ID Debate

[The Terminator 0]

As a 16 Year old US Citizen, I feel oppressed by my age. I cannot buy things like Lottery Tickets, I cannot open a bank account, Vote, enter contests and function like a normal human. I think age restrictions are too harsh, And Resent being asked for ID whenever I try to cash my paycheck or by a scratch off ticket.

I can understand carding for Alcohol, because when you under the influence of Ethanol, You can take life very easily by doing dumb, drunken things. But Tobacco does nothing to impare you, and only harms yourself, and the 18/19 Purchase age is only a attempt by Nanny Statists to limit what you can put in your body, because its "Bad for you".

I Hear in the UK, That you have to be 18 to buy magazines with DVD Inserts because they "May contain suggestive content". That is just insane. I also read about 15 Year old Tesco employees having to ask anyone for ID when they buy any age restricted product, even people who are obviously over 18. And they have to press a green button after showing ID to prove they are over 18. Stupid Labour, I thought that the prohibitionist lobby and the Democrats were bad over here in the US.

Lets Duscuss.

[GingerBlokey 30]

I do support the vote for 16 y/os it has to be said.

I belive this is the part where I pick your argument to bits.

As a 16 Year old US Citizen, I feel oppressed by my age.quote>

Your 16, you feel oppressed by everything, welcome to teenage life. I think "oppressed" is an exaggeration anyway.

I cannot [...] function like a normal humanquote>

I find that hard to belive, normal human beings dont buy lottery tickets and there is no age limit on oxygen, water and food. And I researched the situation in the US for you. You can have a bank account, with a cash card from the age of 11, but you must be 18 to get credit and thus an overdraft or credit card. Same as the UK

And Resent being asked for ID whenever I try to cash my paycheck or by a scratch off ticket.quote>

Why do you resent it? It is the law and you must follow the law as a US citizen. Also you said you are underage to play the lottery so surely they are right to ask for ID. And your not a teenager who looks older than your age so surely they are going to want to see ID

Tobacco does nothing to impare you, and only harms yourself, and the 18/19 Purchase age is only a attempt by Nanny Statists to limit what you can put in your body, because its "Bad for you".quote>

The reason there is an 18 limit on smoking (16 in the UK) is because when you are younger you are more suceptable to peer pressure and less informed to decide to start a life-long habit. If smoking was not addictive Im sure that it wouldnt have an age limit.

I Hear in the UK, That you have to be 18 to buy magazines with DVD Inserts because they "May contain suggestive content".quote>

You have to be 18 to buy 18-rated DVDs which is mostly severe violence, sexual imagery or just bad stuff in general. Looking at my DVD collection very, very few are 18. Trainspotting is, but I wouldnt want that shown to younger kids. The 18 rating merley follows government laws about films and stuff.

I also read about 15 Year old Tesco employees having to ask anyone for ID when they buy any age restricted product, even people who are obviously over 18. And they have to press a green button after showing ID to prove they are over 18.quote>

Can you provide a link because I have 16 y/o friends who work in Tesco and that is not the case. Also Tesco don't employ 15 y/os. In addition Tesco operate under the Challenge 21 initative which works by anyone who is, or looks, under 21 is required to provide ID for alcohol and cigarettes.

I thought that the prohibitionist lobby and the Democrats were bad over here in the US.quote>

I didnt think the UK had a prohabitionist lobby since the 30s. And the Democrats are not bad over there imho.

Just my 2 cents . Not intended as a personal attack.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, I am sorry you feel disenfranchised, but there are reasons for most of these restrictions.  When I was young the age for any and everything was 21 except you could get a driver's license at 16 and were considered employable.  This was in the 1940's and 1950's of course.

Since then, my country has moved the voting age down to 18, which is also the age for military service.  The main reason for this is that people are normally out of school and in the work force or university by that age.

The drinking age in my province is 19.  Frankly, I think it should be around 30.  People do more harm to others when they are under the influence of alcohol than any other time.

