Law Should Adulthood (The Rights To Vote, Smoke, Drink, Marry, Enlist, Bear Arms) Be 18 or 21?

[7437]

She cant get a boyfriend, really

Doubt anyone believes that.

Now can't get a non weird boyfriend, I would believe that.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You can't buy tobacco in California until your 21!? The hell is that about?

I don't really have a problem with this since most people are still dependents or students at that age anyway, and I'm assuming the "some exceptions" are for those who aren't and have families and houses. I don't see what Florida's three day waiting period is supposed to accomplish though, except to leave anybody who's received a credible threat defenseless for several days while they wait. I don't think any kind of school shooter or premeditated murderer is going to decide "nevermind" because he had to wait 3 days.

Homeboy probably should have kept his mouth shut with the comparisons to justify, because this kind of leaves the door open to raise the age consent, military recruitment, legal contracts, and a lot of things that are different for "minors".

2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides and suicidal impulses are just that, impulses. Often you can ride them out. Doesn't mean they go away forever and for many people they come and go but the point is someone with suicidal impulses who goes to buy a gun could very well change their mind in that interval, both about suicide and gun ownership.

It should be 21, but if you're going to have people fight and die for your nation who are 20 to 18, it has to be 18 in my mind.

That's unfortunate.

What needs to be addressed IMO is the reality that age in and of itself was never the mark of adulthood(and IMO its illogical basis for adulthood), rites of passage were. That was different for many different societies and could be something as random as having to wear a glove with hundreds of bullet ants stitched into them for 24 hours. But the most common ones relevant to modern societies are marriage and, in societies that had it, conscription.

Both of these rites of passage have slowly eroded over time; people get married later in life and many societies that once had conscription have abolished it. This is a big part of the so called crisis of masculinity; there's no defined rite of passage for which boys are turned into men.

Wouldn't you agree, for instance, that a 20 year old married father who served a tour in Iraq is more of an adult than a childless incel who is still dependent on his parents at the age of 26? The concept of child marriage didn't exist in the old world, or in modern societies that still resemble it, because by definition marriage, and the package of responsibilities associated with it, transformed a child into an adult. Thus when someone like Gandhiji was, in the late 19th century, married at the age of 13 to his 13 old bride he was going to be treated and expected to act like an adult. But "rational" modern liberal society sees no need for such rites of passage, in fact they would see them as oppressive and no doubt there's truth to that idea(what could be more oppressive than forcing young men to be instruments of state violence under a highly authoritarian and hierarchical command structure?).

I'm not necessarily saying we should start conscripting or marrying off teens, perhaps that's best left to the past. But I am saying that breaking down those old rites of passage without replacing them has caused certain social ills. The closest modern equivalent of a rite of passage would be graduating high school or college but increasingly even students within those institutions are "coddled"(for lack of a better word), and so young men meander through their 20s as though it were an extended adolescence. The incels are a great example but so are their dreaded counterparts, the so called "Chads" who revel in a hedonistic bachelorhood. Chads don't whine as much about it because they're at least able to fulfill their basest desires long enough to distract them from this fact while incels are forced to confront it. In the Arab world they have a word for this that roughly translated to "waithood" to signify the fact that the person was essentially waiting to become an adult at the precipice of adulthood.

I don't have simple answers, not to this issue of the rite of passage nor to that of the central question of this thread regarding the proper age of adulthood. But I do think a concrete rite of passage, preferably some form of public service, would be a better cut off point for adulthood than an arbitrary birthday. If you want to look to biology our brains don't stop developing until our mid 20s but I don't think most people would be comfortable with having the cut off that late into the game.

 

[Oeshon]

18

only americans think you are still a kid when you are 20. it is pathetic.

 

[InternetHero]

2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides and suicidal impulses are just that, impulses. Often you can ride them out. Doesn't mean they go away forever and for many people they come and go but the point is someone with suicidal impulses who goes to buy a gun could very well change their mind in that interval, both about suicide and gun ownership.

What needs to be addressed IMO is the reality that age in and of itself was never the mark of adulthood(and IMO its illogical basis for adulthood), rites of passage were. That was different for many different societies and could be something as random as having to wear a glove with hundreds of bullet ants stitched into them for 24 hours. But the most common ones relevant to modern societies are marriage and, in societies that had it, conscription.

