Age of Majority (Adulthood) in the USA | Abortions-Drinking-Contracts-Voting-Criminal Records

[Procrustes Stretched]

Age of Majority (Adulthood) in the USA | Abortions-Drinking-Contracts-Voting-Criminal Records

How many people know the Age of Majority in the USA is a state issue, except where the US Constitution weighs in, as in the legal age for voting? Should this be changed? Do you believe this should be a state versus federal question, as in passing an amendment to the USC?

People are aware that the full age of majority has exceptions. But do they understand why, and do they have sound and rational justifications to change this or stick with the status quo?

It was interesting to join in the thread about a adult's decision to attempt to take control of her own medical choices regarding the disease of cancer. In that discussion many people raised other issues. Not much of it went to the discussion of the law, and the how and why of it all.

Maybe people would like to try here? Why would people take an absolutist position on age of maturity? Why would people take the more nuanced approach to age of maturity? Do people want an amendment to the USA to take the issue away from the states?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If I had the power, I would lower the age of majority to 16. Screwed up things would happen, but I say 'so what?' Everyone could drink, do decriminalized drugs, enlist in wars to defend and kill, and would also be held to account as full adults in courts of law.

I would not demand a national age, I would just demand it in my own state - the state of ignorance of the law of unintended consequences.



maybe 'we' should have been stuck in the satire forum?

 

[Michelle420]

Age of Majority (Adulthood) in the USA | Abortions-Drinking-Contracts-Voting-Criminal Records

How many people know the Age of Majority in the USA is a state issue, except where the US Constitution weighs in, as in the legal age for voting? Should this be changed? Do you believe this should be a state versus federal question, as in passing an amendment to the USC?

People are aware that the full age of majority has exceptions. But do they understand why, and do they have sound and rational justifications to change this or stick with the status quo?

It was interesting to join in the thread about a adult's decision to attempt to take control of her own medical choices regarding the disease of cancer. In that discussion many people raised other issues. Not much of it went to the discussion of the law, and the how and why of it all.

Maybe people would like to try here? Why would people take an absolutist position on age of maturity? Why would people take the more nuanced approach to age of maturity? Do people want an amendment to the USA to take the issue away from the states?

My stance is consistency.

I am not sure if how to communicate it better where it's understood.

Here are my examples: (this one really bothers Emily...) 1. alcohol legal, prescriptions drugs including opiates legal, Pot:illegal
Why? I think if the others are legal pot should be too. - consistency

Minor decides on medical procedure to have an abortion legal, minor decides to try alternative medicine or refuse medical procedure illegal
Why? I think it should be legal if they are mature enough to decide what's right for their body one instance they should in another.

If minor can serve in military and go to war see death and kill at 17 they certainly should have the right to drink, marry , buy a house and refuse medical care or decide for their own body and finances.

Consistency.

If the law banned all drugs and all the law banned minors from all medical procedure decision making and the law banned minors from being in the military that is also consistent.

I am just trying to understand why it's not consistent.

The argument that a minor will do self harm doesn't wash, because if a minor can enlist in the military and see horrific war crimes they could come back and self harm out of ptsd.

Just be consistent in the laws.

Perhaps I am an absolutist, don't unfriend me over it Dante.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Age of Majority (Adulthood) in the USA | Abortions-Drinking-Contracts-Voting-Criminal Records

How many people know the Age of Majority in the USA is a state issue, except where the US Constitution weighs in, as in the legal age for voting? Should this be changed? Do you believe this should be a state versus federal question, as in passing an amendment to the USC?

People are aware that the full age of majority has exceptions. But do they understand why, and do they have sound and rational justifications to change this or stick with the status quo?

It was interesting to join in the thread about a adult's decision to attempt to take control of her own medical choices regarding the disease of cancer. In that discussion many people raised other issues. Not much of it went to the discussion of the law, and the how and why of it all.

Maybe people would like to try here? Why would people take an absolutist position on age of maturity? Why would people take the more nuanced approach to age of maturity? Do people want an amendment to the USA to take the issue away from the states?