The smoking age is also 19.  This too is a chance to harm others with second hand smoke.  Your own lung cancer and other things are your business, but don't expect the health system to pay for fixing your foolishness.

Why are there set ages?  Life experience.  Voting at 16 is just a little soon IMHO.  If you haven't finished high-school what is the chance that you can make an informed decision as important as who will represent you in government?

Other age limits are carry overs from a more blue stocking age.  There was a time in this province when alcoholic beverages were outlawed and could not be sold legally. This was the work of a group of old ladies of both sexes called the WCTU.  Of course, bootlegging and speakeasies were the result, with organized crime getting a huge foothold.  I gather you have had similar experiences in the excited states.

So that's my two cents.

[confused04 14]

To be honest, age restrictions are put into place because generally those below certain ages lack the maturity to handle a particular right, privilege, product or service. As mature as you might feel at age 16, 18, 21, 25 or whatever, you really aren't as mature as you could be. You know how many people claim "I'm mature enough to smoke just one cigarette every once in awhile" and end up going through a pack every few days? Restrictions are there because teens are quite frankly the most likely to abuse privileges. I certainly don't think 16 year olds should vote since most don't take the time to even know who's ACTUALLY in the campaign and are unwilling to even look up the facts.

[The Terminator 0]

Originally posted by: confused04  I certainly don't think 16 year olds should vote since most don't take the time to even know who's ACTUALLY in the campaign and are unwilling to even look up the facts.quote>

Yes, But not all 16 year olds are like that, Look at me and Adam. we keep informed about our democracy. I think, that the only 16 year olds who would vote, are the ones who care, just like it is at 18.

[Duke87 1,070]

Frankly, considering we've decided that 18 is the age you become an adult, that it's best to simply keep that as the age for things.

Trouble is, there's a bit of a distinction that a lot of people don't seem to find in these things. I fully support you needing to be 18 to buy tobacco or alcohol, but I see no reason why it should be illegal to possess or use when younger than that. Simply because until you're 18, you're a minor and a subordinate of your parents, and as such, they still have the right to tell you what you can and can't do. Which means that if you're underage, you simply cannot be sold such "adult" products. But your parents can buy them for you if they're okay with you using them.

As for M rated games or R rated movies.... there's currently no law preventing you from selling those to younger people (though the MPAA requires movie theaters not to admit those under 17 to R rated movies without an adult, or those under 18 to adult movies), and it should stay that way. While alcohol and tobacco wil negatively impact your health, seeing images of violence and sex will not, and sheltering kids from reality is something I've never supported. Though, parents should be making sure their kids understand what aspects of those things are realistic and which aren't.

The final age issue, though is the age of consent. I'm not saying we should get rid of it, I understand the idea of protecting children, but I think that overall it's generally set a bit too high. I'd think 13 or 14 makes a good age of consent, since, frankly, if you've matured physically and are old enough to have your own sexual desires, then you're old enough to make your own decisions in that department.

This also avoids the weird situations where if an 18 year old guy has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend it technically counts as rape since one of them is of age and the other is not, and that just doesn't seem right to me.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: The Terminator

Originally posted by: confused04  I certainly don't think 16 year olds should vote since most don't take the time to even know who's ACTUALLY in the campaign and are unwilling to even look up the facts.quote>

Yes, But not all 16 year olds are like that, Look at me and Adam. we keep informed about our democracy. I think, that the only 16 year olds who would vote, are the ones who care, just like it is at 18.

quote>

But there's no way to tell if one 16 year old is more mature than another 16 year old. On top of that, as you are still a minor, parents are still capable of vote tampering through parental oversight. 16 year olds could be at the mercy of the parents. Many parents would use their position of guardian to force their children to vote as they do.

If you say 16 should be the limit, then whats to say a 14 year old can't vote, or 12... What's the lower limit? 16 might be very convenient for you cause you've reached 16. 18 is an appropriate, even if arbitrary age, as pointed out earlier, coincides with adulthood.  I am quite satisfied with 18 being the age for purchasing cigarettes. I do feel the drinking age should be lowered to 18. You're an adult at the age, you can die, vote, get married... you should be able to drink.

