Opinion

 Laws are designed to protect people, and therefore in this regard when they apply to age they should only restrict rights based on age-related factors that in some way inhibit the questioned activity. In terms of the following three laws I disagree            http://www.itzalist.com/sho/police-car-pictures.html      with  the voting law, and somewhat disagree with the drinking and gambling laws. I think the voting should be an activity open to all people that will be affected by the election that is being voted on. It is unjust to put laws and other responsibilities on young adults without giving them the privilege of getting to vote on who will affect these laws that will ultimately affect them. The Constitution of the U.S. which we have discussed in class was founded on principles such as no taxation without representation, yet we place income taxes on teens from the age of 15 and don't let them vote for 3 years until they are 18. Many people feel as if dropping the voting age would be bad for the country since they feel as if young adults/teens aren't informed enough to make mature decisions about politics. However many kids take government classes at this age and are required to learn about the system our government uses to run, which probably gives them a stronger political awareness than the average american. For these reasons I find it only reasonable and appropriate to drop the voting age at least 1-2 years.
When it comes to drinking laws I also think that the drinking age should be lowered. However I do not think this should be done blindly as drinking can definitely have a negative impact on younger drinkers. Many precautions and steps should be taken to crack down on DUI’s and other drinking offences before the drinking age is lowered. I feel as if the safest way to coexist with alcohol in a society is to be open about it yet stern when individuals abuse it. Most countries around the world have lower drinking ages than the U.S. and also experience less negative side affects from this. The laws need to be set up in the right orientation to protect individuals from problems that go with alcohol abuse and not persecute responsible drinkers from the ages from 18-21. Laws are meant to be there to protect citizens not discriminate based on age.
The last age related issue that I examined was the age of gambling. I think that it just makes sense to have a universal age for gambling regardless of the type of gambling. I think Wollstonecraft would also agree that the age of gambling shouldn't be lower for the lottery. Being the true advocate of republicanism and personal rights that she was, she would see this as a blatant abuse of the states power to enforce a law that contradicts their other laws for the benefit of the state. Just as with the other laws I feel as if the age restriction should be there only when age is a factor that could put the individual at risk, otherwise their personal rights shouldn't be infringed on due to age discrimination.

Law Vs. Gambling

Gambling is yet another law that has age restrictions on it. Depending on which state you are in, the legal age to gamble is either 18 to 21 or in some states there is no legal gambling age at all. (Source: Chuck Humphrey, gambling-law-us.com) These laws are all over the board though even within the states. There are not only different gambling ages for different areas within the states, such as in reservations, but there are different gambling ages for different types of gambling. This is one of the shadier sides when you examine the legality of gaming. In almost every state the gambling age for gambling on black jack, poker, or through other activities found in casinos is always higher than gambling on the lottery.

                                         http://www.gambling911.com/files/publisher/
This is a blatant contradiction of the law itself because the states run the lottery and therefore make more money if the gambling age is lower. If gambling is illegal by age it should be made illegal at a constant age no matter what the activity is. If states have found that gambling is safe and reasonable to do at the age of 18 through the lottery, then 18 year olds should be allowed to gamble on any other activity they want to. (source: Code Sections -GA 50-27-10.1/ GA 50-27-10.2) If the lottery is a less harmful venue than other gambling activities, then why shouldn't beer have a lower drinking age than wine and liquor or light cigarettes require a lower smoking age then menthols. This difference in age is almost laughable in terms of the ethics/morality of the law itself. If states really found that 21 is the minimum age that someone should be allowed to play poker than they should not change it for the lottery, even though they benefit from the people playing the lottery.

                                    http://marylandlottery.files.wordpress.com/2009/
Wollstonecraft's a Vindication of the Rights of Men has to do with this issue. In her book she argues strongly against the abuse of government in making unfair and oppressive laws. She would definitely see the difference of the different gambling ages as a contradiction that exists only to benefit the government. 