My stance is consistency.

I am not sure if how to communicate it better where it's understood.

Here are my examples: (this one really bothers Emily...) 1. alcohol legal, prescriptions drugs including opiates legal, Pot:illegal
Why? I think if the others are legal pot should be too. - consistency

Minor decides on medical procedure to have an abortion legal, minor decides to try alternative medicine or refuse medical procedure illegal
Why? I think it should be legal if they are mature enough to decide what's right for their body one instance they should in another.

If minor can serve in military and go to war see death and kill at 17 they certainly should have the right to drink, marry , buy a house and refuse medical care or decide for their own body and finances.

Consistency.

If the law banned all drugs and all the law banned minors from all medical procedure decision making and the law banned minors from being in the military that is also consistent.

I am just trying to understand why it's not consistent.

The argument that a minor will do self harm doesn't wash, because if a minor can enlist in the military and see horrific war crimes they could come back and self harm out of ptsd.

Just be consistent in the laws.

Perhaps I am an absolutist, don't unfriend me over it Dante.

There is the argument over consistency in how a law is applied, but that is not what I think you are talking about.

Your drug position makes no attempt for how and why drugs affect people, or the delivery system for drugs and how it affects people. Prescription drugs ARE legal, they are regulated. When things become legal, they are always open to regulation, because it is the laws which make them legal. We could decriminalize all substances (as in not recognized in law), but people would demand action when the results of that turned ugly and we'd get regulations.

You never address why some things are not equal under the law. Do you demand mandatory sentencing? It would make sentencing consistent. A thief steels millions in order to feed her ego and lifestyle, and another thief steals a loaf of bread to feed his family. Both stole. Hang em both

 

[Michelle420]

Age of Majority (Adulthood) in the USA | Abortions-Drinking-Contracts-Voting-Criminal Records

How many people know the Age of Majority in the USA is a state issue, except where the US Constitution weighs in, as in the legal age for voting? Should this be changed? Do you believe this should be a state versus federal question, as in passing an amendment to the USC?

People are aware that the full age of majority has exceptions. But do they understand why, and do they have sound and rational justifications to change this or stick with the status quo?

It was interesting to join in the thread about a adult's decision to attempt to take control of her own medical choices regarding the disease of cancer. In that discussion many people raised other issues. Not much of it went to the discussion of the law, and the how and why of it all.

Maybe people would like to try here? Why would people take an absolutist position on age of maturity? Why would people take the more nuanced approach to age of maturity? Do people want an amendment to the USA to take the issue away from the states?

My stance is consistency.

I am not sure if how to communicate it better where it's understood.

Here are my examples: (this one really bothers Emily...) 1. alcohol legal, prescriptions drugs including opiates legal, Pot:illegal
Why? I think if the others are legal pot should be too. - consistency

Minor decides on medical procedure to have an abortion legal, minor decides to try alternative medicine or refuse medical procedure illegal
Why? I think it should be legal if they are mature enough to decide what's right for their body one instance they should in another.

If minor can serve in military and go to war see death and kill at 17 they certainly should have the right to drink, marry , buy a house and refuse medical care or decide for their own body and finances.

Consistency.

If the law banned all drugs and all the law banned minors from all medical procedure decision making and the law banned minors from being in the military that is also consistent.

I am just trying to understand why it's not consistent.

The argument that a minor will do self harm doesn't wash, because if a minor can enlist in the military and see horrific war crimes they could come back and self harm out of ptsd.

Just be consistent in the laws.

Perhaps I am an absolutist, don't unfriend me over it Dante.

There is the argument over consistency in how a law is applied, but that is not what I think you are talking about.

Your drug position makes no attempt for how and why drugs affect people, or the delivery system for drugs and how it affects people. Prescription drugs ARE legal, they are regulated. When things become legal, they are always open to regulation, because it is the laws which make them legal. We could decriminalize all substances (as in not recognized in law), but people would demand action when the results of that turned ugly and we'd get regulations.

