At what age would you consider someone "responsible"

[chemgirl]

In Islander's thread about "experts" on TV, she mentions that people under 21 shouldn't open the link due to questionable content. I know she was joking around, but it really got me thinking. I'm not in the US, so to me, the idea of a 20 year old being banned from viewing any type of content is really strange. I was allowed to watch x-rated movies, buy alcohol, go to clubs, buy cigarettes (I didn't, but I could!) and gamble when I was 19. If I chose to drive the hour to Quebec, I could do all of those things at the age of 18. When I was in highschool, the age of consent here was 14. Now its been raised to 16 and I think its pretty icky that it was ever 14.

But at what age are we really legally responsible? At 19 I had a credit card, an apartment and utility bills. I was held financially responsible for my actions, but if I visited friends in the US, I wasn't morally responsible enough to decide if I could order a beer. My friends in the US all had the same financial responsibilities I did, but they were also banned from making moral decisions.

I'm also curious about military service. So am I correct in thinking that somebody can join the military at the age of 18? That is a life changing decision. People are capable of making that decision at the age of 18, but can't watch certain movies?

I don't think this is political and I don't want it to turn in to anything political.

Its just something I've been really curious about. Where is the line?

 

[ksinger]

In Islander's thread about "experts" on TV, she mentions that people under 21 shouldn't open the link due to questionable content. I know she was joking around, but it really got me thinking. I'm not in the US, so to me, the idea of a 20 year old being banned from viewing any type of content is really strange. I was allowed to watch x-rated movies, buy alcohol, go to clubs, buy cigarettes (I didn't, but I could!) and gamble when I was 19. If I chose to drive the hour to Quebec, I could do all of those things at the age of 18. When I was in highschool, the age of consent here was 14. Now its been raised to 16 and I think its pretty icky that it was ever 14.

But at what age are we really legally responsible? At 19 I had a credit card, an apartment and utility bills. I was held financially responsible for my actions, but if I visited friends in the US, I wasn't morally responsible enough to decide if I could order a beer. My friends in the US all had the same financial responsibilities I did, but they were also banned from making moral decisions.

I'm also curious about military service. So am I correct in thinking that somebody can join the military at the age of 18? That is a life changing decision. People are capable of making that decision at the age of 18, but can't watch certain movies?

I don't think this is political and I don't want it to turn in to anything political.

Its just something I've been really curious about. Where is the line?

There are a lot of angles from which to approach this question. Legally of course, you are responsible for ...whatever...when the law says you are, and laws everywhere are inconsistent and shift depending upon the prevailing view of people at the time. A good example is what you mention - the shift of the age of consent from 14 to 16. Views of children change, and so do the laws. Heck, in the past women were not viewed as fully functioning moral/intellectual agents and the laws reflected that. And I've read some pieces that are now positing young adulthood as a life phase - like adolescence was formally defined - between adolescence and the full faculties of adulthood. I think you see that mindset in the laws that you mention - we view 18 year olds capable of some things, but as having poor judgement and still needing restriction in others. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is. Bottom line, for the purposes of laws, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and no one is going to agree with those pieces that they see as inconsistent with their view of moral reasoning.

 

[perry]

Here in the US people can actually join the Military at age 17 with permission of the parents. I do not believe that the US Military is currently accepting these applicants - but the law is in the books.

Overall you raise a good question. I am old enough to remember when the drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18 back in the early 70's. Then in the late 80's or early 90's they again raised it.

On the age of consent - I am completely mystified by the range and supposed reasons for the range (worldwide age of consent ranges from 12 to 21). For those of you looking for some form of moral standard the age of consent in the Vatican State is 12.

Within the US the age of consent ranges from 14 to 18.

I have thought long and hard over the years on the issue - and understand the argument about protecting the young an innocent; but do not understand why people over the years feel that teenagers have to be older because they are not yet wise enough. It certainly does not prevent teenagers from having sex or drinking (and having sex with older people). I am not convinced that sexual relations or drinking permanently damages a maturing teenager. The key is if it is a responsible relationship or responsible drinking.

