Should gambling be allowed for legal adults 18-20?
Poll
 | 16 votes (76.19%) | ||
| | 5 votes (23.8%) |
21 members have voted
And besides, they don't have any money.
I beleive there are MANY rights and responsibilities that are different ages, but should all be the same age. For example:
- Unrestricted Working
- Unrestricted Driving
- Unrestricted Drinking
- Gambling
- Smoking
- Voting
- Military duty
To clarify the 'unrestricted' part: minors can work with working papers, drive with a learner's permit or during specific hours alone, drink at home with parental supervision.
from a casino's perspective, since the drinking age is 21, its too difficult having to identify those that are 18-20 and those that are 21+. they can give them bands or stamps when they enter but then the kids can just rip them or wash them off. the casino might find themselves getting sued to selling alcohol to a minor. kids that age dont have much money anyways. its not worth the hassle risking all that to make a few extra bucks.
Quote: WizardCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't the gambling age 19 in Canada, and 18 in Australia?
For Canada: 18 in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec. 19 elsewhere.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAlso I dont consider 18-20 as a child. They are consenting legal adults in ANY jurisdiction.
The rationales for considering such persons as "adults" are artifacts of an earlier age:
We considered 18-21 year olds as "adults" because by that time, they could have popped out half a dozen kids, and we might as well have given them a higher societal status than their children.
We considered 18-21 year olds as "adults" so we could justify sending them off to war, even though very few of them had any concept of why they were fighting or what they were getting into. But testosterone-soaked eighteen-year-old boys make EXCELLENT soldiers, and excellent targets.
We considered 18-21 year olds as "adults" because in the year 1900, the life expectancy of the average adult was barely over 40.
We lowered the drinking age to 18 in many states, because, uh, errrr.....
We want to allow 18-year-olds to gamble because, er....
You see my point. Teenagers/young adults have NEVER been "adults", but our societies have constructed the fiction that they WERE, in order to serve a higher purpose. None of those purposes exist any longer. Furthermore, we finally have access to psychological research that unequivocally confirms that young persons' brains are still developing at 18, and at 21. Given that unlike in the past, a person of 18 has not yet even lived 1/4 of his life, it seems stupid and counterproductive to call that person an adult, and give him the privileges and responsibilities thereof.
In the case of drinking and casino gambling, I cannot fathom any gain to society from lowering the threshold age(s); quite the opposite.
Quote: WizardCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't the gambling age 19 in Canada, and 18 in Australia?
19 in Ontario. I enjoyed going with my 19 y/o son. I was happy his first 2 experiences were with me... long time at paigow with modest win... then second time quick loss of bankroll. I am happy he experienced both sides...
Quote: mkl654321
In the case of drinking and casino gambling, I cannot fathom any gain to society from lowering the threshold age(s); quite the opposite.
I think you're right if you assume that more 18 year olds would drink or gamble if it were legal. In that case, the activities are best left illegal for the 18-20 year-old crowd (note: 18 is the gambling age here in MN, and our largest casino is dry). If you think that 18 year olds will drink and gamble whether it's legal or not, then I would argue that it's better for them to have a safe and regulated environment for those activities.
For example: I am 29. I am quite certain that I drank more alcohol between ages 18 and 20 than I have since my 21st birthday. If alcohol was less mystical/dangerous/taboo when I was 19, I probably would have drank a lot less.
Quote: mkl654321teenage brains aren't fully developed
Nor are many adults' brains, as you and many others have often noted here.
Quote:Young people do foolhardy things because those skills don't develop until the mid-20's, or much later
Or never.
Quote: rdw4potusI think you're right if you assume that more 18 year olds would drink or gamble if it were legal. In that case, the activities are best left illegal for the 18-20 year-old crowd (note: 18 is the gambling age here in MN, and our largest casino is dry). If you think that 18 year olds will drink and gamble whether it's legal or not, then I would argue that it's better for them to have a safe and regulated environment for those activities.
For example: I am 29. I am quite certain that I drank more alcohol between ages 18 and 20 than I have since my 21st birthday. If alcohol was less mystical/dangerous/taboo when I was 19, I probably would have drank a lot less.
