritable body of self-help literature for the disoriented parents of returnees. Parents who feel uncomfortable about getting rid of their thirtysomething daughter can turn to Richard Melheim's 101 Ways To Get Your Adult Children To Move Out (And Make Them Think It Was Their Idea). Those who just want to make the best of their predicament can read All Grown Up: Living Happily With Your Adult Children. And if you really want to know that parenting is for life, leaf through Bigger Kids, Bigger Problems: So You Survived Adolescence and Thought There Would Be Calmer Waters Ahead. Ha!

In recent years, the busybody parent has become a fixture of campus lifeAccording to many accounts, the boomerang binge has just begun. Some claim that the rising rate of divorce and breakdown in cohabitation is responsible for the growth of this trend. Other observers argue that parents today are far more protective than in the past, and therefore inadvertently encourage their adult children's dependency. Alexandra Robbins, co-author of Quarterlife Crisis: How To Get Your Head Round Life in Your Twenties, believes that after losing the structure of university life, young adults feel 'sheltered and anchored' when they return home.

However, the most common explanation for the rise of the boomerang generation is an economic one. It is often suggested that many young adults simply cannot afford to live on their own, or that they find it difficult to pursue the good life.

But is economic insecurity responsible for the emergence of this remarkable international phenomenon? In Japan, where this trend is most developed, the affluence of single stay-at-home 20- to 34-year-olds is frequently commented upon. It is widely recognised that the recent boom in the sales of luxury goods has been fuelled by the conspicuous consumption of the parasite singles, many of whom live at home. In 2000, the Washington Post reported on 26-year-old Miki Takasu, who drives a BMW and carries a $2,800 Chanel handbag, which she alternates with her Gucci. And of course she lives at home with her parents (9).

In the USA, business people actively target the boomerang market, since these consumers are deemed to have a very high discretionary income. 'The new generation of post-collegiate nesters unencumbered by room-and-board payments, is financially savvy, ready to spend, and a growing consumer force', notes one observer (10). Despite the high price of property, British young adults are financially better off than previous generations. Economic insecurity may help explain why some grown- up children live at home, but it does little to illuminate the process as a whole.

Traditionally, young men and women left home not because life is likely to be cheaper, but because they were determined to strike out on their own. For many such people the relative discomfort of short-term poverty was a price worth paying in exchange for the promise of freedom offered by an independent lifestyle. As Jennie Bristow has argued on spiked: 'The decisive factor is not whether you can afford to live alone, but whether you want to.' (11) It is not so much economic exigency, but the difficulty that young adults have in conducting their relationships, that helps to explain why some of them are opting to live with mum and dad.

In recent decades, intimate relationships between people appear to have become more complicated. The expectation of failure and instability surrounds the institution of marriage and even cohabitation. It is now common for people to approach their private relationships with a heightened sense of emotional risk. One strategy for dealing with the risks to one's emotions is to distance the self from the potential source of disappointment.

The reinterpretation of personal commitment as a risk represents a health warning to anyone foolish enough to desire passionate engagement. The equation of love with risk is fuelled by a tendency to accommodate to the problems experienced by adults in their relationships. One pragmatic response to this state of affairs is to declare that the expectations that we have of intimate relationships is unrealistic. 'Be careful, you may get hurt' is a message that reflects the temper of our times. The anxieties that surround relationships have encouraged many adults to avoid or at least to postpone thinking about making a commitment to others.

 

In contrast to the insecurities attached to adult relationships, the security of the parental home can appear attractive. In these circumstances, the aspiration of young adults for autonomy can be diminished. Some young adults embrace a delayed phase of dependency, as independence becomes associated with unpredictable risks.

Stay-at-home adults are not the only section of society disoriented by problems associated with the conduct of adult relationships. Many young adults who manage to move out of the family home end up constituting a rapidly growing group of singletons. Being single has become a way of life for millions of men and women in their twenties and thirties.

The rise of the singleton appears to be a global phenomenon, impacting on industrial societies throughout the world. Back in 1950, about three per cent of the population of Europe and North America lived alone. Since that time, virtually every industrial country has seen a massive rise in the number of single-person households. In Britain, seven million adults live alone - three times as many as 40 years ago. The 2002 edition of Social Trends estimated that by 2020, one-person households will constitute 40 percent of the total number of households.

Responsibility and commitment are only feebly affirmed by contemporary cultureIn the USA singletons are fastest growing demographic group. The proportion of households containing one person increased by nine percent between 1970 and 2000. In France, the number of people living on their own has more than doubled since 1968. Something like 40 percent of Swedes live alone. The shift towards solo living is particularly pronounced in the big urban centres of the West. Over 50 percent of all households in Munich, Frankfurt and Paris contain just one person. In London, nearly four in 10 people live alone.

The best days of your life

'Some people say that school days are the best days of your life. This is exactly what SchoolDisco.com is all about….' Of course, very few school children would agree with this sentiment. But somehow nostalgia for childish pranks appears to take a very swift grip over the Peter Pan imagination. In British universities, even first- and second-year undergraduates look wistfully back to the best days of their lives as they join their mates in their very own campus school disco. No wonder they are in no hurry to grow up: if the best days of your life are behind you, the future can seem less desirable a venue than the school disco.

The retrospective idealisation of adolescence says less about what life was like in real school discos then about how we view a confusing stage of adulthood. At the time, very few teenagers took the view that they were in the midst of the most wonderful moment of their lives. Nostalgia for adolescent highs is driven by apprehensions about the grim reality of adulthood. That is why popular culture tends to discover its role models among the youth.