For a period of time I thought that one of the most common sense laws on the age of consent compared to responsibility was that if the parents felt their children were responsible enough to drive - that consisted of certification of the age of consent (i.e. if she had a drivers license...).

If it were up to me here is what I would adopt:

No age of consent between minors of similar age.
Age of consent 14 with parents permission on the relationship.
Full age of consent at 16 unless deemed mentally challenged.
Drinking in a controlled environment at 16
Full drinking at 18.

In all cases charges cannot be brought against the older person if the minor was using a faked ID (I know of too many cases of this to mention - and was almost caught in this myself decades ago).

Perry

 

[MichelleCarmen]

ETA - I haven't looked at iLander's post...


When I was 18, I was legally responsible for everything. Right after high school graduation, I moved out, got my own apartment, a job, credit cards, had a car, etc. All on my own. My mom and I didn't get along and living with her wasn't a healthy environment. FWIW, my dad died when I was 16 and my mom gave me his car and handed me cash every month and never was around so basically I raised myself from that point and was responsible for my own actions.

Drinking was a moot point as a lot of my friends were over 21 (sums that up)... Also, I live 2 hrs from Canada and we use to go up there and drink

ETA - I hope my kids are responsible at 18. If they're not and living at home when they're 21, I will be banging my head against a wall.

 

[ksinger]

Here in the US people can actually join the Military at age 17 with permission of the parents. I do not believe that the US Military is currently accepting these applicants - but the law is in the books.

Overall you raise a good question. I am old enough to remember when the drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18 back in the early 70's. Then in the late 80's or early 90's they again raised it.

On the age of consent - I am completely mystified by the range and supposed reasons for the range (worldwide age of consent ranges from 12 to 21). For those of you looking for some form of moral standard the age of consent in the Vatican State is 12.

Within the US the age of consent ranges from 14 to 18.

I have thought long and hard over the years on the issue - and understand the argument about protecting the young an innocent; but do not understand why people over the years feel that teenagers have to be older because they are not yet wise enough. It certainly does not prevent teenagers from having sex or drinking (and having sex with older people). I am not convinced that sexual relations or drinking permanently damages a maturing teenager. The key is if it is a responsible relationship or responsible drinking.

For a period of time I thought that one of the most common sense laws on the age of consent compared to responsibility was that if the parents felt their children were responsible enough to drive - that consisted of certification of the age of consent (i.e. if she had a drivers license...).

If it were up to me here is what I would adopt:

No age of consent between minors of similar age.
Age of consent 14 with parents permission on the relationship.
Full age of consent at 16 unless deemed mentally challenged.
Drinking in a controlled environment at 16
Full drinking at 18.

In all cases charges cannot be brought against the older person if the minor was using a faked ID (I know of too many cases of this to mention - and was almost caught in this myself decades ago).

Perry

You definitely have a different view of teens than I do. Not a criticism, merely an observation. And one that highlights the ebb and flow of the laws pertaining to teens/young adults. You see them as far more advanced and able to make good decisions than I do. I see them as becoming less mature - reasoning wise - for their age than 50 years ago. My husband, having taught adolescents for 15 years now, says absolutely this is true. He has witnessed the decline with his own eyes - impulse control and extrapolation of consequences is down just in the time that he has been teaching. I myself recall reading an article (and I've tried desperately to find it to no avail - hubs suggested I search ERIC for it but I can't find it there either...grrr!) about a repeat of the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment on delayed gratification in young children. The article I read (and I'm dragging this from memory so forgive me) noted that today, it took until around age 7 for the kids to match the ability to delay gratification that was the norm in 4 year olds 40 years ago. Pretty sobering.

