People don't care about the person in question, only how old they are, so it's 18 to buy smokes, 21 to drink, 18 to join the army, 21 to go to a casino, 18 to buy a rifle, 21 to buy a handgun, 16 to drive, depending on what state you live in, 14 or 15 to marry...should everything be left to one specific age to be legally declared an adult to do everything?

I think part of growing up is things coming in intervals so that one can adjust to these new liberties. I'm fine with the driving age being sixteen; the legal voting and military age being eighteen, and the drinking age being twenty-one. Gives the individual time to get used to some things, mature a bit with its privileged, and be presented with the next liberty.

I agree with what Chris said.

Of course there should (and that alway seemed like a no brainer to me frankly). But that would be LOGICAL! You have to remember that we don't live in a society of logic and reasoning, we live in a society of "tradition" and "hypocrasy". So having a centralize age of majority or adulthood would in a sense be incompatible with the "American way". The problem with America is that we (and by we I mean "them") can't decide when a person is a grown-up and when they are still a child. We want them to be "adults" in some instances (like when we need them to be self sufficient, legally responsible for their own actions and fight in wars), but we want them to be children when they want to have any of the benefits of adulthood like autonomy. We want them to have the ability to do everything expected of an adult, but we can't trust them to make adult decisions. We adults want to actually make the "adult" decisions for them. Until they're beyond two decades old and several years past the age of physical maturity, we consider them fully capable, able bodied "children".

And just a slight correction, you can be 17 and join the military (with parental permission). This means that a 17 year old kid can be trusted with a rifle and be expected to kill the enemy and die for his country, but he's got to wait 4 more years to legally have a drink in the US. It also means our young soldier can get stationed in Germany (where its legal to drink at 16) for his first tour, deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan a few times, come back each time and enjoy the victory at the local pub, then as a veteran of two wars finally get a new assignment in Texas 3 years later where he still won't be old enough to drink for another year!

Shale wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

...a 17 year old kid can be trusted with a rifle and be expected to kill the enemy and die for his country, but he's got to wait 4 more years to legally have a drink in the US. It also means our young soldier can get stationed in Germany (where its legal to drink at 16) for his first tour, deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan a few times, come back each time and enjoy the victory at the local pub, then as a veteran of two wars finally get a new assignment in Texas 3 years later where he still won't be old enough to drink for another year!

Yes this is the irritating incongruity of our sequential ages of maturity. When I was 18 I could not vote but I could be forced to go to war. Coulda killed others brutally or been killed, 3 years before I would have been "mature" enuf to handle a few beers at a tavern. It is just bullshit and I resented it. (Still do)

Hear hear. I have to agree that is very idiotic because one beer never hurt anybody, but how many young men who have been shipped across the other side of the world never came home unless it was in a body bag? And why, because they were old enough to 'serve their country'.

No there shouldn't be a blanket "one size fits all" standard, because maturity comes with time and living experience. It's all based on extreme and what the average person that age is projected to be able to handle. An 18 year old who joins the military is trained to be a soldier. He's taught about the responsibility of carrying a firearm and it's instilled in him what it means to take a life. He isn't just tossed in artillery fire with a riffle and expected to fight and kill his first night. An 18 year old is able to buy cigarettes but not alcohol, because cigarettes (unlike alcohol) don't affect judgment. A 21 year old has for all intents & purposes has reached his adult mentality and can be better expected to be rational and responsible with a drink. An 18 year old, not so much. He is still peaking in that regard.

RiteDiva wrote:

No there shouldn't be a blanket "one size fits all" standard, because maturity comes with time and living experience. It's all based on extreme and what the average person that age is projected to be able to handle. An 18 year old who joins the military is trained to be a soldier. He's taught about the responsibility of carrying a firearm and it's instilled in him what it means to take a life. He isn't just tossed in artillery fire with a riffle and expected to fight and kill his first night. An 18 year old is able to buy cigarettes but not alcohol, because cigarettes (unlike alcohol) don't affect judgement. A 21 year old has for all intents & purposes has reached his adult mentality and can be better expected to be rational and responsible with a drink. An 18 year old, not so much. He is still peaking in that regard.