Adolescence is continually idealised by the media. Ally McBeal manages to synthesise the high-school fantasy with a heavy hint of adult disappointment. Ever since the 1980s comedy-drama The Wonder Years, the nostalgic representation of teenage life has become institutionalised. In contrast to the superficial character of adult experience, the status of adolescence is frequently endowed with meaning and gravitas.

Cultivating nostalgia for the best days of your life is a strategy relentlessly pursued in TV and film. 'For those older viewers who still cling to their high-school misfit designation like a badge of honour, the bright, perceptive, out-crowd teens of shows like Felicity, My So-Called Life and Buffy the Vampire Slayer represent one of the fondest wishes of middle age: that, armed with all the self-knowledge you now possess, you could go back to your youth and avenge every hurt, erase every choice', observed journalist Joyce Millman astutely (12).

The celebration of adolescence stands in sharp contrast to the way that adults are represented. In recent years, TV has introduced a new breed of dysfunctional and immature adults who require counselling from teenagers. In the cult US drama Dawson's Creek, it is the serious and wise teenagers who give direction to immature grown-ups. The UK comedy Absolutely Fabulous offers a humorous contrast between the dissolute and juvenile mother and her serious, old-before-her-time daughter. Channel 4's Teachers continually slip between adult and juvenile personas and more than match their pupils in the immaturity stakes.

The American Drew Carey Show presents the everyday life of four immature adult friends who have no idea how to grow up. Buffy the Vampire Slayer casts adults as repressive figures, airheads or grown-up adolescents. Many of the leading comedy series - Frasier, Friends, Ellen - present grown-up men and women living a life of extended adolescence. In the UK, the comedy Men Behaving Badly became popular for its relentless portrayal of immature adult men.

The pathology of adulthood was strikingly depicted through the lives of Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer in Seinfeld. Disorientation, meaninglessness and stagnation were some of the defining features of adulthood on this programme. The characters revelled in their childish behaviour and continually strived to avoid any of the obligations conventionally associated with adulthood. With Seinfeld, the rejection of adulthood is absolute - it simply has no redeeming features.

The sense of despair that surrounds adult identity helps explain why contemporary culture finds it difficult to draw a line between adulthood and childhood. Childishness is idealised for the simple reason that we despair at the thought of living the alternative. The depreciation of adulthood is a result of the difficulty that our culture has in asserting the ideals usually associated with this stage in people's lives.

Maturity, responsibility and commitment are only feebly affirmed by contemporary culture. Such ideals contradict the sense of impermanence that prevails over daily life. It is the gradual emptying out of adult identity that discourages young men and women from embracing the next stage of their lives

 

You've got some issues if you think that the age of consent for sex is somehow going to increase. The fact that people are refusing to grow up doesn't mean they're going to sit still if the state told them they couldn't fuck anymore. Not that any such idea would ever see the legislative light of day. Nothing encourages civil participation faster than a direct threat to someone's rights.

Why do you care what the age of consent is anyway? Your profile says you're 31, which is far too old to be chasing after high school chicks, so what gives?

The only issue I have with the age of consent as it is currently implemented is that it has been abused in some places to persecute consensual sex between teenagers of similar age. I think that any age of consent law should include a clause that exempts persons who are close together in age. Their parents might not like it if two 14 year old's were getting it on, but that doesn't mean its something the law should be involved in, and certainly not something the law should be treating as a felony.

Kelticman

 

Actually I'm 21, so whats the difference between 21 and 31 anyway? There both adults. You can't get into a singles bar until your 21, how long do you think it will be until they make the legal age to do pornography 21? Then, next they'll make a law that says it's illegal to a person in a position of authority to have sex with someone under 21. Then, they'll make the complete legal age of sexual consent 21.


If you did your research, you'd see that the legal age of consentual sex used to be 21 during the 1930s in tennessee. It's already been like that. Now you have people being considered "children" much longer and you have a war on sex. This is the logical conclusion to reach. Eventually you'll have rape laws applied if there's a big age difference. For example, a 50 year old having sex with a 25 year old. Did you know that adults used to be jailed for having pre-marital sex. It's call fornication. They were also jailed for co-habitation. These laws are still on the books in many states. It's called facism. Pornagraphy wasn't legal until about 20 years ago in the United States. People used to have to goto copenhagen to get it. Vibrators are still ILLEGAL to own or sell in Alabama.

Are you aware the the legal age to VIEW pornagraphy in Colorado and New Mexico is 21? Why do you think it says on all the adult sites on the internet you must be 21 to enter?
Talk about hypocracy!!!! 18 to do porn, yet 21 to view it?? This is laughable. Old enough to kill people in war, yet not old enough to read a playboy magazine....IT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!!. Children as young as 11 are charged as "adults" with crimes and sent to adult state prison where they will most likely be raped and these same states they your not old enough to view porn until the age of 21? This is the direction the legal system is taking. How many people actually view an 18 year old as an adult nowadays?(18-20 year olds clearly are adults of course) College is nothing, but 4 more years of high school in today's american society. Soon, it will be taboo to sleep with a college girl. The logical conclusion with all this evidence is that the legal age of consentual sex will be raised.

