🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35563b2f.16538764@news.wam.umd.edu>,
Rob Rodgers <knave@acm.org> wrote:
}russotto@wanda.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
}>One who is 18 is already required to take responsbility for his
}>actions -- he may be sued in civil court, he is always tried as an
}>adult in criminal court.  If he has a job, he pays taxes.  So what's
}>your excuse for forbidding drinking for those 18-21 again?
}
}Their irresponsibility has shown itself in previous decades.  Hence
}the drinking age laws.

OK, so lets raise the age where one may be sued or tried as an adult
to 21.  After all, if those 18-20 are inherently irresponsible because
of their age, it is hardly fair to expect them to be responsible.

}few groups (MADD, etc.)  But I don't think the issue is 18 instead of
}21 -- if we all agreed that 18 was an acceptable age, the sub-18
}teenies would come out squealing that they're allowed to drive, so why
}not drink?  

They'd have a point, too, though not nearly as strong.  There's
already a move on, if you hadn't noticed, to solve _that_ problem by
effectively raising the driving age. 

}It never ends -- the line (arbitrary) needs to be drawn, and here we
}ware today.

The line doesn't really need to be drawn.  But if it's going to be
drawn, age 21 is far too high.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."