Yep, makes sense. Would be great to know if we could skip the test for people over age X, but maybe just making it expensive for people under that age is a good idea.
I understand that, and I agree that people under 50 shouldn't get this test for that reason. I just think that if they want to anyway, the government shouldn't stop them.
The fundamental problem with this approach is the difficulty in quantifying many of these things. How do you objectively determine maturity, ability to react properly under various intense situation, intelligence, even certain physical elements are difficult to quantify. The arbitrary limits at certain ages are meant there to filter out the 90%+ that is known to fail these tests in general, at the detriment of the remaining percentage, knowing that the benefit of allowing the remaining percentage is insignificant compared to the risks and costs. On a case by case individual basis you can make moral arguments for sure, and the justice system and regular life tend to accept these up to a certain point. But some hard red line is required. As a final thought, why not let 12 years olds consent as well? In my view that is where the authors logic tends towards.
Seems like something for the courts. Most people would still be considered adult at 18 or 21 or whatever, but the few exceptions can have it changed in court.
I'm not saying this is a good idea, just that it's a better idea than changing the actual age number like this article proposes.
What is the point then? It would be like a bar tender asking if you're 21 and letting you drink if you just reply "yes." Regulators would be happy though because "at least you tried?"
I get its just trying to shift the burden onto the parents and the "lying child" but at the end of the day it just seems like it would collectively waste so many hours.
I assume the logical conclusion to this is to allow kids access to all things we find addictive but have put behind an age gate, like cigarettes, booze, and car rentals
It’s almost as though you have to treat them like human drivers. We cannot formally verify 16 year olds, either, or sufficiently introspect accurate reasons for their behavior. Instead, we require them to pass a test, we apply actuarial cost models, etc.
All costs aside, I think this is discounting the benefit of a place for 18 year olds to go where they can make mistakes and grow up semi-independently (or sometimes completely independently) for four years in a relatively safe environment.
1) that bill was introduced in march and went nowhere... so not really anything at all, tons of lawmakers push pie-in-the-sky legistation bec they're nuts but aside from hitting the committee, it goes nowhere bec it's nuts.
2) This appears to limit it to under 26, and while yes, theoretically that is an adult, it's not all adults and is really meant to prevent people who don't have fully developed brains from making life altering decisions. Its the same reason most doctors will refuse to perform hysterectomies on women under the age of 30. kids and young adults make really dumb decisions that they often regret for the rest of their lives... why not protect them from that, especially at a time when there is a clear social contagion.
The original article refers to one instance with potentially negative consequences where the age of majority (18) is the basis for access. Why not, in line with the authors' suggestion, increase the age to 25?
That’s a good point, but I thought laws were amended to allow them to start on their parents medical plan until 26 years old? While not the only cohort I imagine this is the bulk of university students
reply