i was just thinking ... why are the age limits set at what they are ... i cant
understand the 16 to drive thing (in my state) but 21 to drink ... wouldnt a 14
year old drunk person be a but safer ... he couldnt drive ... therefor he could
wreck and kill himself or others ... and the 18 to smoke thing ... if younger
people want to ruin their health earlier in their life shouldnt they have the
right ... and any other restrictions ... just my thoughts ... ok thats all
I have to admit American age restrictions confuse me, why should ppl be allowed
to drive 5 yrs b4 they can drink? Also I didn't know you had to 18 to smoke,
seems a bit old...but then again i don't smoke. In the UK you can smoke at 16,
drive at 17 and drink at 18....guess we like consecutive years or something...
I think age limits are set according to society preferences at the time the law
is created. It is rather odd that you can risk your life for your country
before you can drink in it. If the government is going to create laws to
protect children from self-destructive behavior, they should come up with one
specific age. Perhap 18 would be best. You could drive, drink, smoke, vote,
serve in the military, be charged as an adult for crimes, etc... I think it
would be best if there was one age, where an individual became specifically and
totally responsible for their own behavior. This assumes that the government
should have a roll to play in the situation.
Now as to the health issues you referrenced, I believe that setting a higher age
limit for drinking and smoking is appropriate because the sooner you start the
more is costs me personally to care for you when you break. I know it would be
absolutely ridiculous to set smoking at 21, but if the government did so in some
kind of "save the children" movement, I would not care. I know it
wouldn't actually save me any tax dollars, but hopefully some of my money would
be rerouted to better causes.
Age restrictions are weird, even in Australia and state to state, well the
drinking age all round is 18 years legal, same with buying smokes but as for
smoking them, no real law on them. Driving its different, one state is 16,
another is 16years 9months another is 17 years, just for your L's of course and
thats only for 6months then its provisional for 3 years (P1 for 1 year P2 for 2
years) before full licence
so really kids are drinkin within 2 years or less within getting a licence
(thats if they get them when they turn legal age to get licence)
but its just legal age to drive which varies alot, oh and in one state,
victoria, you gotta do 120 hrs before you can go for P's well that i know of,
elsewhere its 50hrs (thats driving experience) and now they have put on Power
restrictions for P platers that you cant drive V8's and Turboed cars, but
apparently the older V8s are only as powerful as current V6's so go figure
But if a 14 or younger child gets drunk, some of his brain will be damaged
permanately. Because before the age of 21 childrens brains are still devoloping.
so it may be safer in the eyes of driving but think about the child himself...
about the problems that he may have later in life like mental retardation, and
memory lost. I think that 21 is good enough of an age restriction because it's
when our brain's are devoloped and we have more common sence to stop. and in
america i think that they're only alloud to drive five years before drinking
because then they can see how dangerous the road is as is without drinking. and
we should feel sorry because there the government is thinking of not allouing
cell phones to be on in the car unless your older than 18 AND they cannot drive
anyone anywhere under the age of 18... so sad i feel as to cry for them.
what i don't get is why the voting age is 18...i mean, how many 18-year-olds
even care about politics? not many. i don't even think we all start being
actually concerned with it til we're 21, at least. but that's just me. O.o
Quote by wolfcoI think age limits are set
according to society preferences at the time
the law is created. It is rather odd that you can risk your life for
your country before you can drink in it. If the government is going to
create laws to protect children from self-destructive behavior, they
should come up with one specific age. Perhap 18 would be best. You
could drive, drink, smoke, vote, serve in the military, be charged as
an adult for crimes, etc... I think it would be best if there was one
age, where an individual became specifically and totally responsible
for their own behavior. This assumes that the government should have a
roll to play in the situation. Now as to the health issues you
referrenced, I believe that setting a higher age limit for drinking and
smoking is appropriate because the sooner you start the more is costs
me personally to care for you when you break. I know it would be
absolutely ridiculous to set smoking at 21, but if the government did
so in some kind of "save the children" movement, I would not care.
I
know it wouldn't actually save me any tax dollars, but hopefully some
of my money would be rerouted to better causes.
i find it amusing that you can die for your country (US) or kill legally (while
at war of course) before you can legally drink. dont know if that made sense but
you have to be 21 to drink yet once you're 18 you can die/kill for your country.
Quote by celebrilI have to admit
American age restrictions confuse me, why should ppl be allowed to drive 5 yrs
b4 they can drink? Also I didn't know you had to 18 to smoke, seems a bit
old...but then again i don't smoke. In the UK you can smoke at 16, drive at 17
and drink at 18....guess we like consecutive years or
something...