Another thing, It's truly amazing to me that people are considered mature enough to kill people, but not mature enough to drink alcohol. The exuse given of course is "dui", but if you look at the data, you'd see that in many places where the legal drinking age is lower, they have less dui related fatalities(ie France- the legal drinking age is 16). Dui and drinking age are not directly related. The best defense against dui is tough dui laws. It reminds of the 55-stay alive speed limit campaign. Prohibition doesn't work. What 20 year old have you met that hasn't had a drink before?

www.icap.org/pdf/report4.pdf - report on drinking/dui fatalities

 

Here's an interesting article:

BY PAT O'BRIEN
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
Whether it's spring-break silliness or a college freshman found choked to death on his own vomit, underage drinking keeps haunting the public conscience.
The question is: Are current drinking laws realistic and effective, given that many adults younger than the legal age of 21 admit to drinking either occasionally or frequently?
"It's weird that you can get married at 18 and you can't drink alcohol," said 18-year-old Danielle Typaldos, sitting in a shady spot on the Riverside Community College campus. "It seems that being married is a bigger decision than drinking alcohol."
An 18-year-old is also considered old enough to vote, to join the military or to be sentenced as an adult for a crime. He or she is regarded as legally an adult in every way except one: the right to buy or consume alcohol.
Typaldos, who recently moved to Wildomar from Anaheim, favors leaving the legal drinking age at 21 or, at most, lowering it to 19.
"Once you are an adult, you are an adult," Typaldos said, adding that perhaps all adult rights should be set at 21.

She does not think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 because it would make alcohol too available to high school students.
get the rest of the article at :http://www.werememberinc.org/ByTheNumber.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From http://www.icap.org/publications/report4.html

Drinking Age Limits​

Introduction
This issue of ICAP Reports explores drinking age limits by looking at the legal consumption and purchasing ages for beverage alcohol in a number of countries. It is not intended to advocate or recommend a particular drinking age, but rather to draw out the issues, which seem most relevant to different governments and societies.

Consumption vs. Purchase
It is important to be clear about terms from the outset. Drinking age laws cover a broad spectrum of behaviors concerned with where, when and under what circumstances beverage alcohol can be purchased and consumed. The minimum legal drinking age refers to the minimum age at which beverage alcohol can be consumed. This may be different from the minimum age at which beverage alcohol can be purchased. Some countries, including Greece and Indonesia, focus their legislation solely on the legal age of purchase of beverage alcohol, and do not address a minimum age for consumption.

Table 1 provides a summary of current age limits for purchasing and consuming alcohol beverages in countries where information is available. Within the countries represented, 40 specify a minimum legal drinking age. Information was not available for other countries, although it is probable that many have no laws relating to this topic. As the Notes in the table indicate, in some countries there are exemptions or special circumstances, which may affect the age of consumption. For example, in Norway, the type of alcohol purchased has relevance -- beer and wine may be consumed at age 18; spirits at age 20. The majority of states in the United States (31 of 50 states) have laws that prohibit or limit the consumption of beverage alcohol for those individuals under 21. In countries where no exceptions have been noted, 19 countries have minimum drinking ages of 18. Four have a national minimum drinking age of 21 (Egypt, Honduras, Russia and Samoa). Two have a minimum drinking age of 16 (Italy and Malta); and 1 country (Japan) has a minimum drinking age of 20. In Canada, where minimum drinking age laws are legislated by each province, three provinces set the consumption age at 18 and the others at 19.

From the information that was available, the national laws generally apply to drinking age limits for venues outside the home, such as taverns, bars, restaurants, nightclubs and similar establishments. Typically, these laws make no reference to alcohol consumption in the home. The United Kingdom is the only country that legislates a minimum consumption age in the home; they stipulate that alcohol may be consumed from age 5 with parental consent.

 

Fewer countries have legal minimum drinking age laws than have minimum legal purchase age laws. Fifty countries have national laws specifying a minimum purchase age of alcohol beverages by minors. In countries where no exceptions have been noted, 24 countries set the purchasing age at 18. Four countries set the age at 16; one at 20; and two at 21.

The exceptions to minimum purchasing age legislation are numerous. For example, in Austria some provinces prohibit the purchase of spirits on premises for those under 18, but allow the purchase of beer and wine at age 16. In Germany, a distinction is made as to whether the minor is under adult supervision. At 16, a German can drink or purchase beer and wine if under the supervision of an adult; otherwise the minimum drinking and purchasing age is 18. In the Netherlands, one must be 18 years of age or 16 years to purchase spirits, if accompanied by an adult. There are countries which distinguish purchasing age laws based on whether the alcohol is being consumed with a meal as is the case with New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In the United States, the purchase and public possession of beverage alcohol is generally prohibited for those under 21, although there are some exceptions. Table 1 notes these for the United States and other countries.

Case Studies
In reviewing drinking age legislation around the world, it is apparent that different countries have differing views on youth and drinking. One has only to contrast the United States, which has the highest minimum beverage alcohol purchase age in the western world, with Europe and Australasia whose ages range from none at all to between 16 and 18 to realize that government views on the appropriateness of young people drinking alcoholic beverages in these societies must be very different.

There are a variety of issues that play a part in a government's decision to set a minimum consumption or purchasing age. This next section discusses three case studies in terms of their minimum drinking age legislation; first, the United States, a country where there is no major change in drinking age legislation under consideration; secondly, the Netherlands, which considered raising the minimum purchasing age, but did not end up doing so; and, thirdly, New Zealand where legislation to lower the minimum purchase age was discussed and passed.

United States
Legislation for the minimum drinking age in the United States varied from state to state just over a decade ago, ranging from 18 to 21. Driven largely by the desire to curb traffic fatalities associated with alcohol consumption, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21, or risk losing federal highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. By 1987, all states had complied with the 21 minimum age law.

A large body of research exists regarding the impact of raising the minimum drinking age to 21 in the United States. Some of the research focuses specifically on whether the new law has had the desired effect of lowering traffic fatalities. Other studies have looked at the law's impact on patterns of youth drinking especially at the college level, and specifically binge drinking.

