What Should Be the Age of Adulthood? Part 2

There’s something I want to get out that I want to tell people about. It’s about restricting freedom based on age, relying on your birthdate. You could say to a teenager to just wait till they turn 21 to enjoy a glass of wine or a beer but that misses my point. My point is that the consequences of status offenses do not disappear after you turn the age that the age restriction is lifted. For example, someone who will turn 21 tomorrow gets caught by law enforcement drinking a beer and is charged with underage drinking. The charge will not be automatically invalidated and the criminal record that goes with it will not be automatically expunged on your 21^st birthday. Plus, Memorial Day is almost here as of the day I posted this blog and this gives me an opportunity to discuss servicemen and women in the military who have lost their lives in war before their 21^st birthdays. Do you think that it’s ethical to tell them that they’re too immature to drink alcohol and buy handguns based solely on their birthdate? What about the deceased servicemen and women who never had a chance to legally drink? I support ALL members of our military who believe in and protect the constitution and freedoms of the United States regardless of race, creed, nationality, age, economic status, and anything not relating to ability and performance on duty. We owe it to our troops who brazenly fought for our freedoms and for our country to bring them home and respect the civil rights of all Americans with no exceptions except if there are conditions imposed by a court of law on someone who has been convicted of a crime, such as probation, parole, prison, etc. I’m two months away from being 19 and my birthday is on July 28. Your birthdate doesn’t measure your maturity. Also, even though the brain doesn’t fully develop until you turn 25 or even 30 doesn’t mean that a teenager’s brain is inferior to a 35 year olds brain. The brain reaches its maximum weight at 16-18 years old for females and 19-21 for males. The brain actually starts to deteriorate once it’s fully developed. The brain changes constantly and I feel that anyone with a sound mind can realize that. If the ludicrous theory of drinking alcohol before 21 could ruin your brain was true then nearly every adult in western European countries and other eastern civilizations would be brain damaged alcoholics because throughout history ever since alcoholic beverages were introduced, very few people have waited till their 21^st birthday and most people who do wait are non-drinkers by choice, whether it be for religious reasons or displeasure of alcohol. If you don’t like alcohol, don’t drink it but you have no right to force others not to drink. If someone is believed to be a danger to themselves or others regardless of who they are, make sure they don’t get behind the wheel of a car or are left unsupervised. Good friends don’t let friends drive drunk. What about youth who are killed by drunk drivers OVER 21? Have the supporters of the drinking age ever think about that? Do they respond to that with the mentality of “at least he/she wasn’t drinking underage or providing alcohol to those minors”? Statistics are also used to justify the drinking age. However, an alcohol related crash is defined by the NHTSA as ANYONE, regardless of if they were driving or not or merely a pedestrian, who has any alcohol traced in their system. When you say that statistics “prove” that the drinking age of 21 “saves lives”, most teenagers injured or killed in alcohol related crashes were NOT EVEN DRIVING! They probably had a designated driver or walked home and were hit by a drunk driver who most of the time was OVER 21! In fact, 90-95% of drunk drivers in the past 20 years have been OVER 21. Are young people merely statistics? Relying on statistics to justify enacting a certain policy reinforces that ideology and if you believe that statistics should be used to justify limitations on our civil rights and liberties then you answer yes to the idea that people are just statistics. You may not say so but actions speak louder than words. I heard a story shortly before about an 18 year old who was hosting a drinking games party that had no alcohol and used root beer kegs instead. Police raided his house and tested 90 people for alcohol with non testing positive. What a waste of tax payer dollars to raid a home of teenagers minding their own business after mistaking the root beer kegs for alcoholic beer. OOPS! What about arresting the dangerous drivers before they hurt more people? Is it better for someone to be killed by a 15 year old than a 50 year old? It doesn’t matter because regardless of who killed that person, he or she is dead and the killer’s race, religion, age, economic status, nationality or other characteristics can’t influence what happened. What influences a homicide case lies in it being either justified, excusable or criminal. I feel that the best alternative to relying on an arbitrary age that judges people based on their date of birth is for parents and caregivers to teach responsibility when the child is able to understand by mental ability how to function properly in society instead of isolating them and then expecting them to be responsible at a given age at the drop of a hat. It doesn’t happen that way in real life. It’s easy to ban something and assume people will be more responsible than it is to be honest and teach responsibility. The easy way out is never the best way out of a situation most of the time. I feel that youth policy has been influenced by personal feeling and experiences rather than using logic. Government doesn’t understand people individually and can never do so. Government is not a god on earth and our rights do not come from government because it’s a man made institution. Rights come from our humanity. Our body is the most important possession of humanity because without a body, you cannot exist and that means that since it’s your body, nobody has the right to prohibit you from exercising it in a way that does not do harm to others. Punishing someone for abusing their rights by harming other people is more appropriate than prohibition. It’s okay to be afraid of bad things in life. But it’s unhealthy to deny reality and think that those things can go away if an institution of force known as the government can be used to change the health and well being of individuals. Not even local governments can fully understand people as individuals. Since rights come with responsibilities it would only make sense that people are presumed responsible for their own actions until proven otherwise. Freedom and responsibility are birthrights and not rewards. If a person is too incompetent to care for his or herself then the caregiver is the person who is responsible for the incompetent or dependent in their care. If a caregiver is to be punished for what the person in their care did in regards to hurting self and/or others then the prosecution needs to prove that the person who did it is incompetent to accept the consequences of his or her actions, that person was in the care of the person accused and also must prove that the caregiver could prevent that person from harming self or others. If you can accept the consequences for your actions, then why ban alcohol for those who are under 21 yet are able to accept the consequences of their actions? Government cannot teach responsibility that way. It never works that way. Forgive me if some of what I just wrote here may confuse you. My point is that people should be judged based only on their abilities and actions and reasons should be related to the matter being judged. The one size fits all approach to protecting children is ineffective and unfair. The people who need to exercise responsibility the most are the leaders and caregivers who need to set examples and be good role models because America’s future does better when they have examples instead of this ends justify the means non-sense. Happy Memorial day to our brave troops who fought for our country since the American Revolution.