 

[perry]

You definitely have a different view of teens than I do. Not a criticism, merely an observation. And one that highlights the ebb and flow of the laws pertaining to teens/young adults. You see them as far more advanced and able to make good decisions than I do. I see them as becoming less mature - reasoning wise - for their age than 50 years ago. My husband, having taught adolescents for 15 years now, says absolutely this is true. He has witnessed the decline with his own eyes - impulse control and extrapolation of consequences is down just in the time that he has been teaching. I myself recall reading an article (and I've tried desperately to find it to no avail - hubs suggested I search ERIC for it but I can't find it there either...grrr!) about a repeat of the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment on delayed gratification in young children. The article I read (and I'm dragging this from memory so forgive me) noted that today, it took until around age 7 for the kids to match the ability to delay gratification that was the norm in 4 year olds 40 years ago. Pretty sobering.

I will not disagree that teenagers within the US are less responsible now than 30 years ago.

I believe that this is because that within the US they have been treated and taught that they are less responsible - and we are seeing the results of what we have been teaching (surprise...).

Yet, in other countries where teenagers are taught to take responsibility for their sexuality and for their drinking there has not been the same kind of degradation of responsibility. That does not mean that teenagers don't make more bad decisions than adults. you learn how to make good decisions by making bad ones and we all have to go through it.

I would revert back to the concept that we are supposed to be teaching teenagers how to be responsible - and we should be transferring responsibility as soon as they can handle it - so they grow into responsible adults quicker. Telling them they can't be responsible is not the answer.

You are correct in that this reflects the ebb and flow of the position over the decade.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Perry, I don't know the magic age for anything, but the one thing I DO know is that I wouldn't have teenagers start legally drinking and legally driving at the same age!

 

[ksinger]

You definitely have a different view of teens than I do. Not a criticism, merely an observation. And one that highlights the ebb and flow of the laws pertaining to teens/young adults. You see them as far more advanced and able to make good decisions than I do. I see them as becoming less mature - reasoning wise - for their age than 50 years ago. My husband, having taught adolescents for 15 years now, says absolutely this is true. He has witnessed the decline with his own eyes - impulse control and extrapolation of consequences is down just in the time that he has been teaching. I myself recall reading an article (and I've tried desperately to find it to no avail - hubs suggested I search ERIC for it but I can't find it there either...grrr!) about a repeat of the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment on delayed gratification in young children. The article I read (and I'm dragging this from memory so forgive me) noted that today, it took until around age 7 for the kids to match the ability to delay gratification that was the norm in 4 year olds 40 years ago. Pretty sobering.

I will not disagree that teenagers within the US are less responsible now than 30 years ago.

I believe that this is because that within the US they have been treated and taught that they are less responsible - and we are seeing the results of what we have been teaching (surprise...).

Yet, in other countries where teenagers are taught to take responsibility for their sexuality and for their drinking there has not been the same kind of degradation of responsibility. That does not mean that teenagers don't make more bad decisions than adults. you learn how to make good decisions by making bad ones and we all have to go through it.

I would revert back to the concept that we are supposed to be teaching teenagers how to be responsible - and we should be transferring responsibility as soon as they can handle it - so they grow into responsible adults quicker. Telling them they can't be responsible is not the answer.

You are correct in that this reflects the ebb and flow of the position over the decade.

Have a great day,

Perry

Well, if you mean by "we", their parents, yes "we" should. But we aren't. And when they make the inevitable mistakes of judgement that teens make, and make even more of them because their parents have not trained them or have infantilized them, then we as in the taxpayers, get to foot the bill (to one degree or another) because we are not yet ready to penalize their children (if they consented unwisely at 14) or to see 14 year olds (with multiple DUIs, say), in the prison system.

Hubs points out that more than a few of his kids ARE the decision makers in their families, because the parents are just pathetic, or not there. He also points out that while they have been saddled with the responsibility out of sheer desperation, they are still kids without the background and depth of experience to make GOOD choices. So thinking foisting responsibility on kids makes them better able to be responsible is probably not the answer either. It's a recipe for breaking a lot of these kids.

Setting aside the inevitable, "it depends on the kid", I really don't see a problem with a pretty solid adherance to the 18 rule for most things. Anything under that just doesn't square with the modern reality.

