If one is to be deemed by the state as adult, then that person should no longer be bound by laws that discriminate by age.
Isn’t that a bit of an oxymoron to say that you can only discriminate against children by age?
I simply believe that should be the definition of an adult. If that age is deemed to be 21, then so be it. But I don’t believe the state should be allowed to tell some of its subjects that they are not yet responsible enough for a particular activity.
I can hear a case for the law not interfering in people’s personal danger zones, but that case would legalize drugs. If you agree with the state using legislation to protect it’s citizens, then why wouldn’t you understand an age where things become legal?
To take this argument to its logical conclusion, if there were a scientific, peer-reviewed, double-blind study showing that people aged 40-46 are 32% more likely to be involved in an automobile accident, would there be a case from restricting the right to drive for people in that age bracket?
Driving is the one thing which is logical to restrict; people more likely to cause accidents are more likely to kill others. This isn’t protecting people from themselves, this is stopping them harming the public. This is like restricting guns. The way you present it, is requiring drivers to pass some form of test to prove their driving capability wrong?
I would argue certainly not, and ages 18-21 should be no different, unless we legally consider them children.
How do you justify monitoring children?