[DOXXP29 5]

I've always thought that maybe I.Q. restrictions would be a better idea than age restrictions. There are plenty of intelligent, mature 16 year olds walking around just as there are plenty of 50 year old idiots. Restrictions based on age seem arbitrary, but it's been done for so long that it will probably always be the critrion upon which laws, etc. are based.

I've always thought a "breeding license" would be a nice idea. It takes no special skills or level of intelligence to breed, but anyone of a certain age can do it. You have people who are too stupid to realize that it's a good idea to wash one's hands after using the bathroom, yet they can merrily churn out the kiddies and raise them to their own "high standards" of living.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

I think age restrictions, here anyway, are messed up. For example, I am 16, I can legally have sex, but I can't legally watch a video of it. I can get married, but I can't gamble.

I think it would work much better if there was a universal age limit (maybe not for films, which should stay as 12a, 15 and 18 IMO), maybe 17 at which we can marry, have sex, gamble, drive, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, vote etc etc.

[GingerBlokey 30]

Originally posted by: DOXXP29 I've always thought that maybe I.Q. restrictions would be a better idea than age restrictions. There are plenty of intelligent, mature 16 year olds walking around just as there are plenty of 50 year old idiots. Restrictions based on age seem arbitrary, but it's been done for so long that it will probably always be the critrion upon which laws, etc. are based.

I've always thought a "breeding license" would be a nice idea. It takes no special skills or level of intelligence to breed, but anyone of a certain age can do it. You have people who are too stupid to realize that it's a good idea to wash one's hands after using the bathroom, yet they can merrily churn out the kiddies and raise them to their own "high standards" of living.quote>

I think this would be a good idea but it takes away the fundemental idea that all people are equal. So I cant agree since it just seems wrong on a few levels.

[Alakazam 3]

Man I wish I could buy beer D:

Only a few months left

[Joesocwork 4]

In child welfare most states emancipatiom their youth from foster care at age 18. Washington, D.C. transitions their jurisdiction at 21. The latter makes sense since statistics show that young adults usually don't fully live independently until age 26.

I'm very mixed about what age should be allowed for what. Biologically with the surge of hormones and other physical developmental changes, impulse control can often be very hard to gain control of during puberty and much of adolescence. I know it's not close to being feasible, but ideally I'd take age restrictions on an individual by individual basis.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: DOXXP29

I've always thought a "breeding license" would be a nice idea. It takes no special skills or level of intelligence to breed, but anyone of a certain age can do it. You have people who are too stupid to realize that it's a good idea to wash one's hands after using the bathroom, yet they can merrily churn out the kiddies and raise them to their own "high standards" of living.quote>

My, my, my!  You would get along well with Adolf the Aryan, wouldn't you?  What IQ would you suggest is low enough for this eugenic action?

Originally posted by: GingerBlokey

I think this would be a good idea but it takes away the fundamental idea that all people are equal. So I cant agree since it just seems wrong on a few levels.quote>

Well, there is no doubt that people are not even born equal, except maybe at the instant of delivery, so I fear this argument falls.  This idea is a politically correct theory, but not at all factual.  Is that baby over there born with a congenital defect equal to that one there with a perfect physique, and a bright future?  Hah!

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Originally posted by: DOXXP29

I've always thought a "breeding license" would be a nice idea. It takes no special skills or level of intelligence to breed, but anyone of a certain age can do it. You have people who are too stupid to realize that it's a good idea to wash one's hands after using the bathroom, yet they can merrily churn out the kiddies and raise them to their own "high standards" of living.quote>

My, my, my!  You would get along well with Adolf the Aryan, wouldn't you?  What IQ would you suggest is low enough for this eugenic action?