Well... Being an American I beleive I can safely say: We suck. We're confusing
idiots. Most of our stuff is either: broken, destructive or stupid. Also I have
seen underage people drink or smoke or both! It's truely appaling.
age restrictions are the structure that society decided to place upon it's
people.....we are so structured from birth that we just accept it - such as
time.....there is no such thing as time, but because we have been structured
from birth in what we've learned we go by a clock that should not exist.
The thing that confuses me the most is that we are considered adults with adult
responsibilities at the age of 17, legally. Yet, we couldn't smoke or drink at
17 if we wanted to, legally. I'm 23 and I have never drank or smoked, and don't
have an interest in doing so (I'm allergic to smoke) but it still doesn't make
any sense to me.
It also doesn't make sense to me that they should make any drugs illegal. Why
not just tax them and make money off of it rather than having them sold
illegally and hurting the economy? Even the founding fathers were all
pot-heads.
Quote by destructivemidgetsi
was just thinking ... why are the age limits set at what they are ...
i cant understand the 16 to drive thing (in my state) but 21 to drink
... wouldnt a 14 year old drunk person be a but safer ... he couldnt
drive ... therefor he could wreck and kill himself or others ... and
the 18 to smoke thing ... if younger people want to ruin their health
earlier in their life shouldnt they have the right ... and any other
restrictions ... just my thoughts ... ok thats all
A poor argument at best. Instead, it makes more sense to state that age and
maturity are not actually very closely related. I can think of a lot of people
under 16 who could drive or drink responsibly, but i can think of a lot of
people over 18 that lack the wisdom to be informedly involved in politics (i.e.
the Michael Moore/Howard Dean crowd., instead believing everything they hear.
i think they are going to lower the drinking age to 18 in the miltary. they
argue that if one is to fight and die for one country not can he/she at least
have a drink before he/she dies
I think that it's likely to do with the level of intelligence and comprehension.
Younger people tend to remember more about what they learn from their
experiences, and that isn't enough to completely understand what goes on. Though
experience plays a part in what helps in the decision for restriction, it's not
enough to say that some people don't know things or they do know things. My
opinion is that older people just have a better ability to gain complicated
knowledge.
Quote by SilentMasamuneI can
conclude that older people just have a better ability to gain
knowledge.
From what extensive research?
I've never liked traces of "government knows whats best for you"
inside laws. However, I accept that they will always be around, like socialists
and totalitarians.
Here in Canada we are allowed to get our first license (G1) at 16. We are
allowed to legally drink and buy smokes at 19. I think the age restricitions are
fair.
where i live...people sell kids my age drink and smoke. even though its against
the law. i think the age restrictions don't really they do anything. i think
only parents really put up age restrictions. about drink and smoking. my
friends and me live in the U.S 21 to drink. but our parents will let us drink
when we are 16 and most likely we will...
dispite what the legal drinking age is, at least 95% of people are going to do
at least a little bit of underage drinking (at least thats the case here in
Australia). imho, drinking small amounts of achocol underage is fine. from what
I know, alot of families in France sometimes give their children a bit of wine
at dinner, and it hasnt seems to hurt them. personally, im underage (but not by
much), and I have a couple of acoholic drinks through out the year (which is
very little compared to what other people do, eg, drinking almost every
weekend), and it hasnt caused me any problems. of course, being totally smashed
while underage is completly different thing.
underage smoking is never ever going to stop until there are no environments
children may be raised in that promote smoking. I had a friend that was pretty
smart and doing well in school, but he had enough of being "a nerd"
(according to other people in the school), and he started smoking (both tobacco
and weed) and drinking. now, while he social life changed (and improved from his
perspective), he fucked it all up at school, dropped out of school and didnt
even get his Year 10 certficate. But imho, none of this wouldnt of happened if
both his Mum and his Dad wernt fine with him getting into drugs and drinking,
and his Dad didnt already smoke tobacco and pot too.
as for some of the other completly illegal drugs, I think the idea that they
should be made legal (or at least just some of the more popular ones like weed
and speed) shouldnt be dismissed so quickly. some country in europe (cant
remember which one, but it was one of the smaller ones), legalised pot (for 18
and older), and the amount of underage people smoking weed dropped a
considerable amount. I'm not saying everyone should do the exact same thing too,
but it should be taken into consideration.
Allow me to clarify what I'm saying because I may
have put it in a way in which it wasn't clear enough.
Do you think that a 6-year-old would be able to read a driver's manual? Do you
think that a 6-year-old would be able to read a 200-page novel? Do you think
that a 6-year old would be able to know what drinking is or what drinking does
to the body? Do you think that a 6-year-old would completely know how to drive?