Both of these rites of passage have slowly eroded over time; people get married later in life and many societies that once had conscription have abolished it. This is a big part of the so called crisis of masculinity; there's no defined rite of passage for which boys are turned into men.

Wouldn't you agree, for instance, that a 20 year old married father who served a tour in Iraq is more of an adult than a childless incel who is still dependent on his parents at the age of 26? The concept of child marriage didn't exist in the old world, or in modern societies that still resemble it, because by definition marriage, and the package of responsibilities associated with it, transformed a child into an adult. Thus when someone like Gandhiji was, in the late 19th century, married at the age of 13 to his 13 old bride he was going to be treated and expected to act like an adult. But "rational" modern liberal society sees no need for such rites of passage, in fact they would see them as oppressive and no doubt there's truth to that idea(what could be more oppressive than forcing young men to be instruments of state violence under a highly authoritarian and hierarchical command structure?).

I'm not necessarily saying we should start conscripting or marrying off teens, perhaps that's best left to the past. But I am saying that breaking down those old rites of passage without replacing them has caused certain social ills. The closest modern equivalent of a rite of passage would be graduating high school or college but increasingly even students within those institutions are "coddled"(for lack of a better word), and so young men meander through their 20s as though it were an extended adolescence. The incels are a great example but so are their dreaded counterparts, the so called "Chads" who revel in a hedonistic bachelorhood. Chads don't whine as much about it because they're at least able to fulfill their basest desires long enough to distract them from this fact while incels are forced to confront it. In the Arab world they have a word for this that roughly translated to "waithood" to signify the fact that the person was essentially waiting to become an adult at the precipice of adulthood.

I don't have simple answers, not to this issue of the rite of passage nor to that of the central question of this thread regarding the proper age of adulthood. But I do think a concrete rite of passage, preferably some form of public service, would be a better cut off point for adulthood than an arbitrary birthday. If you want to look to biology our brains don't stop developing until our mid 20s but I don't think most people would be comfortable with having the cut off that late into the game.

Having a sense of ritual, or better of standards, would indeed be a good way to judge a lot of things in society.

Then again, "Judge not," has become, "NOTHING JUDGES ME!" which was not the idea to begin with. The West's intellectuals finally made a push to free themselves form all guilt through saying that any attempt at shame or civility is somehow prejudice.

"Sorry, but you're really, really fat." is now discrimination and somehow evil, due to attempts to rewrite nature and standards.

The logic against the judgement goes -

- Nature is unfair

- It is hard to change

- None of it matters anyway so you might as well wallow in your problems of today, and die a "big fat party animal," or whatever addiction is whittling them away.

Since nature is unfair, it is hard or "impossible" (oh no...) to change, and you better live for today... trying to tell anyone that those circumstances are grossly untrue in most circumstances, is met with hostility by a lot of modern Americans.

It's a terrible and stupid concept, and we have to double down on it in the near term. The culture demands nothing less...

 

[Islam Imamate]

Having a sense of ritual, or better of standards, would indeed be a good way to judge a lot of things in society.

Then again, "Judge not," has become, "NOTHING JUDGES ME!" which was not the idea to begin with. The West's intellectuals finally made a push to free themselves form all guilt through saying that any attempt at shame or civility is somehow prejudice.

"Sorry, but you're really, really fat." is now discrimination and somehow evil, due to attempts to rewrite nature and standards.

The logic against the judgement goes -

- Nature is unfair

- It is hard to change

- None of it matters anyway so you might as well wallow in your problems of today, and die a "big fat party animal," or whatever addiction is whittling them away.

Since nature is unfair, it is hard or "impossible" (oh no...) to change, and you better live for today... trying to tell anyone that those circumstances are grossly untrue in most circumstances, is met with hostility by a lot of modern Americans.

It's a terrible and stupid concept, and we have to double down on it in the near term. The culture demands nothing less...

I don't want to exaggerate the problem in a sense, I think many young people find their way for the most part and especially young women who increasingly overshadow their male peers in educational and occupational achievements. But the lack of a rigid social structure which filters young people through these rites of passages means many lose their way as well.

I'm not theoretically against conscription though I would like to see young men conscripted into reserve forces so they still have the wiggle room to pursue another career or their tertiary education. But just that bare minimum might be enough of a rite of passage. My main problem with implementing this in the US is the war mongering political establishment which could exploit this for their own ends but one could hope that if more of the nation's sons were in the military the electorate would prioritize a dovish stance more than the currently do.