Based on statistics compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA), "alcohol-related"(1) traffic fatalities for people under 21 dropped by 43% (from 5,062 alcohol-related fatalities to 2,883) during the years 1987 through 1996.(2) This should be seen in the context of a 28% drop in alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the general population. From 1982 through 1986 when minimum purchasing and public possession age laws varied from 18 to 21, alcohol-related traffic fatalities for people under 21 dropped by 14% (from 6,329 alcohol-related fatalities to 5,455).(3) Alcohol-related traffic fatalities for the general population during this period dropped by 4%. In NHSTA's view, the minimum 21 age laws "have had greater impact over the years as the drinking ages in the states have increased, affecting more drivers aged 18 to 20."(4)

Recognition of a direct correlation between the raising of the MDA (minimum drinking age) and lower alcohol-related fatalities is not shared by all researchers. Vingilis and De Genova, for example, argue that the alcohol-relatedness of automobile accidents is based on police impressions and thus is purely subjective.(5) Zylman has also noted similar methodological concerns.(6) Hughes and Dodder point out that higher accident rates may be due to factors other than young peoples' drinking behavior. Changes in the economy, freedom to drive at an earlier age, changes in the price of gasoline and more young people owning automobiles could, they argue, account for increases in automobile accidents.(7)

In its review of prevention strategies for young adults, the Kathryn Stewart Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation states that "[m]any other countries find this strategy [the raising of the minimum purchase age] to be culturally unacceptable."(8) The paper references, for example, Simpson et al. who conducted research on alcohol-related traffic fatalities in Canada where the MDA varies between 18 and 19 depending on the province. They pointed out "that similar reductions in alcohol-related traffic crashes have occurred among young drivers without raising the minimum purchase age."(9) This observation, the report concluded, "does not indicate that raising the minimum purchase age is not effective, but rather that other strategies have been effective in Canada or that other influences have been at work."(10) Indeed, while Simpson et al. found that "the magnitude of the drinking-driving problem decreased significantly in Canada during the 1980s,"(11) they concluded that "while it might be comforting to speculate that the observed changes in the magnitude of the problem were somehow induced by the combined impact of all the drinking and driving initiatives, it is also possible the changes were unrelated to them."(12)

On the issue of changing youth drinking patterns as a result of the MDA increase, the research again is mixed. In a review of the literature conducted in 1993, Wagenaar concluded that "studies employing strong research and analytical designs typically observed increases in alcohol use among youth following a lowering of the MDA."(13) Studies carried out by the United States General Accounting Office and MacKinnon and Woodward have found similar results.(14 15)

However, Hughes and Dodder, in looking at the behavior of college students over a four year period using baseline data, found that the "drinking patterns and behaviors exhibited by the students in this research remained roughly constant over time."(16) Wechsler in his research found that the legal drinking age fails to predict binge drinking and concludes that this raises questions about the utility of the 21 minimum drinking age in college alcohol policies.(17)

 

Engs and Hanson indicated that from research conducted during three different periods from 1982 through 1988, results "revealed few changes in collegiate drinking patterns and problems attributable to the nationwide increase in the minimum age for alcohol purchase."(18) Another study by Engs and Hanson during the 1987-88 academic year revealed that more students drank illegally than drank legally. They attributed their findings to reactance theory, a theory that suggests that when alcohol consumption is forbidden, it becomes more desirable and underage drinking increases.(19)

It should also be pointed out that massive education efforts about the perils of drinking and driving were supported by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the beverage alcohol industry and state governments around the same time that drinking age laws came into effect. It is difficult to measure the exact impact of this effort, but few would doubt that these campaigns have played a role in raising awareness and changing behavior in relation to drinking and driving.

The 21 age limit law in the United States has also raised concerns about the apparent inconsistency in not allowing those under 21 to drink while being treated as adults in most other areas of life. O'Malley and Wagenaar perhaps put it best when they state "it may seem unfair to many observers to allow 18-20 year olds to marry, to have children, to own cars, homes and firearms and to be financially and socially independent, and yet to be legally prohibited from drinking a glass of wine in a restaurant, or even a glass of champagne at their own wedding."(20) While Toomey et al. argue that different activities have different ages of initiation and that the risks to youth and society are sufficiently great as to justify this apparent inconsistency,(21) other countries do not feel the same. The United Kingdom, for example, recommended in its Report by the Central Policy Review Staff that "it would be impracticable to have a limit higher than the age of majority…"(22)

The Netherlands
In the Netherlands, legislation is being prepared by the Dutch Department of Health, Welfare and Sports entitled "Bill on Alcoholic Beverages and the Hotel and Catering Industry" to raise the legal drinking age for all alcohol beverages to 18. Currently, the law allows people over 16 to buy and consume beer and wine; spirits may be bought and consumed at age 18. The Minister of Health has requested the bill be drafted to address what she sees as a growing problem of excessive drinking by young people.

While the bill is still in the development stages, many government officials and industry groups have spoken out against the proposal. An official from the Health Minister's own party has stated that " understand the goal of the Minister, but I am not convinced of the means."(23) Indeed, one of the most frequently cited reasons in opposing the legislation is the difficulty of enforcement as there are no effective systems to verify age. The Netherlands, like many countries in Europe, is against mandatory proof of identification cards as many citizens feel it is an infringement of individual rights and an invasion of privacy. Thus, identity card schemes that are in place are on a voluntary basis only, similar to the program that has recently started in pubs in the United Kingdom.(24)

One health official in the Netherlands has said that "Serving or selling alcohol only to 18 year olds is not workable; 83% of the young people between thirteen and sixteen drink alcohol on a regular basis. They really won't stop if this regulation becomes a reality. They will have their older friends buy it."(25) The trade and alcohol beverage industry agrees with this argument.

