And of course this is for society’s benefit: it just simply doesn’t follow that there is one go/no-go age limit for everything.

A very interesting issue and a thoughtful post.

Here’s one reason why there might be a sliding scale with differing ages for differing things. If your decision affects only you or others who consent to be a part of such a decision - I’m thinking sex and marriage from your list above - then your immaturity affects only you and those who chose to consent to be a part of that decision knowing your immaturity.

When your decision affects others who do NOT have any influence on your choice - I’m thinking voting in particular and driving (I don’t choose to be crashed into by an inexperienced driver) - then yes, more maturity is required.

There are - as you rightly point out - some peculiar inconsistencies - e.g. 16 for tobacco but 18 for alcohol - but that does not detract at all from my argument above - it merely suggests that some decisions are not in the right category.

As for the second class citizen thing, I saw Pschaw and wave dismissively in your general direction. Such second-classness is entirely temporary. Wait two years and you are no longer second class. That there is a grey area between childhood and adulthood is a truism of such triviality that I’m surprised we are going over it again.

As for the lack of preparation for adulthood, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the ages at which certain actions become legal. Nothing at all. The issue here starts in early childhood and remains so throughout teenage years. Whether you can smoke or drink at 17 is utterly and completely irrelevant.

I’m struggling to understand why you think this post is ‘failing’ teenagers!? Is it simply because I am suggesting that the age of majority should be lower? All I am doing, is making the (not particularly controversial) claim that the age of majority is too low for some things for some people, and too high for other things for other people. One boy’s protection is another man’s unnecessary paternalism, and you’ll never get it right for everyone. But if we are going to be arbitrary about these things, we may as well be consistent and simply set a simple standard for everything. Its ludicrous that someone not old enough to be tried in an adult court can get married, surely?

The reason people aren’t allowed to buy alcohol before 18 is for their own protection. And it’s pretty disgusting that we allow 16-year-olds to buy cigarettes. We should be protecting young people from this appalling threat to their health, no? Pretty much everyone with a smoking addiction started young. If you don’t start before 18 or 20, the odds are you never will. Interesting, huh? As for 16-year-olds driving, I would be v.concerned about the males, quite frankly, about the danger, statistically, that this would pose both to them and other road users. 17-24 year olds, statistically speaking, are bad enough.

Teenagers themselves may not like to hear it, because by definition they lack the perspective to see the truth in it, and you can’t know what you don’t know, but they are both a vulnerable, and potentially dangerous group in certain ways, and both they and the wider society need to be protected from those risks, such as they are.

In recent debates about the appallingness of some teenage behaviour, I hear the argument that it is largely caused by the adult generation totally failing them, and abdicating our responsibility towards them. And I have to say I agree. This post seems to be another example of that. I also think that what’s wrong is not the age of majority, but the lack of guidance and support given in preparation for it.

And a child is not a second-class citizen, Rob! Children are afforded way more protection than adults are. Because children have different needs and abilities, andresponsibilities compared to adults, it is perfectly right and proper that the constraints and protections afforded them should be commensurate with that. Calling children second-class citizens is not only incorrect, but in some ways, a reversed description of the actual reality. If you convince people with this argument, you’ll be doing immeasurable harm to children, I’d say.