You never address why some things are not equal under the law. Do you demand mandatory sentencing? It would make sentencing consistent. A thief steels millions in order to feed her ego and lifestyle, and another thief steals a loaf of bread to feed his family. Both stole. Hang em both

I do address it, and i have tried to communicate it, I am not sure where I am failing to convey to you that consistency to me means, pot should be made legal or the others should be made illegal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Age of Majority (Adulthood) in the USA | Abortions-Drinking-Contracts-Voting-Criminal Records

How many people know the Age of Majority in the USA is a state issue, except where the US Constitution weighs in, as in the legal age for voting? Should this be changed? Do you believe this should be a state versus federal question, as in passing an amendment to the USC?

People are aware that the full age of majority has exceptions. But do they understand why, and do they have sound and rational justifications to change this or stick with the status quo?

It was interesting to join in the thread about a adult's decision to attempt to take control of her own medical choices regarding the disease of cancer. In that discussion many people raised other issues. Not much of it went to the discussion of the law, and the how and why of it all.

Maybe people would like to try here? Why would people take an absolutist position on age of maturity? Why would people take the more nuanced approach to age of maturity? Do people want an amendment to the USA to take the issue away from the states?

My stance is consistency.

I am not sure if how to communicate it better where it's understood.

Here are my examples: (this one really bothers Emily...) 1. alcohol legal, prescriptions drugs including opiates legal, Pot:illegal
Why? I think if the others are legal pot should be too. - consistency

Minor decides on medical procedure to have an abortion legal, minor decides to try alternative medicine or refuse medical procedure illegal
Why? I think it should be legal if they are mature enough to decide what's right for their body one instance they should in another.

If minor can serve in military and go to war see death and kill at 17 they certainly should have the right to drink, marry , buy a house and refuse medical care or decide for their own body and finances.

Consistency.

If the law banned all drugs and all the law banned minors from all medical procedure decision making and the law banned minors from being in the military that is also consistent.

I am just trying to understand why it's not consistent.

The argument that a minor will do self harm doesn't wash, because if a minor can enlist in the military and see horrific war crimes they could come back and self harm out of ptsd.

Just be consistent in the laws.

Perhaps I am an absolutist, don't unfriend me over it Dante.

There is the argument over consistency in how a law is applied, but that is not what I think you are talking about.

Your drug position makes no attempt for how and why drugs affect people, or the delivery system for drugs and how it affects people. Prescription drugs ARE legal, they are regulated. When things become legal, they are always open to regulation, because it is the laws which make them legal. We could decriminalize all substances (as in not recognized in law), but people would demand action when the results of that turned ugly and we'd get regulations.

You never address why some things are not equal under the law. Do you demand mandatory sentencing? It would make sentencing consistent. A thief steels millions in order to feed her ego and lifestyle, and another thief steals a loaf of bread to feed his family. Both stole. Hang em both

I do address it, and i have tried to communicate it, I am not sure where I am failing to convey to you that consistency to me means, pot should be made legal or the others should be made illegal.

You seem to be mixing consistency with an application of a law with consistency with like things being equal. Like things ARE not always equal. Penicillin and Arsenic are like things.

I'm not taking a stand on pot. I'm not saying pot is better or worse than alcohol. The reasons pot is illegal are out there. If you advocate legalizing all substances which alter the mind, they are open to regulation. Legalization will not guarantee consistency, nor should it. Imagine if it is shown one drug affects pregnant women one way different than the rest of population, or one drug stifles adolescent developments in the brain. If the state has legalized these things they are obligated/duty bound to interfere, because they have state approval.

Dante would decriminalize many things, take the law away from them. He would do this knowing full well the dangers and fall out, but Dante isn't taking a moral high ground here. I'm not a moralist. I know full well decriminalizing most everything could result in a breakdown of society.

I'm not sure mankind deserves to exist. It may desire existence, but that's another issue entirely

 

[Sonny Clark]

Age of Majority (Adulthood) in the USA | Abortions-Drinking-Contracts-Voting-Criminal Records

How many people know the Age of Majority in the USA is a state issue, except where the US Constitution weighs in, as in the legal age for voting? Should this be changed? Do you believe this should be a state versus federal question, as in passing an amendment to the USC?