If the legislation is fully developed, which is uncertain, it is likely to be considered in 1998.

New Zealand
New Zealand is currently examining the minimum drinking age legislation in view of what has been described as "inefficient, unmanageable, confusing, and frustrating for the public, hospitality industry and enforcement bodies."(26) The current legislation in New Zealand specifies a minimum drinking age of 20, which applies to the purchase of alcohol, not consumption. However, there are a number of exceptions to this law revolving around where the alcohol is consumed ("restricted areas, supervised areas or other areas"),(27) whether or not an adult is present and whether or not the alcohol accompanies a meal. If the right circumstances are met, then the drinking age is 18.

After considering almost 233 submissions to the committee (112 submissions for age 20, 106 submissions for age 18 and 15 submissions recommending a variety of different ages) on whether changes should be made to the minimum drinking age law, the New Zealand advisory Committee Report recommended lowering the drinking age to 18 with one exception, "…A person under the age of 18 years may have access to any licensed premises, other than restricted areas, and may be sold or supplied liquor provided he or she is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian."(28)

In arriving at their decision the Committee had four objectives for the law. First, it should be clear that abuse of alcohol was the target of the law and not the age of the person; second, the law should be clear so that it could be easily understood and enforced; third, it must have a high degree of public acceptance; and, fourth, it must be fair in regard to other restrictions or rights.(29)

It recognized that most of those advocating maintaining a 20 year age limit justified this recommendation on the theory of availability – when overall consumption is lowered there is a consequent reduction in alcohol problems. The Committee rejected this reasoning on the grounds that liberalization in alcohol availability in safe drinking areas brought about by the current Act showed a reduction in consumption rather than an increase. They also felt that if the theory of availability were taken to its logical conclusion the law would cure alcohol abuse at all ages by a general prohibition on sale and supply of alcohol. "Most people know from historical experience that this is an impossible dream."(30)

 

They considered research conducted by other countries but felt that New Zealand was different. For instance, the committee did not see sufficient evidence that there would be a marked increase in abuse by lowering the drinking age to 18 because it felt that young people below the legal minimum age were already gaining access to alcohol through adults, parents or the exceptions provided in the present law. They also noted that most countries already had a drinking age of 18.

The Advisory Committee's recommendations are currently being considered by the Cabinet in New Zealand and the legislation is expected to go to Parliament sometime in 1998.

Enforcement
The issue of enforcing drinking age laws is a major one for most governments as is illustrated by the examples cited above. Informal surveys of enforcement effectiveness by such organizations as Alcohol Concern in the United Kingdom have provided mixed reports.(31) Europe, Iceland, Finland, Ireland and Norway were ranked quite high while other countries for which assessments were made fell somewhat below this mark.

The United States, which uses drivers licenses as a means of identification, experiences difficulty in enforcing drinking age laws on college campuses. This has led some to argue that a minimum drinking age of 21 is impractical. Hanson, a sociologist who has studied drinking issues on college campuses extensively, argues that the emphasis should be less on stigmatizing alcohol and more on promoting responsible consumption of alcohol in an effort to minimize harm.(32)

Conclusions
This report focuses on the different alcohol consumption and purchasing ages around the world, noting that both consumption and purchasing laws in most countries are set at 18. The report also looks at drinking age legislation in three countries: the Netherlands where a higher drinking age limit is being proposed; New Zealand, where a lowering of the drinking age limit is being considered; and the United States, where there is no major legislative movement in either direction.

References

(1) NHTSA defines alcohol-related as BAC (blood alcohol concentration) of .01 or higher for drivers/non-motorists. There is much debate on how "alcohol-related" should be tabulated.



(2) National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration/FARS (7/23/97). Compiled by The Century Council, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20004.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid, p. 1.

(5) Vingilis, E. and K. De Genova. (1984) Youth and forbidden fruit: experiences with changes in legal drinking in North America. Journal of Criminal Justice 12: 161-172.

(6) Zylman, R. (1977) The consequences of lower legal drinking ages on alcohol-related crash involvement of young people. Journal of Traffic Safety Education, January: 13-18.

(7) Hughes, S. P. and R. A. Dodder. (1992) Changing the legal minimum drinking age: results of a longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 53(6).

(8) Kathryn Stewart Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. (1996) Environmentally oriented prevention policies for young adults. Alcohol Policy X Paper, October 1: p. 6.

(9) Ibid.

(10) Ibid.

(11) Simpson, H.M., D. R. Mayhew, and D. J. Beirness. (1995) The decline in drinking-driving fatalities in Canada: a decade of progress comes to an end? Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Ottawa, Canada. p. 508.

(12) Ibid.

(13) Toomey, T. L., C. Rosenfeld, and A. C. Wagenaar. (1996) The minimum legal drinking age: history, effectiveness and ongoing debate. Alcohol, Health and Research World 20(4): 214.

(14) United States General Accounting Office (USGAO). (1987). Drinking-Age-Laws: An Evaluation Synthesis of Their Impact on Highway Safety. GO/PEMD-87-10. Washington, DC: USGAO.

(15) MacKinnon, D. P. and J. A. Woodward. (1986). The impact of raising the minimum drinking age on drive fatalities. The International Journal of the Addictions 21(12): 1331-1338. (16) Hughes, S. P. and R. A. Dodder. (1992) Changing the legal minimum drinking age: results of a longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 53(6): 573.