Originally posted by: GingerBlokey

I think this would be a good idea but it takes away the fundamental idea that all people are equal. So I cant agree since it just seems wrong on a few levels.quote>

Well, there is no doubt that people are not even born equal, except maybe at the instant of delivery, so I fear this argument falls.  This idea is a politically correct theory, but not at all factual.  Is that baby over there born with a congenital defect equal to that one there with a perfect physique, and a bright future?  Hah!quote>

Well, no, they are inherently not equal (and I do believe a certain level of mental retardation prevents you from voting, correct me if I'm wrong). But lets take two individuals that are not so glaringly different, but not equal either. You have "Bob," an inner city school teacher earning a meager 26,000 in starting wages (plus benefits) and "Steve" who is a financial consultant for HSBC's head haunchos earning around 250,000.  You can't tell who's smarter, but one is more successful.  They are not inherently equal, so who gets the right to vote? I could push the boundary further and make Bob a janitor instead, but you can't deny the right to vote over I.Q. or not because both are ruled and both have the right to determine how to be ruled.  Even if its politically idealistic, it is by far the most appropriate view.  You can't say "because I am smarter" I should have the right to vote because some may say "because I am more..." moral, religious, simple, rich, humble, idealistic, realistic, and so forth.  The whole point of a democracy is to get everyone's view point so restricting anyone's right to vote due to particular "negative trait" is obviously undemocratic.  The only reason why someone shouldn't have the right to vote is because they are too young or otherwise incapable of actually making a decision (informed or not).

[DOXXP29 5]

Well, in the '60's, there was a university professor (Stamford, I believe) and nobel prize winner William Shockley. His idea was to pay anyone with an I.Q. below 100 $1,000 per I.Q. point if they would voluntarily get sterilized. As far as the eugenic implications, it had nothing to do with creed, race, ethnicity, etc. It would be equally applied to anyone that was "below average" intelligence.

GingerBlokely, your comment that all people are created equal should be an arguement AGAINST age restrictions. If a 14 year old is equal to a 40 year old, then why restrict the 14 year old's activities or actions?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: DOXXP29 

Well, in the '60's, there was a university professor (Stamford, I believe) and nobel prize winner William Shockley. His idea was to pay anyone with an I.Q. below 100 $1,000 per I.Q. point if they would voluntarily get sterilized. As far as the eugenic implications, it had nothing to do with creed, race, ethnicity, etc. It would be equally applied to anyone that was "below average" intelligence.  quote>

 

Well, there is someone who has more faith in IQ tests and our knowledge of genetics than I have.  I know a not-that-bright couple who have a daughter with a genius IQ.

I guess it says something that this idea has been around for 40+ years and it hasn't caught on.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I agree that age restrictions can be very oppressive and illogical in the teen years.  One of the silly ones that got me was movie theaters expected me to pay adult prices but wouldn't let me see adult movies.  

We have made some progress.  There was a song back then that had the line "You're old enough to kill but not for voting", which was a reference to the voting age being 21 but the draft age being 18.  At least they managed to get those two aligned.

[The Terminator 0]

Originally posted by: DOXXP29 I've always thought that maybe I.Q. restrictions would be a better idea than age restrictions. There are plenty of intelligent, mature 16 year olds walking around just as there are plenty of 50 year old idiots. Restrictions based on age seem arbitrary, but it's been done for so long that it will probably always be the critrion upon which laws, etc. are based.

I've always thought a "breeding license" would be a nice idea. It takes no special skills or level of intelligence to breed, but anyone of a certain age can do it. You have people who are too stupid to realize that it's a good idea to wash one's hands after using the bathroom, yet they can merrily churn out the kiddies and raise them to their own "high standards" of living.quote>

if that is not praise for Neo-Fascism, I don't know what is. Shocking, just shocking.