Probably the relative impacts are different for gambling and alcohol; it's very easy for an underage person to obtain alcohol, but it would be MUCH harder for him to find someone to book his bets.
I do agree that making something illicit is (for teenagers, at least) to make it more attractive. For instance, if a law was passed against minors roasting and eating old socks, millions of teenagers would be doing just that. Which brings to mind an effective strategy: if you don't want your teenager doing drugs or smoking, DEMAND that he do those things, repeatedly tell him how COOL drugs and cigarettes are, and instantly, he won't touch them with a ten-foot pole (age and guile beat youth and inexperience).
Your post just reminded me of the two fathers' scheming in the plot for "The Fantastics". Hadn't thought about that in years. Thanks for stirring the memories!
Quote: mkl654321You see my point. Teenagers/young adults have NEVER been "adults", but our societies have constructed the fiction that they WERE, in order to serve a higher purpose. None of those purposes exist any longer. Furthermore, we finally have access to psychological research that unequivocally confirms that young persons' brains are still developing at 18, and at 21. Given that unlike in the past, a person of 18 has not yet even lived 1/4 of his life, it seems stupid and counterproductive to call that person an adult, and give him the privileges and responsibilities thereof.
A few weeks ago, a twenty-something kid on the street asked me for some change. I asked him, "Why would i want to hand out money to someone who could likely "beat the crap" out of me (at 49)?"
Likewise, simply because they made better workers/soldiers a hundred years ago, and still as lung-capacity, reaction-time, etc, begin to decline at age twenty. And the birthing age for young girls has been steadily falling, as i heard again the other day, to a few even at age seven. It's simple evolutionary design, for any species to produce more off-spring which mature faster and live longer... psychologically as well as physically.
Quote: mkl654321In the case of drinking and casino gambling, I cannot fathom any gain to society from lowering the threshold age(s); quite the opposite.
I don't know how true this is, but it makes sense that it's they who never "learned how to drink" in their youth who become the alcoholics and drug-addicts later in life.
Quote: GarnabbyLikewise, simply because they made better workers/soldiers a hundred years ago, and still as lung-capacity, reaction-time, etc, begin to decline at age twenty. And the birthing age for young girls has been steadily falling, as i heard again the other day, to a few even at age seven. It's simple evolutionary design, for any species to produce more off-spring which mature faster and live longer... psychologically as well as physically.
That's actually not true, in the somewhat unique case of humans. The human infant is the most helpless of all mammalian offspring; contrast with a horse or a dolphin infant. Likewise, the attainment of sexual maturity happens VERY late in the life cycle for humans. What significance this has from an evolutionary standpoint is that "slow development" has been selected for, at the expense of high birthrates. This means that what makes the human species viable is the establishment of strong social contacts and kin relationships: four or five strong, healthy children that are cared for by the peer group is better than ten children that receive uneven attention and allocation of resources.
In human society, the pressure to become a putative "adult" as soon as sexual maturity was reached was based on the fact that until quite recently, if one waited until one was in their twenties before procreating, they might very well have not lived to see their offspring reach maturity. Therefore, society encouraged teenagers to take on adult responsibilities well before their brains were equipped to cope with those responsibilities. This pressure is no longer valid now that life expectancies are so much higher, and in fact, we do expect people to postpone child-rearing until well past puberty.
The fact that female fertility has been occuring at a younger and younger age may be due to better nutrition and overall health in the population, rather than any larger evolutionary trend. As I've explained, a higher birthrate may not be advantageous for the species, so it is questionable whether natural selection is favoring the species characteristic of earlier fertility.
Quote: cclub79One argument that I always thought was the most flawed yet most overused argument for lowering the drinking age to 18 (and I don't see why it wouldn't work for gambling, either): "If he can go to war and die for his country, then he can have a beer." First, if there were a way to make it legal for just military personnel to drink at age 18, fine. But you don't just "go off to war". You are trained for weeks if not months to become a different person. For better or worse, that training matures most men. I'm fine with 18 year-olds drinking, if they are willing to take a 2-3 month non-stop course on alcohol and the responsibilities that go with it, or any commensurate non-stop course similar to military training.