 

[kenny]

If teens are less responsible today, are changes in parenting responsible for this?
Is it messages in media like TV, films, and music?
Both?
Are schools not doing as much as before to instill responsibility?
Are they prevented from doing so by rules imposed on teachers today?

If not, nurture then it must be nature.
Is something biological going on?
I think I read the parts of the brain responsible for things related to a sense of responsibility like ethical, moral and value judgement develops mostly during a certain age in the teenage years.
I sure hope nothing in today's diet or environment is moving this age forward.

 

[katamari]

If teens are less responsible today, are changes in parenting responsible for this?
Is it messages in media like TV, films, and music?
Both?
Are schools not doing as much as before to instill responsibility?
Are they prevented from doing so by rules imposed on teachers today?

If not, nurture then it must be nature.
Is something biological going on?
I think I read the parts of the brain responsible for things related to a sense of responsibility like ethical, moral and value judgement develops mostly during a certain age in the teenage years.
I sure hope nothing in today's diet or environment is moving this age forward.

I'm certainly in the both camp. I do believe it is a bit silly that we allow people to make very important decisions (like entering into legal contracts with lifelong implications) before they ever demonstrate independence (social) or have a fully developed frontal lobe (bio). I think some things are only a big deal because we make them so, but it is necessary to have limits on the big stuff. I would say 25 to enter into financial contracts unless one can demonstrate independence and maturity (<--with no way of knowing how one would do this).

 

[ksinger]

If teens are less responsible today, are changes in parenting responsible for this?
Is it messages in media like TV, films, and music?
Both?
Are schools not doing as much as before to instill responsibility?
Are they prevented from doing so by rules imposed on teachers today?

If not, nurture then it must be nature.
Is something biological going on?
I think I read the parts of the brain responsible for things related to a sense of responsibility like ethical, moral and value judgement develops mostly during a certain age in the teenage years.
I sure hope nothing in today's diet or environment is moving this age forward.

Mostly, it is a parenting paradigm, followed by societal messages and social environment, followed by the schools being microcosms of both the adults that direct them, and the society in which they exist. It's not nature OR nurture, it's both. Biological? Nurture? Not sure you can separate them. There have been studies for instance, that show that all the flashy images infants and toddlers see on TV, (well under a second, and all strung together) are actually impacting brain development and may be contributing to the epidemic of ADHD. Just food for thought. And this is one of those areas where I DO NOT think respecting diversity is so great. The way some of these kids are being raised is NOT ok, not equally good, and not consequence free for the overall health of our society.

I will say this, it is not the school's place to drill kids in "responsibility", at least not in lieu of parents inculcating it first. It IS their job to reinforce the concept of responsibility by setting a standard (of work and of behavior), doing their best to help the child meet it, and having a clear and consistent consequences for failure to do so, and then not let that standard go mushy. But the pressures - both political (legislatures, school boards), economic(city councils, chambers of commerce), and societal (parents, social workers, pundits) - on the schools to do just that are simply staggering. Too many people with competing interests(usually their own power and prestige) and little real interest in the kids, pull at the schools for their own purposes. Still, at the end of the day, ask any teacher here, who complains the loudest and usually wants the most wiggle room out of a strict standard, when their little darling fails. The culture of responsibility, or DODGING it, starts at home.

 

[elrohwen]

Pretty much everything in your post, with the exception of buying alcohol, is allowed at 18 in the US. Nobody is banned from seeing any movie or buying cigarettes if they are 18+.

Alcohol used to be legal at 18, but accident statistics were highest for the 18-21 age group, so the minimum age was raised. I don't think it was the right decision, but I understand the idea behind it.

 

[chemgirl]

Pretty much everything in your post, with the exception of buying alcohol, is allowed at 18 in the US. Nobody is banned from seeing any movie or buying cigarettes if they are 18+.

Alcohol used to be legal at 18, but accident statistics were highest for the 18-21 age group, so the minimum age was raised. I don't think it was the right decision, but I understand the idea behind it.