People are aware that the full age of majority has exceptions. But do they understand why, and do they have sound and rational justifications to change this or stick with the status quo?

It was interesting to join in the thread about a adult's decision to attempt to take control of her own medical choices regarding the disease of cancer. In that discussion many people raised other issues. Not much of it went to the discussion of the law, and the how and why of it all.

Maybe people would like to try here? Why would people take an absolutist position on age of maturity? Why would people take the more nuanced approach to age of maturity? Do people want an amendment to the USA to take the issue away from the states?

Maturity is a stuff question, to say the least. It's well known that some mature faster than others. Also, it's very difficult to determine at what age a person fully understands the consequences of their actions. Examples can be found of many cases where 16 to 18 year old teens seem very mature for their age, and some have even started businesses and have engaged in other areas that we'd normally expect to find only those much older. One area that comes to mind is the young men and women that join the armed forces.

When looking at this question from all sides, it's easy to see where any laws governing age requirements and accountability, mst consider maturity as it relates to different stages of mental development. Examples would be a person age 25 with an IQ of 70 shouldn't be expected to make the same rational decisions as a person 19 years of age with an IQ of 120. Age should not be the only gauge when considering maturity, responsibility, and accountability. Although I do believe that we can set an age from which to start the process of determining maturity and accountability, we can't expect age to be the absolute that covers all scenarios. An example would be the age at which one is allowed to vote in state and national elections. We can start by assuming those of high school graduation age, are reasonably educated enough to vote. But, again, maybe a closer look would reveal that it's necessary to raise that age to 20 or to 21.

The obvious difficulty here is determining the extent of maturity for the average person at any given age. Naturally this could also be debated, and I'm sure it would be hard to find a unanimous consensus. My opinion is that we need to first determine the age range in which most are determined to be reasonably mature. Then, we can determine what those people are qualified to participate in, and what they can do on their own behalf. At what age do we allow someone to buy beer? At what age do we allow someone to vote? At what age do we allow someone to legally drive a car? These are questions that would require a lot of evaluation and study.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

drifter post #7

Age of Majority (Adulthood) in the USA | Abortions-Drinking-Contracts-Voting-Criminal Records

How many people know the Age of Majority in the USA is a state issue, except where the US Constitution weighs in, as in the legal age for voting? Should this be changed? Do you believe this should be a state versus federal question, as in passing an amendment to the USC?

People are aware that the full age of majority has exceptions. But do they understand why, and do they have sound and rational justifications to change this or stick with the status quo?

It was interesting to join in the thread about a adult's decision to attempt to take control of her own medical choices regarding the disease of cancer. In that discussion many people raised other issues. Not much of it went to the discussion of the law, and the how and why of it all.

Maybe people would like to try here? Why would people take an absolutist position on age of maturity? Why would people take the more nuanced approach to age of maturity? Do people want an amendment to the USA to take the issue away from the states?

Maturity is a stuff question, to say the least. It's well known that some mature faster than others. Also, it's very difficult to determine at what age a person fully understands the consequences of their actions. Examples can be found of many cases where 16 to 18 year old teens seem very mature for their age, and some have even started businesses and have engaged in other areas that we'd normally expect to find only those much older. One area that comes to mind is the young men and women that join the armed forces.

When looking at this question from all sides, it's easy to see where any laws governing age requirements and accountability, mst consider maturity as it relates to different stages of mental development. Examples would be a person age 25 with an IQ of 70 shouldn't be expected to make the same rational decisions as a person 19 years of age with an IQ of 120.

Age should not be the only gauge when considering maturity, responsibility, and accountability.

Although I do believe that we can set an age from which to start the process of determining maturity and accountability, we can't expect age to be the absolute that covers all scenarios. An example would be the age at which one is allowed to vote in state and national elections. We can start by assuming those of high school graduation age, are reasonably educated enough to vote. But, again, maybe a closer look would reveal that it's necessary to raise that age to 20 or to 21.