The only valid argument, but a compelling one, for using young people as soldiers is that only young people (with their undeveloped brains) will have the lack of judgment necessary to obey a suicidal order without even thinking. If the trenches in WWI had been filled with older men, they would have flatly refused to go charging "over the top" into certain death. Even the threat of being shot by their superior officers would not have been sufficient as that would still have been a superior outcome to being ripped apart by bullets or shells and left to die in the mud.
On a macro scale, a mature person would be far more likely to tell the politicians to go screw themselves, and work out their disputes with diplomacy, rather than send people to die because they can't reach peaceful resolutions. Without willing soldiers there would be no wars, which is why we get 'em before their brains mature to the point where they realize what a shitty deal they're being offered.
BTW, I would doubt very much that military training matures anybody. You learn to become an automaton, to obey orders reflexively and without thought, and buy into a macho culture that glorifies violence. The soldier is in fact obsolete; machines can do a much better job of applied violence, and at much less cost.
Quote: mkl654321The only valid argument, but a compelling one, for using young people as soldiers is that only young people (with their undeveloped brains) will have the lack of judgment necessary to obey a suicidal order without even thinking.
As if strength and stamina had nothing to do with soldiering.
Quote:On a macro scale, a mature person would be far more likely to tell the politicians to go screw themselves
Gee, and us fogies always thought that it was the young 'uns who were ever eager to tell everyone to go to hell. Ever hear their music?
Quote:I would doubt very much that military training matures anybody. You learn to become an automaton, to obey orders reflexively and without thought, and buy into a macho culture that glorifies violence.
From someone who has clearly never experienced or witnessed what he's writing about.
Quote:The soldier is in fact obsolete; machines can do a much better job of applied violence, and at much less cost.
Iraq and Afghanistan are showing that remains to be seen, even with drones.
Quote: rdw4potusI think you're right if you assume that more 18 year olds would drink or gamble if it were legal. In that case, the activities are best left illegal for the 18-20 year-old crowd (note: 18 is the gambling age here in MN, and our largest casino is dry). If you think that 18 year olds will drink and gamble whether it's legal or not, then I would argue that it's better for them to have a safe and regulated environment for those activities
People who theorize that youngsters under the age of 21 are not drinking alcohol have not been around any college campus (except Brigham Young and its ilk) on a Friday night.
Maybe some writers would like to reorganize the WCTU.
Quote: SanchoPanzaAs if strength and stamina had nothing to do with soldiering.
Gee, and us fogies always thought that it was the young 'uns who were ever eager to tell everyone to go to hell. Ever hear their music?
From someone who has clearly never experienced or witnessed what he's writing about.
Iraq and Afghanistan are showing that remains to be seen, even with drones.
In fact, strength and stamina DO have very little to do with soldiering. A 110-pound guy can kill someone with an M-1 just as easily as a 300-pound guy can. "Soldiering" is more about mindless, reflexive obedience--it is a mental skill, rather than a physical one.
The point I was making is that mature people resist the idea that throwing away human lives is the optimal method of conflict resolution; young people just say "booyah" and go paddle around in the testosterone.
I've never been in a war, no, but I'm a historian, a scholar, a student of the human condition, and I have talked to many, many soldiers and ex-soldiers, all friends, relatives, and acquaintances.
Iraq and Afghanistan are, in fact, PROVING that many missions can be accomplished without risking soldiers' lives.
Quote: mkl654321In fact, strength and stamina DO have very little to do with soldiering. A 110-pound guy can kill someone with an M-1 just as easily as a 300-pound guy can. "Soldiering" is more about mindless, reflexive obedience--it is a mental skill, rather than a physical one.
Well that explains all those 275-pound marines.
Quote:The point I was making is that mature people resist the idea that throwing away human lives is the optimal method of conflict resolution; young people just say "booyah" and go paddle around in the testosterone.
As if following military practices has never been instrumental in achieving good ends throughout all of history.
Quote:I've never been in a war, no, but I'm a historian, a scholar, a student of the human condition, and I have talked to many, many soldiers and ex-soldiers, all friends, relatives, and acquaintances.
And not one of them has ever said that training helped to mature raw recruits. It might be time to enlarge the circle so that the sweeping generalizations hold up better in the eyes of people who have actually experienced what we are writing about.