I didn't realize that, thank you for clarifying. I'm used to hearing 19 year olds referred to as children so I always assumed that gambling etc. wasn't allowed until people turned 21.

Its interesting to see the different perspectives.

 

[iLander]

I had an employee once who was from Austria, and the way they do it there makes a lot of sense to me: the drinking age is 16, while the driving age is 18. That way, a kid can get over the novelty of drinking and puking BEFORE they're allowed to drive.

 

[iLander]

You definitely have a different view of teens than I do. Not a criticism, merely an observation. And one that highlights the ebb and flow of the laws pertaining to teens/young adults. You see them as far more advanced and able to make good decisions than I do. I see them as becoming less mature - reasoning wise - for their age than 50 years ago. My husband, having taught adolescents for 15 years now, says absolutely this is true. He has witnessed the decline with his own eyes - impulse control and extrapolation of consequences is down just in the time that he has been teaching. I myself recall reading an article (and I've tried desperately to find it to no avail - hubs suggested I search ERIC for it but I can't find it there either...grrr!) about a repeat of the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment on delayed gratification in young children. The article I read (and I'm dragging this from memory so forgive me) noted that today, it took until around age 7 for the kids to match the ability to delay gratification that was the norm in 4 year olds 40 years ago. Pretty sobering.

I've also been noticing that people seem to take a lot longer to "grow up" and there have been many articles in the NYTimes about it. It seems that people used to get serious about their careers and marriage, etc., around age 25, now it feels more like 30+. And people generally seem to take less responsibility for their own actions throughout their lives, the texting/fountain lady is a perfect example. I am interested to see there is a study that traces this lack of maturity to such an early age.

What do you and/or the experts attribute this to, KS?

 

[diva rose]

I had an employee once who was from Austria, and the way they do it there makes a lot of sense to me: the drinking age is 16, while the driving age is 18. That way, a kid can get over the novelty of drinking and puking BEFORE they're allowed to drive.

That is a very good point.

I'm used to the age being 18 here in Sydney. 18 to vote and drink. 16 to drive.
I think 18 - usually the age you finish high school.

 

[diva rose]

You definitely have a different view of teens than I do. Not a criticism, merely an observation. And one that highlights the ebb and flow of the laws pertaining to teens/young adults. You see them as far more advanced and able to make good decisions than I do. I see them as becoming less mature - reasoning wise - for their age than 50 years ago. My husband, having taught adolescents for 15 years now, says absolutely this is true. He has witnessed the decline with his own eyes - impulse control and extrapolation of consequences is down just in the time that he has been teaching. I myself recall reading an article (and I've tried desperately to find it to no avail - hubs suggested I search ERIC for it but I can't find it there either...grrr!) about a repeat of the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment on delayed gratification in young children. The article I read (and I'm dragging this from memory so forgive me) noted that today, it took until around age 7 for the kids to match the ability to delay gratification that was the norm in 4 year olds 40 years ago. Pretty sobering.

I've also been noticing that people seem to take a lot longer to "grow up" and there have been many articles in the NYTimes about it. It seems that people used to get serious about their careers and marriage, etc., around age 25, now it feels more like 30+. And people generally seem to take less responsibility for their own actions throughout their lives, the texting/fountain lady is a perfect example. I am interested to see there is a study that traces this lack of maturity to such an early age.

What do you and/or the experts attribute this to, KS?

Perhaps changes in expectations in society? I believe in the older days - people were expected to do things at a younger age/more responsibility.

 

[ksinger]

I had an employee once who was from Austria, and the way they do it there makes a lot of sense to me: the drinking age is 16, while the driving age is 18. That way, a kid can get over the novelty of drinking and puking BEFORE they're allowed to drive.

Seriously? I can't see the wisdom of giving societal sanction to alcohol use (and according to what you're saying, abuse) by 16 year olds - who are technically and physiologically still children, and still developing.

 

[MAC-W]

At the age we can serve in the military!




At the age we can have a credit card!




At the age we can get married!





If my married daughter with a credit card is serving in the military, why cant she buy an alcohlic drink?