Well why does somebody have to be 18 to buy cigarettes? What's so 'rational' or 'responsible' about puffing on cancer sticks? And HOW can somebody be trusted to drive years before they can be trusted to drink? Drinking is very simple, moderation, 1-3 drinks in a day, no more, because then comes in health risks, but driving is a bunch of little things all put together that you have to be on top of at all times to avoid getting into a wreck and possibly killing yourself and other people, acceleration here, brake here, slow down here, turn here, stay over on this side, STOP!, back up, turn around, speed up, LOOK OUT, that's so much easier to trust a kid to than having a beer?

<< Well why does somebody have to be 18 to buy cigarettes? What's so 'rational' or 'responsible' about puffing on cancer sticks? >>

Cigarette smoking doesn't impede facilities, or diminish anyone's mental capacity. Meanwhile, the surgeon generals warning about the dangers of nicotine is plastered plain as day on cigarette packs for an 18 year old to read. Furthermore, while cigarettes have the potential to cause cancer, it isn't a guarantee. And while it may not be a guarantee that someone who drinks heavily will develop cirrhosis of the liver, it's pretty much a given that after a small handful of drinks they will become legally drunk and cognitively impaired.

To put it simply: nicotine (while more addictive) is generally less hazardous than alcohol, and has a much less potential to create the same kind of immediate fallout.

<< And HOW can somebody be trusted to drive years before they can be trusted to drink? Drinking is very simple, moderation, 1-3 drinks in a day, no more, because then comes in health risks, but driving is a bunch of little things all put together that you have to be on top of at all times to avoid getting into a wreck and possibly killing yourself and other people, acceleration here, brake here, slow down here, turn here, stay over on this side, STOP!, back up, turn around, speed up, LOOK OUT, that's so much easier to trust a kid to than having a beer? >>

Apples and oranges. Operating a motor vehicle is a skill that is honed with time and practice. To become a licensed driver, one has to go through weeks/months of drivers training...and ultimately prove that they have an understanding about traffic laws and are mentally and physically capable of the task. A teenager can learn this. But don't act like people just arbitrarily toss a 16 year old a set of car keys w/o any kind of preparation or protocol. Furthermore, teenage drivers are on a restricted license until it expires, usually around the time they turn 21, and have had years of hands-on training to be promoted to unrestricted status. If during that time they prove that they aren't mature enough to handle being a driver, their licenses are zapped and they're back on the bus. Alcohol is a potentially addictive drug that almost immediately impairs judgment, and there is no preparation, teaching or certification for it.

RiteDiva wrote:

No there shouldn't be a blanket "one size fits all" standard, because maturity comes with time and living experience. It's all based on extreme and what the average person that age is projected to be able to handle. An 18 year old who joins the military is trained to be a soldier. He's taught about the responsibility of carrying a firearm and it's instilled in him what it means to take a life. He isn't just tossed in artillery fire with a riffle and expected to fight and kill his first night. An 18 year old is able to buy cigarettes but not alcohol, because cigarettes (unlike alcohol) don't affect judgment. A 21 year old has for all intents & purposes has reached his adult mentality and can be better expected to be rational and responsible with a drink. An 18 year old, not so much. He is still peaking in that regard.

ALL 18 year olds are mature enough to participate in politics, be legally responsible for themselves in all situations, sign their life away to the government for 3, 4, 6 or however many years of their life (before they've been trained to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER) yet not mature enough to drink responsibly while ALL 21 year olds possess "adult mentality" and are mature enough to exercise good judgement when it comes to responsible drinking? Good judgement is something that is naturally bestowed upon all individuals upon reaching the magical age of 21, but something that is absolutely impossible for an 18 year old to attain regardless of upbringing or personality? Its funny how only individuals who grow up in the United States (or someplace in the Arab world) would subscribe to such an idea. The legal drinking age in most European nations ranges from 16 to 18 years old. Are Europeans a more physically evolved breed of humans that mentally mature at a faster age than Americans?

captainbryce wrote:

ALL 18 year olds are mature enough to participate in politics, be legally responsible for themselves in all situations, sign their life away to the government for 3, 4, 6 or however many years of their life (before they've been trained to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER) yet not mature enough to drink responsibly while ALL 21 year olds possess "adult mentality" and are mature enough to exercise good judgement when it comes to responsible drinking? Good judgement is something that is naturally bestowed upon all individuals upon reaching the magical age of 21, but something that is absolutely impossible for an 18 year old to attain regardless of upbringing or personality? Its funny how only individuals who grow up in the United States (or someplace in the Arab world) would subscribe to such an idea. The legal drinking age in most European nations ranges from 16 to 18 years old. Are Europeans a more physically evolved breed of humans that mentally mature at a faster age than Americans?