Quote: mkl654321That's actually not true, in the somewhat unique case of humans. The human infant is the most helpless of all mammalian offspring; contrast with a horse or a dolphin infant. Likewise, the attainment of sexual maturity happens VERY late in the life cycle for humans. What significance this has from an evolutionary standpoint is that "slow development" has been selected for, at the expense of high birthrates. This means that what makes the human species viable is the establishment of strong social contacts and kin relationships: four or five strong, healthy children that are cared for by the peer group is better than ten children that receive uneven attention and allocation of resources.
That's actually not what i wrote, "... each species tends to produce more off-spring which mature faster and live longer". (Where did i compare the species?) Anyway, humans are very relatively-new on the evolutionary scene, far behind the other animals which have long ago "weeded out" most of the defective genes in those branches.
Why on earth would one expect our evolutionary cycle to be any different in the long-run? And thank goodness, even though we "think" we're genetically altering, etc, ourselves... that too is only a product of what we were, are, and will be.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWell that explains all those 275-pound marines.
As if following military practices has never been instrumental in achieving good ends throughout all of history.
And not one of them has ever said that training helped to mature raw recruits. It might be time to enlarge the circle so that the sweeping generalizations hold up better in the eyes of people who have actually experienced what we are writing about.
No, what explains all those 275-pound Marines is the obsolete BELIEF that a chunkier soldier is obviously a better one--a misconception that is behind the fierce resistance to recruiting women soldiers. To repeat myself, it's brains, not brawn, that matters, except perhaps in the rare instance of unarmed hand-to-hand combat with the enemy.
Following military practices, i.e., war, has achieved good ends--for the winners. It has also achieved horrible ends--for both sides. The latter result has been more common than the former. War itself is obsolete, and in a sense, it always has been, in that trade and interaction with one's neighbors has always been a superior strategy.
It is not necessary to have been a soldier to understand what military service is all about, nor does having been a soldier necessarily confer that knowledge. In fact, an "outsider"'s perspective may be more accurate. To use an appropriate analogy, one need not be or have been a baseball player to know all about baseball.
Quote: GarnabbyThat's actually not what i wrote, "... each species tends to produce more off-spring which mature faster and live longer". (Where did i compare the species?) Anyway, humans are very relatively-new on the evolutionary scene, far behind the other animals which have long ago "weeded out" most of the defective genes in those branches.
Why on earth would one expect our evolutionary cycle to be any different in the long-run? And thank goodness, even though we "think" we're genetically altering, etc, ourselves... that too is only a product of what we were, are, and will be.
More than what? More than previously? If that's what you mean, recent human history disproves that as human birthrates have been dropping dramatically for the last two centuries--due to factors that are as much behavioral as genetic, but that is still a valid Darwinian marker.
And humans aren't all that new on the scene--our family tree goes back about five million years. And there are no "defective" genes--only unsuccessful ones (a subtle but vital distinction).
Our evolutionary cycle IS unique among animals because we influence our environments more than any other animal, and our behavioral and social structures both evolve rapidly and rapidly affect our physical evolution.
Quote: mkl654321The only valid argument, but a compelling one, for using young people as soldiers is that only young people (with their undeveloped brains) will have the lack of judgment necessary to obey a suicidal order without even thinking. If the trenches in WWI had been filled with older men, they would have flatly refused to go charging "over the top" into certain death. Even the threat of being shot by their superior officers would not have been sufficient as that would still have been a superior outcome to being ripped apart by bullets or shells and left to die in the mud.
I thought about this statement and also about what I have heard from combat veterans about battle. You don't hear a lot about patriotism, etc. in their battle experiences (if they are even willing to share it), but you do hear them say they would do anything to save their fellow soldiers. I disagree with the whole "lack of judgment" statement and the comment about getting them "before their brains mature"...
I did a few minutes of internet research on this and most of the information I found said that the average age of US WWI soldiers was 26 or so. The average of US KIAs in Vietnam was 22. I guess they weren't so young after all.
Quote: WizardCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't the gambling age 19 in Canada, and 18 in Australia?
Australia
Vote 18
Drink 18
Drive 17
Gamble 18
Get shot ?
