May I interject a possibility, that if the "powers that be" admit that the tiger attacked Roy, then they would also have to admit that the tiger or any other animal in a stage show, could just have easily attacked the people in the audience?

Let's go back to what created all this 18 or 21 year old argument. At one time we were drafting 18 year olds to go to war. It wasn't a choice. It was an obligation for them to go out and risk their lives in whatever military folly came along after WW II. One of the main reasons that we drafted 18 year olds instead of 30 year olds is that the 18 year old was still of an impressionable age (immature) and could be influenced (commanded) to take risks that an older person of maturity (wisdom) would not do.

While this is a good reason to use 18 year olds in combat, it is not a good reason to allow them to consume alcohol or gamble. You make the very argument about your 18-year-old Little Brother when you say, "and I assure you he's far more capable of deciding he can't afford to play blackjack than he is of facing the horrors of combat." The reality is that at 18, he not only doesn't know what he's getting himself into by joining the military, he also may not be capable of not playing blackjack if there are influences around him at the time telling him to keep playing.

You raise the question, "Children!?!?! A 20-year-old is a child? ". Well, as they say 50 is the new 40, as an employer I can tell you that 20 is the new 10 year old. Yes, 20 year olds are just about as goofy as a 10 year old. I realize there is about a 20 year age difference between us, and I hate to sound like an old foggy, but it's the truth.

All the best,

Charles in Richmond, VA