NetiquamErro: I’m sorry, but I fail to understand your position. Are you arguing in semantics? Just don’t call them “adult” until they are 21, when they are deemed mature enough to accept responsibility in everything, and let them be legally defined as “children”, and simply permit children to do certain dangerous activities when they are at the age when they are capable of taking responsibility?
We both agree that in the governments responsibility to protect its citizens, it should require reaching a certain age where most people are capable of accepting responsibility. You also agree that the aforementioned age differs among various activities. So the question is whether they should achieve the status “adult” until reaching a full maturity?
So therefore, even from a libertarian standpoint, taking heroin or driving drunk would be illegal, as you’re placing others at risk, not just yourself
Why does heroin place others at risk?
If they feel 19 year olds truly aren’t responsible, and bring evidence from increased drink driving rates or the like, then they should be legally considered children, with commensurate voting and tax legislation.
This really doesn’t make any sense. Please explain why should the fact that 19 year olds are irresponsible drinkers mean that they shouldn’t be eligible to vote?!