Quote: mkl654321I say no, because teenage brains aren't fully developed, and one of the last things the human brain acquires is judgment, risk assessment, and discretion. Young people do foolhardy things because those skills don't develop until the mid-20's, or much later in the case of Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan. To allow teenage children to gamble would be to expose them to exploitation.
So what? Like they're not being exploited everywhere else already. Why stop at 21, make it 25, and they have to take a test. Get real, you can't protect people from themselves, you can't control them like they're livestock and you have the cattle prod. Let them experience life for themselves and make their own decisions and mistakes.
Quote: WizardCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't the gambling age 19 in Canada, and 18 in Australia?
A few pages ago and not sure if someone has answered but yes, the legal age for gambling (as with drinking) is 18 in Australia.
Quote: EvenBobSo what? Like they're not being exploited everywhere else already. Why stop at 21, make it 25, and they have to take a test. Get real, you can't protect people from themselves, you can't control them like they're livestock and you have the cattle prod. Let them experience life for themselves and make their own decisions and mistakes.
Human society can and does "protect people from themselves" by prohibiting some behaviors and restricting some others. In the case of gambling, minors are particularly susceptible, and the societal cost of allowing them to gamble is huge.
Quote: WizardFirst, I think the gambling age should be left up to each state. However, what if the question were should my own state lower the gambling age to 18? This issue is not a priority for me, but I would favor it. Same with the drinking age. I don't think prohibiting either is keeping those age 18-21 away from gambling and drinking. In fact, I think prohibiting it makes it more appealing and exciting, resulting in doing both in excess. In my life I did way more drinking before 21 than after, for the same stupid reason. The emphasis should be placed on individual responsibility and moderation, not legislating behavior.
I don't see, and haven't heard of, swarms of underage gamblers seeking out illicit crap tables and slot machines buried in the basements of pool halls. Gambling isn't appealing for underage kids the way drinking is.
I would heartily disagree with the premise that making drinking illegal INCREASES the incidence of drinking. Granted, the prohibition won't reduce that incidence very much, but some number of underage persons--greater than zero--will refrain from drinking because it is illegal.
It would be nice if we could rely on the "individual responsibility and moderation" of 18-20 year olds, but that's like relying on the ability of chimpanzees to play the violin. They aren't ABLE to be responsible or moderate--not yet. That is the single strongest argument for restricting certain behaviors on their part.
I do agree that if the individual states can regulate whether gambling exists at all, then they should also set the age limits. It takes a pretty desperate (cash-strapped) and dimwitted state to lower the gambling age to 18, though. Do you REALLY want to bleed teenagers to make up for your past fiscal stupidity?
Quote: mkl654321Human society can and does "protect people from themselves" by prohibiting some behaviors and restricting some others. In the case of gambling, minors are particularly susceptible, and the societal cost of allowing them to gamble is huge.
All the experts agree that if a man is going to be a problem gambler, he already is one by the age of 18, without ever entering a casino. And they say a woman can become one at any age from 18 to 80. Protecting people from themselves is a Socialist fantasy, its not possible. Look at the Great Experiment, Prohibition. The gov't tried to protect an entire country 'from themselves', and what happened was more people drank during Prohibition than before it was enacted. People are going to do what they want, you can't stop them.
Quote: mkl654321
It takes a pretty desperate (cash-strapped) and dimwitted state to lower the gambling age to 18, though. Do you REALLY want to bleed teenagers to make up for your past fiscal stupidity?
Oh baloney, gimmee a break. The largest casino in my state lets 18 year olds gamble and they act just like everybody else, except they have very little money. If anything, they're more careful about what they play because they have no BR. Its mostly college kids who are just having a good time hanging out and making their money go as far as possible. Its tough to get in serious trouble when all you have is $20.... I think it teaches them how to gamble responsibly when they get older and have money. You act like all kids are stupid idiots. They're not.
Quote: mlk
I would heartily disagree with the premise that making drinking illegal INCREASES the incidence of drinking. Granted, the prohibition won't reduce that incidence very much, but some number of underage persons--greater than zero--will refrain from drinking because it is illegal.
