- This topic has 53 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
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?!
DY – Are you saying that I shouldn’t bother debating with NetiquamErro because I don’t mean it and cannot successfully express my points, or that I shouldn’t bother debating with NetiquamErro because he doesn’t mean it?
DaasYochid: Got it in one. This has been fun.
yekke2: But, continuing my train of thought, yes, I am arguing in semantics. It’s not as if 20 year olds are naturally more susceptible to alcohol, they are deemed too irresponsible to deal with it safely. If the law deems them not yet old enough to be responsible for their actions, to the extent that it will ban them from doing an otherwise legal activity, then the state should not consider them legally an adult. The definition of an adult should be the age at which one becomes considered fully responsible in all respects, with no exceptions. That’s what it should mean, and the law should reflect that.
Persuant to your further question, the nature of heroin is that people under its influence harm others, due to their altered mental state and its addictive nature. The same argument can be made about alcohol, but for societal reasons it is legal to consume. There is far less reason to ban marijuana, although there are studies showing it leads to psychosis in the long term.
And with regard to your final point, as I’ve said, I don’t think the state should consider adults responsible and mature in only some respects.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.