[purpledaddy 6]

Shocking, just shockingquote>

No! Shockley!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

No, just schlock!  It has been shown that IQ results can vary with the same individual over the years.  Something wrong with the test?  Subjective?  Environment sensitive?  Just plain garbage?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body No, just schlock!  It has been shown that IQ results can vary with the same individual over the years.  Something wrong with the test?  Subjective?  Environment sensitive?  Just plain garbage?quote>

Yeah, IQ tests can vary quite a bit even with one individual.  I've watched it happen with me once before.  I believe that is why they tend to use a wide battery of tests to assess intelligence when the are doing research.

[Joesocwork 4]

Well designed tests can be anticipation-proof where participants can't fake results.   But I do believe that tests can often not totally take cultural and semantical differences into account in their questions.   Intelligence tests usually don't assess for etiology (the cause or reason for a presenting condition) either.  

[Duke87 1,070]

Also depends on the current state of mind of the subject, I'd think. Like with any test, you perform better if you're well rested as opposed to sleepy, and focused as opposed to distracted or nervous. Those are variables you simply can't eliminate, and they are confounding ones.

I'd think that that and just the fact that the way people think can change over time is responsible for the discrepancies.

[Goldfish4209 9]

I've always thought that maybe I.Q. restrictions would be a better idea than age restrictions. There are plenty of intelligent, mature 16 year olds walking around just as there are plenty of 50 year old idiots.quote>

I like that. It lets smart people take advantage of their intelligence sooner.

I think this would be a good idea but it takes away the fundemental idea that all people are equal. So I cant agree since it just seems wrong on a few levels.quote>

Since when did anyone say that being equal meant all being the same intelligence? Woe be to the day that politicians argue over people not being more intelligent than one another.

Age restrictions are too rigid, and intelligence/capability restrictions would be better, to an extent. Since when did 14 year olds smoke and drink anyways?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209

Age restrictions are too rigid, and intelligence/capability restrictions would be better, to an extent. Since when did 14 year olds smoke and drink anyways?quote>

There are kids that start drinking and smoking that early.  I've met individuals who had their first beer when they were twelve and took a can out of every case his dad brought home.

[joexcooldude 1]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209

Age restrictions are too rigid, and intelligence/capability restrictions would be better, to an extent. Since when did 14 year olds smoke and drink anyways?quote>

There are kids that start drinking and smoking that early.  I've met individuals who had their first beer when they were twelve and took a can out of every case his dad brought home.quote>

Thus, the only people being penalized are those following the law. One of my biggest complaints is against law that everyone breaks, seeing as people are supposed to be those in power in a democracy. For example, I am a strong supporter of lowering the drinking age to 18 (and raising speed limits; its more dangerous to do 55 on I-95 than 80, and no, no one is ever going to follow the 55 mph speed limit).

Back onto the subject of age, the main problem with age requirements is that there is always people more and less mature than their numerical age. Unfortunately, this can never be completely corrected as there is simply not the resources to give everyone personalized treatment. Overall, I am more on the side of lowering ages. For example, this is what I think the ages should be:

Drinking: 18

Smoking: 16

Consent: 15

Mature Content: None (bah censorship, its a family issue and not a legal one)

Voting: 18

Driving: 15 (for a much stricter test, the current test should remain at the age of 16...however, the earlier license would come with insurance benefits due to the people passing the test being better drivers, although thats another issue in its entirety)

I am almost always against laws that are against harming oneself, due to my opinion that its a personal choice. However, at this point it would be too abrupt to eradicate drinking and smoking ages...the society needs to grow used to the looser restrictions from the beginning.

[ilikehotdogsalot 307]

i tasted beer once, and i took a sip of wine, both disguisting whiskey is even worse! tastes like stale water! why can't you just settle for something like orange juice?

[Joesocwork 4]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209

Age restrictions are too rigid, and intelligence/capability restrictions would be better, to an extent. Since when did 14 year olds smoke and drink anyways?quote>

There are kids that start drinking and smoking that early.  I've met individuals who had their first beer when they were twelve and took a can out of every case his dad brought home.quote>

 

Ugh, you wouldn't believe how early I've seen parents let their kids engage in these kinds of things and think it's totally okay and normal for them, with some pretty devastating consequences.   The actual debate about certain individual liberties aside (that I totally respect and stand up for) there are still some people out in society who lack either common sense or a sense of morality, and I often have to work with the consequences of it.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Well Joe thats the things you get when parents try to be thier Kids friends instead

of thier parents, And want to be The "cool" parent.