I don't believe in conscripting women into the military but perhaps for them some other form of public service would suffice. Or not, as I suggested earlier they seem to have less trouble finding their way on their own.

 

[Culombo]

"we can send you off to get slaughtered in war zones but eh sorry you can't buy any firearms to protect yourself while you're back home"

 

[squeezewax]

Well the human brain isn't fully formed until the age of 25.

I'm always surprized that the age of consent in America isn't 16 like it is in the countries i've lived in, it makes no sense.

 

[Arkain2K]

Sen. Mitch McConnell wants to raise age to buy tobacco products
By Elizabeth Thomas | May 10, 2019

Sen. Mitch McConnell is pushing to raise the minimum age to buy tobacco products from 18 to 21 and said to expect legislation on this "top priority" for later this month.

The Senate majority leader hails from the state of Kentucky, the nation’s second-largest tobacco producer, and he said that he was prompted to raise the legal age of purchasing tobacco products due to a surge in youth vaping.

"For some time, I’ve been hearing from the parents who are seeing an unprecedented spike in vaping among their teenage children," Sen. McConnell said in a news conference in Louisville, Ky. "In addition, we all know people who started smoking at a young age and who struggled to quit as adults. Unfortunately, it’s reaching epidemic levels around the country.”

There is currently a bipartisan group of Senators pushing legislation that would accomplish this goal. The Tobacco to 21 Act, sponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Mitt Romney, R-Utah, Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Todd Young, R-Ind., has received the endorsement of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids who said that it is an "important part of an overall strategy to reverse the youth e-cig epidemic and further reduce tobacco use."

Schatz is the lead Democratic co-sponsor of the bill and has called on McConnell to support the "clean piece legislation" that has "no loopholes" and "no exceptions."

"If Leader McConnell is interested in joining our effort, I think the cleanest way for him to do that would be for him to co-sponsor our bill," Schatz said Wednesday during a press conference. "We look forward to seeing what he proposes if he proposes something.”

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics...se-age-buy-tobacco-products/story?id=62933574

 

[killakoy]

This irks me... it should be 18. It's an arbitrary line, but 18's the one that makes the most sense since most kids will go off to college/service after their 18th birthday.

I have no problem with an 18 year old buying tobacco, voting, owning a firearm, buying alcohol, etc. I do have a problem with the government restricting the rights of adults. You can't coddle children forever.

Politicians like putting all these restrictions based on their ideology, but what's next? No credit establishment until age 25 since maturity hasn't set in? Kids make life altering decisions early in life all the time, consequences just get more severe as you get older.

 

[killakoy]

Car rental is a private service, not a protected right enshrined in the Constitution, so car rental companies are free to set their own pricing policies, as long as it's not arbitrarily discriminatory.

But why 25? Well, here's the rub:

Once upon a time, insurance companies got together to comb over public accidents statistics and discovered that the vast majority of dumb-ass accidents involved drivers under 25 years old, so they decided that drivers 25 and over should get the best insurance rates.

This decision directly lead to car rental companies offering 25 year olds the "normal" rental prices, and that's the demographic they specifically caters to.

For the record, the vast majority of car rental companies today still offer rental to people between 21-24. They just don't go around trumpetting that service. A few of them even provide their service to 18-20 year olds.

The kicker here is that these young drivers under 25 will have to swallow the daily "Young Renter" surcharge fee, which often bring the total cost to doubles the "normal" rates, to cover for all the accidents and damages that younger drivers are notorious for.

It's all about business economics here, and it will continue to be that way as long as people under 25 kept getting into car accidents at much higher rates than people over 25.

I've never got why this isn't age discrimination. Same with gender discrimination and males being a higher rate than females. Sure it's supported by data, but what if data supported that Asians got in more accidents than other races? Would you tier insurance rates based on ethnicity? I seriously doubt that'd be okay.

 

[Arkain2K]

Sure it's supported by data, but what if data supported that Asians got in more accidents than other races? Would you tier insurance rates based on ethnicity? I seriously doubt that'd be okay.

LOL, I always get a chuckle out of the "bad Asian driver" trope, since it starts out as an insider joke among first generation Asian-Americans, and then ignorant people somehow think it's for real.