(17) Wechsler, H. (1995). Correlates of college student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health 85(7): 921-926.

(18) Engs, R. and D. J. Hanson. (1988) University students' drinking patterns and problems: examining the effects of raising the purchase age. Public Health Reports 103(6): 667.

(19) Engs, R. and D. J. Hanson. (1989) Reactance theory: a test with collegiate drinking. Psychological Reports 64: 1083-1086.

(20) O'Malley, P. M. and A. C. Wagenaar. (1991) Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976-1987. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 52(5): 490.

(21) Toomey, T. L., C. Rosenfeld, and A. C. Wagenaar. (1996) The minimum legal drinking age: history, effectiveness and ongoing debate. Alcohol, Health and Research World 20(4): 213-218.

(22) Central Policy Review Staff. (1979) Alcohol policies. Report by the Central Policy Review Staff. Volume I: Report, May, p. 24.

(23) Haagse Courant (1997) 11 July, p. 3.

(24) For further information on this program, contact The Portman Group, 2d Wimpole Street, London, W1M 7AA, UK.

(25) Volkskrant (1997) Local Health Service South East of Brabant, 16 July, p. 3.

(26) Ministry of Justice. (1996) 1996 Liquor review discussion paper. The Advisory Committee, Liquor Review 1996, Ministry of Justice. Wellington, New Zealand. p. 12.

(27) Ibid.

(28) New Zealand Advisory Committee. (1997) Report of the advisory committee on the liquor review. The Advisory Committee, Liquor Review 1996. Ministry of Justice, Wellington, New Zealand. p. 25.

(29) New Zealand Advisory Committee. (1997) Report of the advisory committee on the liquor review. The Advisory Committee, Liquor Review 1996, Ministry of Justice, Wellington, New Zealand.

(30) Ibid. p. 20.

(31) Alcohol Concern. (1997) Acquire, Spring issue. (32) Hanson, D. (1996) Seven recommendations for a national alcohol policy. The Rally Journal 1(1): 10

 

Common sense obviously states that you can't have a drinking age over the age of majority or you risk changing the age of majority.(as stated by the British government). Most of the statistics used by madd to forward their cause are spinned(madd had lobbied hard for total prohibition in the past and then a legal age of 25 to drink). Madd is of course missing the point that prohibition doesn't work and never will work and a drinking age of 21 is a mini-prohibition of 18-20 year olds. The United states is one of only a handful of countries that has such a ridiculously high drinking age. France and much of Europe has a 16 drinking age and many have a lower dui-fatality rate than the United States!! Such stupidity it's amazing.....

Why not increase DUI penalties. Make dui a felony with a mandatory state prison sentence. This would cut dui related fatalities in half most likely. Do you know how many people have like 20 dui convictions? It's ridiculous. Stop playing around and make a first offence punishable by at least 1 year in prison and lower the drinking age to 18. If you did that, you'd probably see a 70% reduction.

 

I agree with many of your sentiments, especially where the legal drinking age is concerned. The laws that define the legal drinking age at 21 are actually a circumvention of the constitution. In response to MADD's lobbying, congress tied each state's federal highway funding to its drinking age, effectively bypassing the tenth Amendment. The only state that has told the federal government to go fuck itself is Louisiana. There the laws the define the drining age are an amusing series of loopholes that effectively set it at 18. The feds are of course not happy about this. How dare a state actually stand up for its rights under the constitution?!

I say fuck the laws on when you're old enough to drink. Do what ever you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, and drinking is most certainly one of those things. If someone tries to interfere with your right to self determination, make sure they pay for it.

Like virtually everyone who isn't living in Utah, I drank long before I turned 21. The first time I ever got drunk was when I was 12. I did the typical teenage party scene where people were getting drunk just because it was forbidden. Looking back on those days now I think this was a rather silly reason to do it, but not necessarily an unreasonable one. Prohibition of something for the purpose of discrimination is one of the most effective ways of encouraging consumption.

To tell the truth I don't even understand the reasons for the drinking age. DUI is of course a problem, but last I heard it was people in their mid-20's who were creating the biggest problem. If being younger were an isssue with DUI you'd expect 21 year old's to have the highest incidence of it, but you don't. Back when the states were forced to raise the drinking age to 21 the effect on the incidence of DUI was a drop..... of 0.3%, which anyone who knows anything about statistics can tell you is far from significant.

The problem I have with your argument about the age of consent is that you're applying a slipperly slope and inserting future possibilities as if they had already come to pass. Laws against cohabitation and fornication, and even contraceptives, were on the books in Arizona until very recently. I'd be suprised if they had ever been enforced in my lifetime, and I'm 31. Saying that these law are somehow going to be resurrected as part of a campaign to prohibit sex before the age of 21 just doesn't make any sense. A group like MADD can railroad the country, but there is no such group attempting to railroad us again when it comes to sex. Well actually there are dozens, if not hundreds, of such groups that are everpresent. The fact that there are so many nut-jobs that are fucked in the head when it comes to sex is part of what protects us from them. Sex, unlike drinking, is something that is an important part of everyone's life. Laws that interfere with this aspect of our lives are something that have been out of favor in this country since before I was born. For every crackpot who think's we should be banning sex before marriage, or homosexual sex, or sex using contraceptives, there are 20 or 30 people who would never agree to such regulations. And there are a few people, such as myself, who would engage in "civil disobedience" in order to fight such laws. Actually civil disobedience would just be the start. I'm a card carrying member of the NRA and if push ever really came to shove I'd be more than willing to put my ammo where my mouth is. Mao was right when he said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

I think that the issue of "extended adolescence" is something that is a serious problem. This is something that I've commented on before. I actually work at a university and I can't believe how little independence most of our students have. They actually believe that they are children. This makes NO sense to me. I've never considered myself to be a child, even when I was one.