I'm asking these questions because of the experiences I had with children. I
know that children make such energetic and possibly impatient moves, especially
when it comes to playing with toys or action figures. Yes, they gain knowledge,
but since their brains are in development, I think that there's only so much
that they can learn until they get older. It's when they're older that they can
learn about the certain things which are restricted due to age; I don't think it
would be easy for a child to remember what drinking does to the body or even how
to drive a car. Of course, other factors, such as damages like brain damage or
ear infection, may be considered as well if present.
Quote by SilentMasamune I can
conclude that older people just have a better ability to gain
knowledge.
Actually, just about everyone else who has looked into the subject has conlcuded
that children absorb knowledge far more readily than adults.
i take for example computers. Give a child a computer and he will be typing
shortly thereafter, and messing with advanced features. Give an adult a
computer, and he will fumble around for a decade and still not understand the
thing.
i also take for example languages. How often do you go from no language at all
to more or less fluent in a matter of six or seven years? Not very? Well,
children can do this with three or four languages at a time if you put them in
the environment to do so.
i was just thinking ... why are the age limits set at what they are ... i cant understand the 16 to drive thing (in my state) but 21 to drink ... wouldnt a 14 year old drunk person be a but safer ... he couldnt drive ... therefor he could wreck and kill himself or others ... and the 18 to smoke thing ... if younger people want to ruin their health earlier in their life shouldnt they have the right ... and any other restrictions ... just my thoughts ... ok thats all
I have to admit American age restrictions confuse me, why should ppl be allowed to drive 5 yrs b4 they can drink? Also I didn't know you had to 18 to smoke, seems a bit old...but then again i don't smoke. In the UK you can smoke at 16, drive at 17 and drink at 18....guess we like consecutive years or something...
I think age limits are set according to society preferences at the time the law is created. It is rather odd that you can risk your life for your country before you can drink in it. If the government is going to create laws to protect children from self-destructive behavior, they should come up with one specific age. Perhap 18 would be best. You could drive, drink, smoke, vote, serve in the military, be charged as an adult for crimes, etc... I think it would be best if there was one age, where an individual became specifically and totally responsible for their own behavior. This assumes that the government should have a roll to play in the situation.
Now as to the health issues you referrenced, I believe that setting a higher age limit for drinking and smoking is appropriate because the sooner you start the more is costs me personally to care for you when you break. I know it would be absolutely ridiculous to set smoking at 21, but if the government did so in some kind of "save the children" movement, I would not care. I know it wouldn't actually save me any tax dollars, but hopefully some of my money would be rerouted to better causes.
Age restrictions are weird, even in Australia and state to state, well the drinking age all round is 18 years legal, same with buying smokes but as for smoking them, no real law on them. Driving its different, one state is 16, another is 16years 9months another is 17 years, just for your L's of course and thats only for 6months then its provisional for 3 years (P1 for 1 year P2 for 2 years) before full licence
so really kids are drinkin within 2 years or less within getting a licence (thats if they get them when they turn legal age to get licence)
but its just legal age to drive which varies alot, oh and in one state, victoria, you gotta do 120 hrs before you can go for P's well that i know of, elsewhere its 50hrs (thats driving experience) and now they have put on Power restrictions for P platers that you cant drive V8's and Turboed cars, but apparently the older V8s are only as powerful as current V6's so go figure
But if a 14 or younger child gets drunk, some of his brain will be damaged permanately. Because before the age of 21 childrens brains are still devoloping. so it may be safer in the eyes of driving but think about the child himself... about the problems that he may have later in life like mental retardation, and memory lost. I think that 21 is good enough of an age restriction because it's when our brain's are devoloped and we have more common sence to stop. and in america i think that they're only alloud to drive five years before drinking because then they can see how dangerous the road is as is without drinking. and we should feel sorry because there the government is thinking of not allouing cell phones to be on in the car unless your older than 18 AND they cannot drive anyone anywhere under the age of 18... so sad i feel as to cry for them.
in australia everything is different xd
16 to drive
18 to drink
i find that very reasonable, but i guess allowing people to drive at 16 is pretty dangerous but i dont mind, coz i get to drive =P
what i don't get is why the voting age is 18...i mean, how many 18-year-olds even care about politics? not many. i don't even think we all start being actually concerned with it til we're 21, at least. but that's just me. O.o
lol, as if they are being followed..i've seen a lot of 12 yr.old kids getting drunk, throwin up everywhere..
There are no set rules here in the Philippines... so even kids can drink and drive.
Laws are confusing...
Ditto
i find it amusing that you can die for your country (US) or kill legally (while at war of course) before you can legally drink. dont know if that made sense but you have to be 21 to drink yet once you're 18 you can die/kill for your country.
Well... Being an American I beleive I can safely say: We suck. We're confusing idiots. Most of our stuff is either: broken, destructive or stupid. Also I have seen underage people drink or smoke or both! It's truely appaling.
age restrictions are the structure that society decided to place upon it's people.....we are so structured from birth that we just accept it - such as time.....there is no such thing as time, but because we have been structured from birth in what we've learned we go by a clock that should not exist.