If she is under 21, Its OK for her to have children but not OK for her to have an alcoholic drink?

Its OK for her to rack up debt with a credit card but not OK for her to have an alcoholic drink?

Its OK for her to die for her country but not OK for her to have an alcoholic drink?


Puuuuuuurleeeeeease!!!!!








If someone can be a mother or someone can be a soldier, then in my book, that someone is responsible.

 

[iLander]

I had an employee once who was from Austria, and the way they do it there makes a lot of sense to me: the drinking age is 16, while the driving age is 18. That way, a kid can get over the novelty of drinking and puking BEFORE they're allowed to drive.

Seriously? I can't see the wisdom of giving societal sanction to alcohol use (and according to what you're saying, abuse) by 16 year olds - who are technically and physiologically still children, and still developing.

The Point is that they are allowed to drink before they are allowed to drive, so the novelty of drinking wears off before they are allowed to drive.

 

[ksinger]

I had an employee once who was from Austria, and the way they do it there makes a lot of sense to me: the drinking age is 16, while the driving age is 18. That way, a kid can get over the novelty of drinking and puking BEFORE they're allowed to drive.

Seriously? I can't see the wisdom of giving societal sanction to alcohol use (and according to what you're saying, abuse) by 16 year olds - who are technically and physiologically still children, and still developing.

The Point is that they are allowed to drink before they are allowed to drive, so the novelty of drinking wears off before they are allowed to drive.

Well, I guess that's OK, if you want brain-damaged kids driving at 18. I'm just not seeing the logic here. The assumption is 16 year olds will binge drink, so let's LET them to make sure that they don't want to do it at 18? Again, not getting that one. I would think that any delay - even if only of a couple of years - of the onset of drinking would be a plus, for the kid's reasoning ability AND physical development. Making it legal at 16 certainly isn't going to help either one of those. Just my opinion.

 

[iLander]

I had an employee once who was from Austria, and the way they do it there makes a lot of sense to me: the drinking age is 16, while the driving age is 18. That way, a kid can get over the novelty of drinking and puking BEFORE they're allowed to drive.

Seriously? I can't see the wisdom of giving societal sanction to alcohol use (and according to what you're saying, abuse) by 16 year olds - who are technically and physiologically still children, and still developing.

The Point is that they are allowed to drink before they are allowed to drive, so the novelty of drinking wears off before they are allowed to drive.

Well, I guess that's OK, if you want brain-damaged kids driving at 18. I'm just not seeing the logic here. The assumption is 16 year olds will binge drink, so let's LET them to make sure that they don't want to do it at 18? Again, not getting that one. I would think that any delay - even if only of a couple of years - of the onset of drinking would be a plus, for the kid's reasoning ability AND physical development. Making it legal at 16 certainly isn't going to help either one of those. Just my opinion.

I'm not thrilled with the 16, maybe it should be 18 and 21? Or 20 and 25? I'm not condoning any numbers in particular. I'm saying that kids do tend to overdo drinking when they are first allowed to drink. Until they learn, usually the hard way, not to over do it.

I think in most things, learning follows this Taoist saying "To learn to fill the cup, first we pour too much, and then we pour too little." Basically it means that mistakes are made along the path of learning.

If they are going to make mistakes while learning to responsibly handle alcohol, let's wait a while before we give them a car, so drunk driving isn't part of their mistakes.

And I'm not really strongly behind this point, I just thought it was an interesting side note to see how another country does it. Obviously, I don't "want" brain-damaged kids, ever.

Sigh . . .

 

[diva rose]

At age 16, Americans are deemed responsible by law in some of the states in the US to marry with only one parental/guardian consent. I believe in some states you don't even need consent as long as you're with child.

Americans can serve the Armed forces at 17 with parental consent.

Yet, the drinking age is 21? I don't see the logic in that at all.

 

[ksinger]

I had an employee once who was from Austria, and the way they do it there makes a lot of sense to me: the drinking age is 16, while the driving age is 18. That way, a kid can get over the novelty of drinking and puking BEFORE they're allowed to drive.