The root cause for this extended adolescence is at least 80% bad parenting. We're all familiar with the phrase "raising a child." The problem is, thats exactly what is happening. Parents are raising their offspring to be children, not adults. When parents expect and encourage their offspring to be childish and immature then that is exactly what they are going to get. I think that Robert A. Heinlein said it best when he wrote "Don't cripple your children by making their lives easy for them." One of the worst things a parent can do is try to protect their child from life. Protect your children from the things that are going to truly hurt them, not from pains and difficulties that make them strong enough to grow up. Nietzsche was a nut for the most part, but he was right about a few things. That which does not kill you will make you stronger. Or more accurately, those hardships and difficulties that you eventually overcome, make you stronger. When parents coddle and shelter their children, they are all but guaranteeing that their child will be cluster-fucked. Contratulations, you've raised an infant. You get the boobie prize

Kelticman

 

this is a really good thread. I agree with what you were saying about the drinking age but now about the age of consentual sex going up. I think it will never go up and probably one day go down because sex is becoming more and more accepted. As for that kid-adult thing the movie Old School is completely about that and the guy in that sleeps with his bosses daughter. It send that sleeping with a college student will one day become taboo i think just the opposit has already happened.

 

What is your obsession with the legalization of fucking little kids (teenagers)? Why would any old(er) person want to do with a young, naive, inexperienced young person anyways; aside from the obvious? The age of consent in Canada is 14, in Ontario and ( I think) Quebec anyways. What the fuck do you care about the rest of the world?

When I was experimenting with guys, I fucked an older guy, by 10 years; I was 16, and he was 26. I asked him why he was into young teen-aged girls; and he said he liked the innocense. That obviously isn't everyones motivation. I do regret fucking the older guy, there was absolutely NOTHING to gain; it was more satisfaction for him and his perversion. The concept of *love* was lost long ago, and it's had its consequence. I now associate it with a delusion, and I want very little to do with sex. Clearly this doesn't phase you; nor would you show any consideration towards it. It just becomes another endless struggle. And only youth would be so gullible. All and all; this is only about carnal pleasure. Otherwise why would you get your panties in such a bunch.

You go out of your way to convince others believe that your right. Some will bite; and some won't. What's it matter to you if it's legalized or not; people are going to do it regardless of laws.

 

Keltic man wrote:

"The root cause for this extended adolescence is at least 80% bad parenting. We're all familiar with the phrase "raising a child." The problem is, thats exactly what is happening. Parents are raising their offspring to be children, not adults"


Your absolutely right. I completely concur, brilliantly stated.

 

There slowly, but surely pusing the legal age of an adult to 21. How ironic, in a time when people are going through puberty and becoming more sophisticated earlier , they want to keep raising the legal age of everything. It's only a matter of timeOakland Tribune

No smoking until 21 under renewed push to raise legal age




By Suzanne Bohan
STAFF WRITER

Friday, February 07, 2003-

A coalition of state lawmakers on Thursday announced their renewed determination to raise California's legal smoking age from 18 to 21.



If a new bill they unveiled becomes law, then the state would have the strictest legislation in the nation governing the purchase of tobacco products. Currently, California is one of 47 states that allows the sale of tobacco products to anyone 18 or older. In Alabama, Alaska and Utah the legal age is 19.



Last year, a virtually identical bill was killed by legislators, due in part to worries that the state could not afford to lose tax revenue from cigarette sales to California's youngest smokers, said Teresa Stark, chief of staff for Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, the bill's lead author. Most teenagers get hooked on cigarettes between ages 14 and 18, said Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, one of the bill's co-authors. By raising the legal limit for purchasing tobacco products to age 21, fewer of those youths will have access to cigarettes, and fewer will end up with lifetime addictions to the deadly habit, she said.



According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 80 percent of the nation's 44 million adult smokers started their habit before age 18. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, resulting in 440,000 deaths annually between 1995 and 1999.



Tobacco use among adults 18 to 24 years old has remained stable between 1992 and 2000, the CDC stated, while rates have dropped for adults in all other age groups. The CDC suggested that the unchanged smoking rate among young adults is linked with either marketing efforts directed at them by tobacco firms, or because a large number of adolescents started lighting up in the mid-1990s.



The lawmakers said thousands of lives in California would be saved by the new law and that it would rein in the staggering societal costs of smoking. Each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs the nation $7.18 in medical care and lost productivity, according to the CDC.



The bill, AB221, calls for a gradual increase in the legal smoking age in the state. If approved, it would take effect on Jan. 1, 2004, and that year the legal age would increase to age 19. In 2005 it would increase to age 20, and 2006 to age 21. The gradual increase would not leave today's 18-year-olds suddenly hooked by a product they cannot legally purchase, Koretz explained.



Stark said the new legislation would not cost anything to enact. But the bill's sponsors expect a fight to persuade some legislators to accept the $3 million annual tax loss from declining cigarette sales that the bill, if passed, would cause in 2004. By the time it was fully implemented in 2006, the tax loss would likely amount to more than $25 million annually, Stark said.



The bill Koretz introduced last year to raise the legal smoking limit to age 21 died in the Senate Appropriations committee over that issue, Stark said.



