Wolfire Games Forums

as far as im concerned, once you are 21 you are a fully fledged adult, and should be able to destroy your body as you see fit with any drug. just dont use and drive or anything stupid like that, if your gonna use, stay in your house

in Denmark, you can buy alcohol at an age of 16, and tobacco at 18...

Denmark is a sick sick place lol

Japan uses the age limit of 20 for both tobacco and alcohol.

Two things of note:
As I recall it, the last phase of brain development occurs between the ages 20-25, in which the prefrontal cortex develops and allows the individual to better make informed decisions and weigh consequences. An argument I've encountered is that by delaying the age of access to this phase of development, young adults will be less inclined to binge the substances once they have unrestricted legal access.

On the other side, there is the mystical appeal of forbidden substances in their ability to convey a sense of delving into the adult world. And more, there is the strong temptation to explore and exploit anything deemed off-limits. For example, the appeal of M-rated games to underage gamers - an experience I think we're all likely to have had.
By creating the restriction, the substance inherits that appeal of being forbidden.
I recall a psych study of young children and sweets. When the children were limited in their intake, they would tend to sneak an excess of candy when left alone with the forbidden sweets. However, children who were allowed to eat what they wanted when they wanted tended to consume less.

I don't think the ability to purchase should be granted until age 20, roughly when all other legal rights are granted.
Before that, though, consumption should be allowed if supervised - or at least parentally granted - and if given a lot of education throughout the person's life. Basically, tolerate and educate, then let them purchase freely.

As an aside, what I find absurd with tobacco and alcohol age limits is that the age of consent is often many years lower. For example, in California the age of consent is 16, tobacco is purchasable at 18, and alcohol at 21. I find it perplexing that a child having sex at age 16 is legally permissible, but possession (not even consumption!) of tobacco or alcohol results in a misdemeanor charge.

Right

Nonsense.
Furthermore, alternate views would enable us to examine our own.

Hear, hear.
This is a pretty complex question, no mistake about it.

Count Roland wrote:unfortunately I can't actually post any of my views on any of this stuff due to the flaming and death threats I'd probably receive.

Oh no, not OVER THE INTERNET. Come on, man, that just sounds like a sheepish way of saying you don't really have any constructive viewpoint on the topic.

I hear your point about things which are taboo becoming desirable. This is a rather off-shoot comparison, but just look at the market for websites like My Friend's Hot Mom and My First Sex Teacher. They're so popular because they're about something which is taboo or forbidden. I suppose controlled supervision of consumption of the drugs could be a good system. It works in France for alcohol, as far as I know. I'm pretty sure children are allowed have some wine during meals and so on provided it's supervised by an adult.

It would be useful if some of the French members of the Forum, or Wilbefast, could confirm this. This is just something I've heard, I've never seen it in practice.

I went over to France earlier this year.
The family we visited seemed very open to letting the kids drink with dinner at home.
[On a side note, France has a public-access broadcast porn channel that starts airing at 10 pm (softcore, 16+), and then gets into hardcore stuff (18+) as of midnight.]

I just looked up the drinking ages, and found this gem:
Isle of Man -
Drinking ages: 5 (in private), 16 (in public with a meal), 18 otherwise; 18 for purchasing.

Now, while I'm concerned about the effects of alcohol on a developing brain, I think this is perfectly reasonable. Though, I am also assuming that the parents are educated on the effects, use, and abuse of alcohol.
I've heard of incidents where young, idiotic parents give their infants whiskey to drink. Or marijuana.

I think the child ought to have some sense of self-determination first. There's a difference between electing to consume and being forced/coerced to it.

alright then views, all drugs should be legalized for all ages, however anyone committing any crime under or above the influence of drugs should be put to death. What you do to yourself can't ever be a crime so drugs aren't criminal, however anything which causes harmful effects to others is a crime, and therefore deserving of death. bit of a ramble but whatever.

Any crime? So someone who is drunk and shoplifts a paperclip ought be put to death?
Or more ridiculously, if someone is cohabiting with a member of the opposite gender in Florida - archaic law that results in a misdemeanor charge and a fine of $500 - and then is drunk, they ought be put to death?

Drugs tend to lower one's inhibitions and sense of reality, too. Unless people lock themselves up in a saferoom, death would become commonplace. A strange trade-off, if the goal is the freedom to act privately as you wish.

I can also see cases of people committing actions analogous to "suicide by police." These people ought to be assisted in escaping their circumstances, not terminated by categorization.

Your mandate is too general to be reasonably actionable.

Perhaps a tiered system, where drugs are classified and combinations of the drug and crime result in increasing severity of punishment?
For example, let's say fictional drug X, a Class-2 drug, when combined with a misdemeanor offense will result in an exacerbated fine or jail time, but when combined with a high felony will result in execution?

Though there are problems with using capital punishment to begin with. It's supposed to be more of a mitigating preventive of similar crimes occurring, instead of as a fitting, avenging punishment. In that light, it's rather sad that they're not public spectacles, since there's nothing more sobering than seeing another man die at the hands of the court.

Personally, I'd prefer a system that pursues rehabilitation over incarceration or execution. The US penal system is far too expensive and ineffective.
Take the case of chemical castration for sex offenders for example - those who opt for the program are given reduced sentences and lower supervision, and result in functional members of society as opposed to costly inmates or worse: prematurely released offenders who retain their tendencies.

Count Roland wrote:*A lot of nonsense.*

Maybe you should have kept those to yourself after all. lol. It's funny because you didn't initially seem retarded.

I'm saying 21. I'm not going too much into detail I just think that's the way it should be. Adults can be responsible for their own decisions, plus since we're still restricting the harder drugs like crystal meth, that seems right. I'm kind of torn with pot but it probably shouldn't be completely illegal. No matter what teens will get it anyway though.

hahah I suppose I should have made myself clear on my views, it's difficult to convey ideas over the internet, well in any case we'll just say that I don't believe in any of the current systems of government and also believe in draconian systems of punishment. I'll probably do some kind of longer post later detailing my crazy views. hahahahahahah