Under-18 users request to open up Google+ for them
groups.google.com
groups.google.com
Do you agree that a 40 year old shouldn't be able to have sex with a 6 year old? Do you agree that a ten year old shouldn't be allowed to walk into a shop and buy a packet of cigarettes and a bottle of vodka?
Assuming yes, the only two options are an arbitrary age that won't be perfect for everyone, but will at least protect as many people as possible, or no law, and if shit happens to kids then oh well.
After that you can of course debate where the arbitrary ages are, for example I think it's ridiculous that 21 is the drinking age in America.
When I was 10, I regularly bought beer and cigarettes in the shop near our house. I also bought bread, eggs, milk, etc. I was buying these things for my parents. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, except for the fact that I occasionally bought sweets for myself with the change. Unsurprisingly, as a 10 year old, I was more interested in strawberry chewing gum and red licorice than beer and cigarettes (which I had tried and found to be revolting).
When I was 10, my older brother turned 16. My father started including him when he ordered wine with dinner and he had the occasional beer with his friends. I have never seen any evidence of my brother abusing alcohol.
On the other hand, I saw plenty of alcohol abuse when we moved to Ireland. The strictness of the law here leads to the same problems associated with any other illegal drug abuse. Users (in this case, minors) consume it in secret and often in uncontrolled and dangerous ways. I'd much prefer to have a 16 year old kid being kicked out of a bar for being too drunk than drinking a litre of whiskey in a field, passing out and dying of exposure.
</2¢>
Your story of being 10 is pretty irrelevant, though, you're just one person. If everybody behaved a particular way in all aspects of life, we'd have no need for any laws at all. The fact that you were useful buying them and not smoking them doesn't mean other children won't do the opposite. These sort of laws have to protect the vulnerable, not build on the basis that all children are grown up enough to look after themselves.
As to drinking in bars, I'm not so sure. In my experience, I have, my friends have and random people I see any time I go out have been able to get very drunk without being thrown out. The only time I've seen people thrown out "for being too drunk" is actually when their being drunk has made them rude and/or violent, often towards bouncers. No-one I personally know has ever got so drunk that something bad happened, but I've seen no evidence that it's harder for that to be the case in a licensed bar than a field. Regardless, even if kids could drink legally, what's stopping them from, after being kicked out for being too drunk, heading to a field with a bottle of vodka?
What I meant to convey was that I don't believe there is a credible risk of many 10 year olds abusing drugs. And if any of them do it, I think the main problem in their life is not the availability of the drugs.
As for drinking in bars, when I say "too drunk" I mean dangerously drunk, not just making a fool of yourself and being rude to the staff. The point is that most bars won't let you die on their premises, or even come close to it. In most cultures, recreational alcohol consumption has a social aspect and this is desirable. Drinking in a field in secret in the dark means that if somebody does get into trouble, it's less likely to be noticed before it's too late.
As for people being kicked out of a bar for being too drunk, I think most people would just go home and sleep it off. The sort of person who will go to the effort of acquiring more alcohol and heading off alone to drink in secret probably has other problems.
Again, I'm struggling to say this concisely, so I think the important point is that limiting access to alcohol/other drugs merely attempts to relieve one of the symptoms of a larger problem. It's like trying to cure lung cancer with cough medicine.
Wikipedia has this informative table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age
I would summarize it as follows: 18 wins. I suspect not for any scientific reasons.
So what’s the history of the 21? 21 was the age of majority when prohibition ended. Most states set their legal drinking age accordingly and that’s that. Today all states have 21 as the legal drinking age since they would lose federal funding if the didn’t.
By the way, today the age of majority is 18 in all but three states.
All those drinking age limits are arbitrary. I’m actually fine with that, as long as grownups can buy alcohol. Alcohol may still be harmful for 18-year-olds (well, even more harmful than alcohol is anyway) but I don’t think it’s the government’s job to tell grownups what to do when it comes to things like alcohol or smoking or various (not sure whether I want to write all) other drugs.
(It’s even possible to have a sensible argument about whether younger kids should be allowed to buy alcohol. When you drink too much beer when you are 16 in Germany you can’t kill anyone driving since you can only get your driver’s license with 18. Maybe those two years give those kids the time to get it out of their system and to learn about the effects alcohol has on them. On the other hand American’s can already have up to five years of driving experience when they are first legally allowed to drink, but I don’t think experience helps you when you are drunk driving. You just shouldn’t do it. That would be an interesting social science study – are young Americans or Germans more likely to drunk drive?)
"Shortly after repeal of Prohibition in 1933, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the age of majority at the time, but a few set their limits lower."
Kids to want to be acknowledged as grown-ups. It frustrates them a lot when someone says they can't have or do something because they're too young. This should increase the desirability factor of G+.
So G+, by using a roll-out strategy that is demographically reversed to Facebook's path (".edu" limitation et al), may still see the same crazed adoption in the teen segment.
As to the 13 and over, it's very common for companies to make that a global policy, partly because US isn't the only country to have that law (off the top of my head I can't recall which others do), partly because it's a fairly common sense decision from an adult's point of view, meaning that few would argue against it, many would argue for it on grounds of morality rather than law. And the only people who'll ever complain are a few years away from being able to vote politically or with their wallet, by which time they will be allowed to do whatever they want, and will have stopped caring. So it's pretty win/win.