They must be, because don't they also finish high school at 16? Whereas here it ranges from 17 to 19.

Shale wrote:

Yes this is the irritating incongruity of our sequential ages of maturity. When I was 18 I could not vote but I could be forced to go to war. Coulda killed others brutally or been killed, 3 years before I would have been "mature" enuf to handle a few beers at a tavern. It is just bullshit and I resented it. (Still do)

When I was a kid this drove me nuts. It's absolutely ridiculous & you have every right to resent it, even today.

captainbryce wrote:

ALL 18 year olds are mature enough to participate in politics, be legally responsible for themselves in all situations, sign their life away to the government for 3, 4, 6 or however many years of their life (before they've been trained to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER) yet not mature enough to drink responsibly while ALL 21 year olds possess "adult mentality" and are mature enough to exercise good judgement when it comes to responsible drinking? Good judgement is something that is naturally bestowed upon all individuals upon reaching the magical age of 21, but something that is absolutely impossible for an 18 year old to attain regardless of upbringing or personality? Its funny how only individuals who grow up in the United States (or someplace in the Arab world) would subscribe to such an idea. The legal drinking age in most European nations ranges from 16 to 18 years old. Are Europeans a more physically evolved breed of humans that mentally mature at a faster age than Americans?

Thank you for debunking all those misconstrued ideas about 'age of maturity.' No one is magically mature at 21 and could likely be just as mature at 18. I did some very stupid things while drinking LEGALLY in my early 20s. (like driving drunk and even having black-out drunks where I got home but don't remember driving there).

So, the fallacy is still there, especially allowing a teenager to sign up for possibly life changing or life ending vocations (no amount of training can make a normal man right with killing another human), yet that same young man cannot be trusted to drink alcohol,
Just another American stupidity that lives on by inertia and 'tradition.'

Everyone can agree that there is no moment in life that everyone becomes 'mature' enough, to do anything. We have all known people in their 40's who couldn't find their ass with both hands.

But how do we determine it? A test? So we have picked an age, for each thing. We are in effect saying "by this time, you should know what you are about, so you can do this"

DanaShelbyChancey wrote:

Everyone can agree that there is no moment in life that everyone becomes 'mature' enough, to do anything. We have all known people in their 40's who couldn't find their ass with both hands.

But how do we determine it? A test? So we have picked an age, for each thing. We are in effect saying "by this time, you should know what you are about, so you can do this"

I think the complaint a lot of people have is the arbitrary way it's put into practice. When someone can be "mature" enough to be in the military (even by force) & put into harms way but can't buy alcohol something is seriously screwy. Some of the ages chosen for various rights & privileges I don't have a real issue with at all. Driver's licenses at 16 are perfectly fine with me. But to say someone is mature enough to give their life "for their country" but can't have a beer because they're not "mature" enough is just crazy.

CeCe wrote:

DanaShelbyChancey wrote:

Everyone can agree that there is no moment in life that everyone becomes 'mature' enough, to do anything. We have all known people in their 40's who couldn't find their ass with both hands.

But how do we determine it? A test? So we have picked an age, for each thing. We are in effect saying "by this time, you should know what you are about, so you can do this"

I think the complaint a lot of people have is the arbitrary way it's put into practice. When someone can be "mature" enough to be in the military (even by force) & put into harms way but can't buy alcohol something is seriously screwy. Some of the ages chosen for various rights & privileges I don't have a real issue with at all. Driver's licenses at 16 are perfectly fine with me. But to say someone is mature enough to give their life "for their country" but can't have a beer because they're not "mature" enough is just crazy.

Yeah, and how could somebody be able to join the army and face the perils of war, they're mature enough for that, but they'd still have to wait 3 more years also to go to Las Vegas and hit the casinos?