The obvious difficulty here is determining the extent of maturity for the average person at any given age. Naturally this could also be debated, and I'm sure it would be hard to find a unanimous consensus.

My opinion is that we need to first determine the age range in which most are determined to be reasonably mature. Then, we can determine what those people are qualified to participate in, and what they can do on their own behalf.

At what age do we allow someone to buy beer? At what age do we allow someone to vote? At what age do we allow someone to legally drive a car? These are questions that would require a lot of evaluation and study.

hmm...

pretty well thought out

 

[Disir]

I'll do drinking. I might come back to criminal aspect later.

The age of drinking is tied to this right here:
National Minimum Drinking Age Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It was lowered due to all the reasons that people cite for wanting it lowered now. The reasons cited for raising it are due to the drunk driving deaths associated with lowering the age (before MAD became the insane MAD).
It's 2015 and car crashes are still the leading cause of death for teens.
Teen Drivers Get the Facts Motor Vehicle Safety CDC Injury Center

It can get real complicated real fast by lowering the age to 18 (or younger). Many 18 year old kids are still in high school. This means that most of their friends are in high school. Do you want the 18 year old Senior supplying alcohol to the 15, 16, and 17 year old (or younger) kids?

Let's say that one state has the age set at 18 and one state over is set at 21. Now you have all of the runs across the state line to buy alcohol and car crashes are still the leading cause of death for teens except the 25% associated with alcohol has now increased. The 18 year old whose head is still in that high school mode will be criminally charged as an adult and may even face an additional contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor - FindLaw

Many states come down very hard on over serving people in the bars including penalizing the bartender. In some states the bar owner pays an insurance and the bartender takes the fall. What additional repercussions will those bars face?

We have all kinds of studies including those from countries with a lower drinking age. They are often contradictory because of the culture. Those studies in the US often contradict each other.
Italians:
Italian youths who drink with meals are less often adult problem-drinkers -- ScienceDaily

English:
Drinking with Parents Reduces Alcohol Abuse among Teenagers

Americans:
Most Teens Get Alcohol From Parents Friends
Adults approval and adolescents alcohol use. - PubMed - NCBI

So, don't take the money? It's the State's call.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'll do drinking. I might come back to criminal aspect later.

...

So, don't take the money? It's the State's call.

The federal highway money? It is the states call now. Do you think young adults too young to drink should be fighting our wars?

 

[Disir]

I'll do drinking. I might come back to criminal aspect later.

...

So, don't take the money? It's the State's call.

The federal highway money? It is the states call now. Do you think young adults too young to drink should be fighting our wars?

I'm going to be real honest. They target these kids because they are very idealistic, they usually aren't married, and they have no baggage. Raise the age to enlist because they are one hundred percent too young to be fighting corporate wars initiated by those that would not dream of sending their own children.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'll do drinking. I might come back to criminal aspect later.

...

So, don't take the money? It's the State's call.

The federal highway money? It is the states call now. Do you think young adults too young to drink should be fighting our wars?

I'm going to be real honest. They target these kids because they are very idealistic, they usually aren't married, and they have no baggage. Raise the age to enlist because they are one hundred percent too young to be fighting corporate wars initiated by those that would not dream of sending their own children.

Speaking about all wars. Not just recent 'corp' wars. Bring back the draft and part of your argument washes away.

 

[Disir]

I'll do drinking. I might come back to criminal aspect later.

...

So, don't take the money? It's the State's call.

The federal highway money? It is the states call now. Do you think young adults too young to drink should be fighting our wars?

I'm going to be real honest. They target these kids because they are very idealistic, they usually aren't married, and they have no baggage. Raise the age to enlist because they are one hundred percent too young to be fighting corporate wars initiated by those that would not dream of sending their own children.

Speaking about all wars. Not just recent 'corp' wars. Bring back the draft and part of your argument washes away.

All wars. That's what the "spreading democracy" thingy is a cover for. Corp wars. Then don't bring back the draft.