Fact is, Asian-Americans are the safest drivers group BY FAR and subsequently are paying less for their car insurance than anyone else in America.

Myth-busting the ‘Bad Asian Driver’ myth: Car insurance rates don’t lie

First generation Asian migrants into Western driving society seem to suffer from attitude issues, rather than necessary skills.

Skills in driving can be learned, as can learning the rules of the road. Asians are well-documented in being very intelligent, so it’s not reasonable to think that Asians are bad drivers because they don’t know how to drive. The all comes down to attitude when driving.

In other words, the Western world is much more spread out and less congested than in Asian countries. With Asian cities so densely populated and so many cars on top of each other, Asian drivers tend to develop a more aggressive attitude toward driving – courtesy goes out the window and it’s every man or woman for him or herself. That attitude is often hard to de-program in a Western world where drivers are generally more courteous and patient.

Statistics show that Asian drivers, as a group, are actually the safest on the roads in America, with a fatality rate at least three times lower than any other ethnic group. Asians average about four deaths for every 1000,000 people. Whites, Hispanics, and blacks then follow at around 12 per 100,000 each. The most dangerous group is American Indians at nearly 32 deaths per 100,000.

on average, auto insurance premiums for all drivers comes out to just north of $900 per year, or about $75 per month. If we were to break that out into racial categories, the average Asian driver in the U.S. is actually paying an annual premium of about $815 per year, or $68 per month – 10 percent less than the average U.S. driver.

https://augustafreepress.com/myth-b...driver-myth-car-insurance-rates-dont-lie/amp/

Asians Are Actually Better Drivers – And They Get Cheaper Car Insurance Because Of It

In November 2015, the Consumer Federation of America published a studyanalyzing car insurance quotes from white, black and Asian communities across the United States.

Based on this study, Asian drivers will pay less for car insurance than drivers in predominantly African-American or white neighborhoods. Some of the important findings from that study include:

• Drivers who live in predominantly African-American communities will pay insurance rates of approximately $1,060 per year, regardless of their ethnicity
• In general, drivers in predominantly black neighborhoods can expect to pay an incredible 70% higher rate on their car insurance than drivers in predominantly white neighborhoods (the study defined “neighborhoods” based on ZIP codes)
• In densely populated urban centers, for example, the average premium for drivers in African-American ZIP codes was $1,797 compared to $1,126 for drivers in predominantly white ZIP codes – a difference of 60%

Up above, we determined that the average Asian-American driver pays a rate of approximately $816 per year, which is significantly less than the $1100 to $1800 quotes found in the study linked above.

https://www.4autoinsurancequote.com/blog/asians-safer-drivers-better-car-insurance-rates/

 

[killakoy]

LOL, I always get a chuckle out of the "bad Asian driver" trope, since it starts out as an inside joke among Asians, and then ignorant people somehow think it's for real.

Fact is, Asian-Americans are the safest drivers group and currently only pay about $800 a year for their car insurance, that's approximately 2/3 what White drivers pay and less than half what typical Black driver has to cough up.

I write that as half asian myself. But seriously, that stereotype didn't come from nowhere and it's terrifying whenever my mom drives.

That being said, I'm sure the stats are right. I'll just generalize and say that it's because most Asians don't do stupid, immature shit behind the wheel.

 

[Arkain2K]

I write that as half asian myself. But seriously, that stereotype didn't come from nowhere and it's terrifying whenever my mom drives.

That being said, I'm sure the stats are right. I'll just generalize and say that it's because most Asians don't do stupid, immature shit behind the wheel.

That article tells you exactly where it came from: older First-Gen Asian-Americans are very aggressive drivers, because that's how everyone drives in Asia, which laid-back drivers in the West (including their Second-Gen children) interpret as "unsafe", even though statistics have repeatedly shown that seemingly-terrifying driving style doesn't actually translate to nearly as many traffic tickets and car accidents compare to people who are not aggressive drivers, but do all kinds of stupidly unsafe shit behind the wheel instead.

In the end, the number of traffic tickets and accidents on your mom's DMV file are what auto insurance companies interested in, not how pleasant or scary she is on the road.

But to answer your main inquiry: yes, different age brackets, genders, and race groups* do pay different insurance rates, and insurance companies are able to do that because they have public statistics to back it up, and the courts agreed that their formula is based on actual data, not arbitrary feelings on the subject matter.