The thing that confuses me the most is that we are considered adults with adult responsibilities at the age of 17, legally. Yet, we couldn't smoke or drink at 17 if we wanted to, legally. I'm 23 and I have never drank or smoked, and don't have an interest in doing so (I'm allergic to smoke) but it still doesn't make any sense to me.
It also doesn't make sense to me that they should make any drugs illegal. Why not just tax them and make money off of it rather than having them sold illegally and hurting the economy? Even the founding fathers were all pot-heads.
A poor argument at best. Instead, it makes more sense to state that age and maturity are not actually very closely related. I can think of a lot of people under 16 who could drive or drink responsibly, but i can think of a lot of people over 18 that lack the wisdom to be informedly involved in politics (i.e. the Michael Moore/Howard Dean crowd., instead believing everything they hear.
i think they are going to lower the drinking age to 18 in the miltary. they argue that if one is to fight and die for one country not can he/she at least have a drink before he/she dies
16 year old to drive there? In spain its 18 for those 3 things
I think that it's likely to do with the level of intelligence and comprehension. Younger people tend to remember more about what they learn from their experiences, and that isn't enough to completely understand what goes on. Though experience plays a part in what helps in the decision for restriction, it's not enough to say that some people don't know things or they do know things. My opinion is that older people just have a better ability to gain complicated knowledge.
From what extensive research?
I've never liked traces of "government knows whats best for you" inside laws. However, I accept that they will always be around, like socialists and totalitarians.
Here in Canada we are allowed to get our first license (G1) at 16. We are allowed to legally drink and buy smokes at 19. I think the age restricitions are fair.
where i live...people sell kids my age drink and smoke. even though its against the law. i think the age restrictions don't really they do anything. i think only parents really put up age restrictions. about drink and smoking. my friends and me live in the U.S 21 to drink. but our parents will let us drink when we are 16 and most likely we will...
dispite what the legal drinking age is, at least 95% of people are going to do at least a little bit of underage drinking (at least thats the case here in Australia). imho, drinking small amounts of achocol underage is fine. from what I know, alot of families in France sometimes give their children a bit of wine at dinner, and it hasnt seems to hurt them. personally, im underage (but not by much), and I have a couple of acoholic drinks through out the year (which is very little compared to what other people do, eg, drinking almost every weekend), and it hasnt caused me any problems. of course, being totally smashed while underage is completly different thing.
underage smoking is never ever going to stop until there are no environments children may be raised in that promote smoking. I had a friend that was pretty smart and doing well in school, but he had enough of being "a nerd" (according to other people in the school), and he started smoking (both tobacco and weed) and drinking. now, while he social life changed (and improved from his perspective), he fucked it all up at school, dropped out of school and didnt even get his Year 10 certficate. But imho, none of this wouldnt of happened if both his Mum and his Dad wernt fine with him getting into drugs and drinking, and his Dad didnt already smoke tobacco and pot too.
as for some of the other completly illegal drugs, I think the idea that they should be made legal (or at least just some of the more popular ones like weed and speed) shouldnt be dismissed so quickly. some country in europe (cant remember which one, but it was one of the smaller ones), legalised pot (for 18 and older), and the amount of underage people smoking weed dropped a considerable amount. I'm not saying everyone should do the exact same thing too, but it should be taken into consideration.
Allow me to clarify what I'm saying because I may have put it in a way in which it wasn't clear enough.
Do you think that a 6-year-old would be able to read a driver's manual? Do you think that a 6-year-old would be able to read a 200-page novel? Do you think that a 6-year old would be able to know what drinking is or what drinking does to the body? Do you think that a 6-year-old would completely know how to drive? I'm asking these questions because of the experiences I had with children. I know that children make such energetic and possibly impatient moves, especially when it comes to playing with toys or action figures. Yes, they gain knowledge, but since their brains are in development, I think that there's only so much that they can learn until they get older. It's when they're older that they can learn about the certain things which are restricted due to age; I don't think it would be easy for a child to remember what drinking does to the body or even how to drive a car. Of course, other factors, such as damages like brain damage or ear infection, may be considered as well if present.
Actually, just about everyone else who has looked into the subject has conlcuded that children absorb knowledge far more readily than adults.
i take for example computers. Give a child a computer and he will be typing shortly thereafter, and messing with advanced features. Give an adult a computer, and he will fumble around for a decade and still not understand the thing.
i also take for example languages. How often do you go from no language at all to more or less fluent in a matter of six or seven years? Not very? Well, children can do this with three or four languages at a time if you put them in the environment to do so.