Law Vs. Voting

In today's United States one of the most important freedoms we are allowed is the right to vote. By voting you are in affect controlling your future, through the medium of a political candidate. However, in order to vote you must be 18 years of age, as is set by the 26th amendment. Before the 26th amendment though the voting age was 21. This angered numerous people who were either in the armed forces or had loved ones in the armed forces though, because one could join the army at 18 and die in battle for a war they never got a say in. This prompted the adaptation of the 26th amendment in 1971, in large part due to protesting during the Vietnam war. (H.R. Rep. No. 37, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)) If the legal age for voting has been transferred from 21 to 18 without any problems, who’s to say it shouldn't be shifted lower?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/05/vote_or_die

This argument to shift the voting age lower becomes especially convincing when you consider the reason that it was lowered the last time. It was lowered because soldiers wanted a say in choosing the candidate that would ultimately affect their well being, but similarly shouldn't teens who are able to work or even old enough to be charged with a crime be able to vote on a candidate that would affect the taxing of their money or the creation of laws that might affect them. Our country was founded on the principles of no taxation without representation. Why should we choose to ignore this concept that was so essential to the creation of the U.S. because of a person's age? It seems only logical to have a voting age that allows all persons that are affected in some way by the choices of a president to be able to vote for or against said president. Lowering the voting age also makes sense because in recent years younger ages have become increasingly active in elections and had an increasing sway on the outcomes, as is seen in the following video:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glNZ_THfeow

 These teenagers are also going through government classes at this age of 16-17 and have a strong, working knowledge of the foundation and inner workings of our government.

http://www.twolevelsup.typepad.com/

 Decreasing the voting age relates to this class because it has to deal with both the Constitution and the Vindications of the Rights of Men, which are both texts we have looked at quite thoroughly. In the constitution, voting is found in several different amendments but it is the 26th that relates entirely to lowering the voting age, stating that it should be moved from 21 to 18. In a Vindication of the Rights of Men there are several parts in which Wollstonecraft talks about how people shouldn't be discriminated based on age. One of the main ideas of her book the extension of the rights to vote. Wollstonecraft was a strong advocate of suffrage for all minorities.

Law Vs. Alcohol

Nobody can debate how unhealthy alcohol is for babies and young children, but when do these babies and young children grow up enough that they should be legally allowed to drink alcohol? At what age should they be given the privilege to drink alcohol responsibly and also be held accountable for their actions under the influence?

These are questions that lawmakers have been asking themselves for centuries in the regard of the legality of alcohol. In the United States the current legal age to consume alcohol is 21. This is one of the highest drinking ages among countries around the world, with many European countries having drinking ages as low as 16.

Jay Brooks © 2009http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/world-drinking-age-maps/

These countries with lower drinking age also enjoy a surprisingly low DUI percentage as compared to the United States. In the United States there is an annual rate of about 37% of car fatalities that are caused by alcohol. However in a country like Sweden which has a lower drinking age, there is only a 16% rate of car accidents caused by alcohol, even though they use a .05 BAC instead of a .08 for the establishing whether or not the driver is over the legal limit to drive. (source: ©2010 AlcoholAlert.com) If the law is designed to keep people safe one of the only solution seems to be to lower the drinking age to a reasonable age such as 18 and put a bigger emphasis on road safety and cracking down on DUI's. Another factor that makes drinking safer when introduced at a younger age is the underground environment that it avoids. 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/location/UnderageAlcLocFig1.jpg

When drinking is made illegal to young adults 18-21 it drives a larger percentage of the drinking population to drink in a setting in which they normally wouldn't. ( Source: SAMHSA, 2006 NSDUH.) This change in settings can lead to these young adults to putting themselves at increased risk as is seen in the following segment done by 60 minutes: 

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA-91_LoKIw

Underage Drinking relates to our class because it has to do with the definition of the rights of different people. This directly relates to the Vindication of the Rights of Men, in which Wollstonecraft explicitly talks about age discrimination. This topic also directly relates to the constitution in which the legality of alcohol appears in the 18th and 21st amendments.