Seriously? I can't see the wisdom of giving societal sanction to alcohol use (and according to what you're saying, abuse) by 16 year olds - who are technically and physiologically still children, and still developing.

The Point is that they are allowed to drink before they are allowed to drive, so the novelty of drinking wears off before they are allowed to drive.

Well, I guess that's OK, if you want brain-damaged kids driving at 18. I'm just not seeing the logic here. The assumption is 16 year olds will binge drink, so let's LET them to make sure that they don't want to do it at 18? Again, not getting that one. I would think that any delay - even if only of a couple of years - of the onset of drinking would be a plus, for the kid's reasoning ability AND physical development. Making it legal at 16 certainly isn't going to help either one of those. Just my opinion.

I'm not thrilled with the 16, maybe it should be 18 and 21? Or 20 and 25? I'm not condoning any numbers in particular. I'm saying that kids do tend to overdo drinking when they are first allowed to drink. Until they learn, usually the hard way, not to over do it.

I think in most things, learning follows this Taoist saying "To learn to fill the cup, first we pour too much, and then we pour too little." Basically it means that mistakes are made along the path of learning.

If they are going to make mistakes while learning to responsibly handle alcohol, let's wait a while before we give them a car, so drunk driving isn't part of their mistakes.

And I'm not really strongly behind this point, I just thought it was an interesting side note to see how another country does it. Obviously, I don't "want" brain-damaged kids, ever.

Sigh . . .

I know you don't iLander. But that was just the first thing that comes to mind - brain damage from binge drinking. Bad enough in adults, horrible in children. And you're right, it IS interesting. Although like most of these laws, it seems a robbing Peter to pay Paul thing to me. The bottom line for me, is we DO have to draw a line, and in the US at least, 18 seems like a pretty agreed-upon age. I agree that it is inconsistent that 18 year olds can enter into contracts, the military, get married, etc, but can't have a drink. But the interests of fair and consistent don't always coincide with what is wise, as the inconsistent laws - which really are an attempt to protect - indicate.

 

[iLander]

@Ksinger-

OH! It's 18 to drink where you are? Then I think we are coming at this from different angles/states.

In my state, it's 21 to drink, and 16 to drive, which is pretty silly if you ask me.

I think 14 year olds can marry in my state, with parent's permission.

I wish they could give out some kind of test for all this, since I know some very responsible 18 year olds, and some totally irresponsible 26, 35, and even 60+ year olds.

I would like to hear more about the marshmallow study, though.

Do you think it's hovering parents? I know I'm totally over protective of my DD because of the pervs and freaks that are out there. As a consequence, she doesn't get to go out and do responsible things. When I was 12, I used to ride the city bus by myself and go everywhere, got a part time job on my own at 14 and had a pretty mature outlook by 18. But that was well over 30 years ago. I wouldn't let her do any of those things these days, and I know I am hampering her, even though she is more mature than many of her classmates.

But I have to say, even during my travels over 30 years ago, there were plenty of pervs and freaks that I had to deal with. . .

I don't know, doesn't seem like there are easy answers when it comes to child rearing . . .

 

[diva rose]

@Ksinger-

OH! It's 18 to drink where you are? Then I think we are coming at this from different angles/states.

In my state, it's 21 to drink, and 16 to drive, which is pretty silly if you ask me.

I think 14 year olds can marry in my state, with parent's permission.

I wish they could give out some kind of test for all this, since I know some very responsible 18 year olds, and some totally irresponsible 26, 35, and even 60+ year olds.

I would like to hear more about the marshmallow study, though.

Do you think it's hovering parents? I know I'm totally over protective of my DD because of the pervs and freaks that are out there. As a consequence, she doesn't get to go out and do responsible things. When I was 12, I used to ride the city bus by myself and go everywhere, got a part time job on my own at 14 and had a pretty mature outlook by 18. But that was well over 30 years ago. I wouldn't let her do any of those things these days, and I know I am hampering her, even though she is more mature than many of her classmates.