(* It's no longer legal to base an auto insurance price quote on skin color, so auto insurance companies come up with a new risk formula partially based on the driver's zip code of residence instead, and lo and behold, public data shows that predominantly-Asian neighborhoods are statistically safer than White neighborhoods, and White neighborhoods are statistically safer than Black/Latino neighborhoods. It's a longer detour that takes you to the same destination: Asian drivers are charged less than White, White drivers are charged less than Black/Latino).

 

[killakoy]

Thanks for that little tidbit of information. Interesting that it's from the 1st generation drivers.

I still don't think that insurance rates should be based on demographics. I honestly can't see how that's legal even if it's statistics based. This is the same argument as police doing racial profiling - it really skirts a grey area of law. If anything, insurance should be based on individual driving history with new drivers getting the higher rates.

 

[AngryPorto]

Whatever age you can be drafted at. 18, 21, doesn't matter, should be the same.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

Whatever age you can be drafted at. 18, 21, doesn't matter, should be the same.

bingo.
if you can fight to the death, you are a man. thats it.

 

[Arkain2K]

Delaware lawmakers raise age to buy tobacco products to 21
By Zoë Read | April 11, 2019

The rising popularity of e-cigarettes has prompted the Delaware General Assembly to raise the age to buy tobacco-related products.

Following a partisan debate on the floor Thursday, the House voted 26-16 to raise the smoking age in the state from 18 to 21. In March, the Senate passed the legislation 14-6.

The legislation will save lives by encouraging young people to stay away from cancer- causing tobacco products, proponents say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 95 percent of smokers began using cigarettes before age 21.

Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death and disability in Delaware — and the United States — claiming 1,400 lives per year in the First State. Treatment of tobacco-related illnesses costs Delaware $532 million annually, according to state officials.

At least 450 cities and 11 states have voted to raise the age for tobacco use to 21.

The legislation also prohibits the sale of tobacco substitutes, such as e-cigarettes, to those under 21. As marketing campaigns for these products target preteens and teens, public health officials say, usage has become epidemic. According to studies, more than 13 percent of high school students use the products.

“It’s going to bring awareness, and we’re going to get to the point we can keep tobacco products out of the hands of young children,” said bill co-sponsor state Rep. Melissa Minor-Brown, D-New Castle.

“The issue we have now is our 18- to 21-year-olds, especially 18-year-olds, are obtaining these products and passing them down to our high school and middle school children. Our kids are so impressionable right now,” she said. “It’s bad enough they’re seeing these products on TV, they hear it on the radio, they see signs in the stores — and the cool flavors are attracting our kids.

“So we have to get ahead of this. We have to save our children.”

The legislation places the burden of enforcement on sellers. Those under 21 would not be penalized if caught with a tobacco product.

Currently, those under 18 caught with cigarettes could go to Family Court as an adjudicated delinquent and face the possibility of community service or a fine. The new legislation eliminates that penalty completely.

Republicans expressed concerns Thursday that raising the age to purchase the tobacco products would be hypocritical when the age of majority is 18 for all other categories except alcohol use. Two lawmakers read letters from constituents serving in the military who pointed out that they can go to war and risk their lives, but will not be permitted to buy a pack of cigarettes upon their return.

“What I’m getting in my district is we’re having government choose what the age of responsibility is for decision making,” said state Rep. Steve Smyk, R-Milton.

“So where is the age of responsibility? Is it 18? Or is it a different age for each decision, that we’re going to decide they make? (It has to be one of two things) Outlaw tobacco altogether, or raise the age of responsibility and adulthood to 21.”

Gov. John Carney will sign the legislation next week, and it will become effective 90 days later.

https://whyy.org/articles/delaware-lawmakers-raise-age-to-buy-tobacco-products-to-21/

 

[ocfightfan]

If you can reach 96 years old then you can be considered an adult.

 

[Kaybee]

21 is such an arbitrary number. I get 18, since it is when you finish high school so you'd be an adult. But logically wouldn't the next step be either 20 (2-year degree and 2 decades old) or 22 (typically done with undergrad)?

 

[Terry Noonan]

If you can join the military at 18, you should be able to do everything else America has to offer. Otherwise increase age to join military to 21 in line with alcohol purchases and consumption.