I agree with this. As much as there is the idea that college students want to rebel, there is definitely something to be said for the societal acceptance of a certain behavior. When you legalize something, you don't make kids LESS LIKELY to do it, you make them MORE LIKELY to find a way to do it more destructively. If buying booze became legal, it would just make it easier to go nuts and drink yourself to death. Do you think there wouldn't be huge frat parties with kids going crazy if drinking were legal? I'll be the first to admit this is a pretty flimsy parallel, but do you think legalizing a drug like pot would make more or less college kids try it? Why are all the smokers clamoring for legalization? So they can smoke LESS? C'mon.
Now if your argument is, "Well, they SHOULD be allowed to drink themselves ill and smoke lots of pot and gamble their college savings away in the Taj Poker Room when they are a freshman..." that's fine. But you can't say that legalizing something is a good way to lower the incidences of that behavior.
Quote: EvenBobAll the experts agree that if a man is going to be a problem gambler, he already is one by the age of 18, without ever entering a casino. And they say a woman can become one at any age from 18 to 80. Protecting people from themselves is a Socialist fantasy, its not possible. Look at the Great Experiment, Prohibition. The gov't tried to protect an entire country 'from themselves', and what happened was more people drank during Prohibition than before it was enacted. People are going to do what they want, you can't stop them.
So I suppose we should repeal laws against all forms of drug use, and for that matter, burglary, rape, kidnaping, and murder? Because "people are going to do what they want", no matter what?
Law and order is not "socialism". Neither is "protecting people from themselves", when the people in question are minors who lack proper judgment. Laws such as minimum driving ages, statutory rape laws, drinking age limits, and so forth have been drafted for the express purpose of protecting minors--if you like, "from themselves". This would only seem "socialist" if you've never spent much time around minors, and don't realize how much protection they DO need from themselves.
And I don't know where you got that "all the experts agree" nonsense, but there's no such thing as a problem gambler if he hasn't ever gambled in his life. Such a person might be a POTENTIAL problem gambler, but wouldn't that be a strong argument for keeping him OUT of the casinos until he's a few years older and presumably better able to control his compulsions?
Quote: mkl654321So I suppose we should repeal laws against all forms of drug use, and for that matter, burglary, rape, kidnaping, and murder?
So casino gambling is the same to you as drugs, rape, burglary, kidnapping and murder? I would say thats a tad bit extreme.
Quote: mkl654321More than what? More than previously? If that's what you mean, recent human history disproves that as human birthrates have been dropping dramatically for the last two centuries--due to factors that are as much behavioral as genetic, but that is still a valid Darwinian marker.
And humans aren't all that new on the scene--our family tree goes back about five million years. And there are no "defective" genes--only unsuccessful ones (a subtle but vital distinction).
Our evolutionary cycle IS unique among animals because we influence our environments more than any other animal, and our behavioral and social structures both evolve rapidly and rapidly affect our physical evolution.
What the h*ck are you talking about???
Bye.
Quote: EvenBobSo casino gambling is the same to you as drugs, rape, burglary, kidnapping and murder? I would say thats a tad bit extreme.
Nope. I didn't say that those things are the same to me at all. Don't put words in my mouth, especially not YOUR words.
I was responding to your assertion that "people will do what they want", so what's the point of having laws at all? Your fairly dumb thesis was that making an act illegal doesn't serve as a deterrent. Therefore, why have laws proscribing criminal behavior?
I agree that rephrasing your argument made it sound even more idiotic than it did as you had stated it. For that, I apologize. In the spirit of free speech and Traditional American Values, you are perfectly entitled to blurt out any loony-bird idea you wish, and it was cruel and unnecessary of me to point out the flaw in your argument---to paraphrase the Founding Fathers (me patriotic!), that is a truth we should hold to be self-evident.
Quote: GarnabbyWhat the h*ck are you talking about???
Bye.
Would you like a list of good college textbooks on the subject? As a teacher, my mission is to help stamp out ignorance.
Quote: GarnabbyThere're no such texts about "reading between the lines", and seeing through "posers".
Now, you're starting to babble.
And by the way, there's no such word as "there're" (it is indeed used quite a bit, but so are words like "anyways").
Quote: mkl654321Now, you're starting to babble.
And by the way, there's no such word as "there're" (it is indeed used quite a bit, but so are words like "anyways").