But I have to say, even during my travels over 30 years ago, there were plenty of pervs and freaks that I had to deal with. . .

I don't know, doesn't seem like there are easy answers when it comes to child rearing . . .

14? That is so young.

 

[ksinger]

@Ksinger-

OH! It's 18 to drink where you are? Then I think we are coming at this from different angles/states.

In my state, it's 21 to drink, and 16 to drive, which is pretty silly if you ask me.

I think 14 year olds can marry in my state, with parent's permission.

I wish they could give out some kind of test for all this, since I know some very responsible 18 year olds, and some totally irresponsible 26, 35, and even 60+ year olds.

I would like to hear more about the marshmallow study, though.

Do you think it's hovering parents? I know I'm totally over protective of my DD because of the pervs and freaks that are out there. As a consequence, she doesn't get to go out and do responsible things. When I was 12, I used to ride the city bus by myself and go everywhere, got a part time job on my own at 14 and had a pretty mature outlook by 18. But that was well over 30 years ago. I wouldn't let her do any of those things these days, and I know I am hampering her, even though she is more mature than many of her classmates.

But I have to say, even during my travels over 30 years ago, there were plenty of pervs and freaks that I had to deal with. . .

I don't know, doesn't seem like there are easy answers when it comes to child rearing . . .

No, it is 21 to drink here too, although when I was 18 in Oklahoma, we had some really weird inconsistent laws. (lol! big newsflash there) At 18, I as a female, could drink beer (not hard liqour) in a beer bar (there were beer bars and liquor bars), but males could not drink EITHER until 21. When I was 20, they changed it so that neither sex could drink in ANY bar until age 21. So for a few months, I couldn't have a beer. Which was no big deal because I didn't like beer anyway.

I'd like to talk more but gotta go to work!!!!

 

[dragonfly411]

If teens are less responsible today, are changes in parenting responsible for this?
Is it messages in media like TV, films, and music?
Both?
Are schools not doing as much as before to instill responsibility?
Are they prevented from doing so by rules imposed on teachers today?

If not, nurture then it must be nature.
Is something biological going on?
I think I read the parts of the brain responsible for things related to a sense of responsibility like ethical, moral and value judgement develops mostly during a certain age in the teenage years.
I sure hope nothing in today's diet or environment is moving this age forward.

First to answer the original question - I believe that if you are old enough to vote, and old enough to join the military, then you're old enough to drink and you are old enough to be held responsible for your actions. To me that is at 18, when you are old enough to know right from wrong and to act based on your own thoughts.


To answer your questions Kenny. I think Both are at fault. I don't think schools instill as much responsibility no. If a student fails, let's give em extra credit at every turn of the page. Who cares if they can't solve a problem? They have a calculator. Nurses don't need to spell or do math, just let em on in with failing grades in those areas (Yes in FL you only have to have a 50% in math and reading on the Kaplan to get into nursing). I think schools are prevented by parents because everyone is worried about stroking kids' egos but not teaching them to face the harder facts of life. JMO

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

At the age we can serve in the military!




At the age we can have a credit card!




At the age we can get married!





If my married daughter with a credit card is serving in the military, why cant she buy an alcohlic drink?

If she is under 21, Its OK for her to have children but not OK for her to have an alcoholic drink?

Its OK for her to rack up debt with a credit card but not OK for her to have an alcoholic drink?

Its OK for her to die for her country but not OK for her to have an alcoholic drink?


Puuuuuuurleeeeeease!!!!!








If someone can be a mother or someone can be a soldier, then in my book, that someone is responsible.

Girls start their periods as early as elementary school. Teenagers become pregnant in the back of a car at 16 or younger. The ability to become a mother is no indication of maturity or responsibility. It's just something that happens with or without our consent as sexual creatures made of DNA.

I'll agree wholeheartedly though that a person who is legally responsible for all crimes, able to fight in the military, and vote in elections should have the rights of adulthood which include buying an alcoholic beverage.