As a parent you not there to impress your kids friends.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: joexcooldude

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209

Age restrictions are too rigid, and intelligence/capability restrictions would be better, to an extent. Since when did 14 year olds smoke and drink anyways?quote>

There are kids that start drinking and smoking that early.  I've met individuals who had their first beer when they were twelve and took a can out of every case his dad brought home.quote>

Thus, the only people being penalized are those following the law. One of my biggest complaints is against law that everyone breaks, seeing as people are supposed to be those in power in a democracy. For example, I am a strong supporter of lowering the drinking age to 18 (and raising speed limits; its more dangerous to do 55 on I-95 than 80, and no, no one is ever going to follow the 55 mph speed limit).

Back onto the subject of age, the main problem with age requirements is that there is always people more and less mature than their numerical age. Unfortunately, this can never be completely corrected as there is simply not the resources to give everyone personalized treatment. Overall, I am more on the side of lowering ages. For example, this is what I think the ages should be:

Drinking: 18

Smoking: 16

Consent: 15

Mature Content: None (bah censorship, its a family issue and not a legal one)

Voting: 18

Driving: 15 (for a much stricter test, the current test should remain at the age of 16...however, the earlier license would come with insurance benefits due to the people passing the test being better drivers, although thats another issue in its entirety)

I am almost always against laws that are against harming oneself, due to my opinion that its a personal choice. However, at this point it would be too abrupt to eradicate drinking and smoking ages...the society needs to grow used to the looser restrictions from the beginning.quote>

Here's the thing though.  According to people who have lived back then, the 60s and 70s were rather loose on things like alcohol and many people consumed it in quantities that would be considered by today's standards as what to expect from an addict.  Just the other day, a guy I know offered me a can out of his beer stash.  I declined his offer because I fully intend to not have that first beer till my twenty first birthday.  His response was one that generally implied "Psssh, don't bother waiting."  Well, the law is there, so I'm going to follow it.

This guy's also offered me chewing tobacco, but that's another story.

[The Terminator 0]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: joexcooldude

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209

Age restrictions are too rigid, and intelligence/capability restrictions would be better, to an extent. Since when did 14 year olds smoke and drink anyways?quote>

There are kids that start drinking and smoking that early.  I've met individuals who had their first beer when they were twelve and took a can out of every case his dad brought home.quote>

Thus, the only people being penalized are those following the law. One of my biggest complaints is against law that everyone breaks, seeing as people are supposed to be those in power in a democracy. For example, I am a strong supporter of lowering the drinking age to 18 (and raising speed limits; its more dangerous to do 55 on I-95 than 80, and no, no one is ever going to follow the 55 mph speed limit).

Back onto the subject of age, the main problem with age requirements is that there is always people more and less mature than their numerical age. Unfortunately, this can never be completely corrected as there is simply not the resources to give everyone personalized treatment. Overall, I am more on the side of lowering ages. For example, this is what I think the ages should be:

Drinking: 18

Smoking: 16

Consent: 15

Mature Content: None (bah censorship, its a family issue and not a legal one)

Voting: 18

Driving: 15 (for a much stricter test, the current test should remain at the age of 16...however, the earlier license would come with insurance benefits due to the people passing the test being better drivers, although thats another issue in its entirety)

I am almost always against laws that are against harming oneself, due to my opinion that its a personal choice. However, at this point it would be too abrupt to eradicate drinking and smoking ages...the society needs to grow used to the looser restrictions from the beginning.quote>

This guy's also offered me chewing tobacco, but that's another story. quote>

YUCK!!!

Rolling Tobacco is much better.

On the Issue of the 60s/70s, Many of my family members tell me, that they were able to drink at 18, and they would let me drink at 18.