Koretz said he was stunned when he realized people opposed raising the smoking age because of worries about lost tax revenue, Stark said. "He just thought it was bizarre and cynical that people were actually looking him in the eye and saying, 'We need this money.'"



Tobacco lobbyists also played a role its defeat, Stark said, although she said their work was "behind the scenes," as no tobacco firm officially opposed last year's bill. "You couldn't swing a cat in the committee room without hitting a tobacco lobbyist," she said.



However, Tom Ryan, a spokesman for Philip Morris U.S.A. in New York, said the firm is not opposed to the new legislation, nor was it last year.



"We believe that setting the legal age is something that should be decided by the people of California and their elected officials," he said.
"

 

"I'm a card carrying member of the NRA and if push ever really came to shove I'd be more than willing to put my ammo where my mouth is"


I completely agree. The idea of disarming citizens it completely asanine. The first thing any totalitarian government does it to disarm it's citizens so that the citizens basically become denfenseless rabbits that the governement can do with as it pleases. Look at almost any genocide and they all have one thing in common, the citizens had no firearms. To take away a person's gun is to take away their freedom and liberty.

The reason given for having gun control is crime. Look what happened in Australia when they banned civilian ownership of guns. Gun crime went through the roof. It's truly amazing to me that people haven't figured out yet that criminals don't buy guns in stores. They always look for a "clean strap". I believe that there should be common sense gun laws, but I completely disagree with banning firearms like many people want to do. The reason the NRA makes a big deal about every single law that comes down the pipeline is that they know that it's simply a way of slowly but surely banning civilians from owning firearms. In the same spirit, that's what's going on with the age of sexual consent and the age of an adult. There slowly, but surely trying to raise it. Let's not forget that there was a time in this country in the 50s/60s/70s when it was much more acceptable for a man to have a "minor" girlfriend and of course in Europe, especially in places like denmark which are very free with sexuality, it's still completely acceptable and legal.

Disarray, if you think a 17 year old is a "little kid", you have serious issues.

 

I don't give a fuck about the damn articles. It doesn't prove shit; if they're raising the stupid fucking age limit. One of my questions was do you REALLY believe that these laws are going to stop people from doing what they want to do? You know damn well the answer is no. It (the stupid articles) doesn't answer, and doesn't have any fucking relevence to the questions I'm asking. Stop posting the same repetitive rhetoric.
Your completely ignoring the opposing argument. Fuckin A' - like setting laws to attempt to stop people from doing stupid shit is such an atrocious thing. Waaaaaaaaaaaaah'; you want your petty little liberties. Well you have them; however unbeknownst to you there are higher priorities that you don't even know about that are effecting you heavily.

 

Younger than me. Yup. And at some point in an older persons life; 17 is still a baby. When you get older; you'll understand...if you're lucky.

 

"because sex is becoming more and more accepted."


Completely incorrect. Ever studied the sociology of the free love era of the 1970s? You have a hard line Christian fundamentalist right wing(basically 3/4 of the republican party and 1/3 of the democrats) that's lobbying hard to have many facist laws implemented.

 

"And at some point in an older persons life; 17 is still a baby"

Following this logic, so when a person is 60, 25 is a baby?

Should 17 year olds wear diapers then? lol.... uttely absurd statement.

If 17 is still a "baby", are they responsible for crimes that they commit as an adult? You can't have it both ways. If their still babies(a baby is an infant usually under the age of 2 or 3, lets just say children to make this a little less absurd). If their still still children at 17 and they murder somebody, should they simply be tried as juveniles and face a maximum penalty of encarceration in a juvenile correctional facility until the age of 21? Of course NOT!! There old enough to be responsible for their behavoir as adults. This reminds me of the columbine shooting and how the media kept talking about how the "children" shot up the school(the 2 shooters were age 17 and 18). How absurd!!! There not children at that age. Their MEN fully accountable as adults for their actions. If they didn't kill themselves, they should be given life without parole. People seem to define adults as the age at which they are able to make a living which of course is getting longer and longer(now about 22 since you need 4 years of university in order to get a livable income and it's going to get longer).
I always found it hilarious how the media would try to blame the parents for columbine. As if a parent could control a 17/18 year old homicidal maniac??!! Then the media went on about the game "doom". They blamed a crazy kill rampage on a stupid video game(which is completely non-violent compared to gta 3 and the modern titles). I played doom and so did all my friends, none of us had the inclination to shoot people at random, but the media needed somebody to point the finger at. The simple answer was that the two men who shot up the school were CRAZY, BONKERS, NUTJOBS. How hard is this for people to accept? While clearly bullying is wrong and should not be looked over by school administators, it is of course no exuse for going on a crazy kill rampage. All of this shows the media's complete ignorance when it comes to young people. As people get older, most people forget what it was like to at that age.
Now, it must be noted that you can't have it both ways when it comes to trying "minors" as adults. Either their adults or children. Anything in between is hypocracy. Are any of you aware the United States is the only modern free nation that allows people to be executed for crimes they commited when they were minors. People as young as 15, when they commited the crime, have been executed in Texas. They can't drink until their 21, but their mature enough to be executed at 15.....


HYPOCRACY
I find it absolutely repugnant and dispicable that a 15 year old can be executed. I don't support a death penalty for people 18+, forget a 15 year old.

That's the reason the United States never joined the geneva convention to protect children!!!!
One the guidelines is that the government can't executed people under the age of 18. The United states want to reserve the right to execute minors.
They'll charge a man with stachatory rape for a 17 year old and then turn around and executed a minor. It makes lots of sense. I call this "being an adult when it's convienient".