Las Vegas Weekly

Alright, let's talk some sense here. First of all, I thought that this was a very well-written article. I'm a writer myself and have done several pieces regarding the 18-21 paradox that we have in this country. It's a mystery; and to me, it seems that 18 is the age of adulthood when it's convenient for Uncle Sam; 21 when it's convenient for private citizens.

To Charles in Richmond, VA (and to Steve Friess himself):

Are we honestly pretending that the fact that Americans can join the military and die in wartime at 18 is reason enough to lower any legal age?

Certainly not. I'd like to remind both of you that 18 is not solely reserved as the threshold for joining the military; it's also the age of majority. That means that a person that is 18 is a legal adult. He or she is now responsible for themselves, can enter a binding document, can attain a credit card and bank account, can purchase a car or house, can get married, must pay taxes, can gamble on the state lottery, can purchase tobacco and other restricted products, and yes, can die in Iraq.

The three years between the ages of 18 and 21 in this country represent a huge hypocrisy that seems to be rationalized by those who claim to be "protecting" our children. Like Friess says, people who are 18-20 are not children, and Charles in Richmond, it'd be nice for you not to reduce an entire group of people to a cultural stereotype, let alone use a cliche such as "50 is the new 40" in your argument.

It's as impossible and as absurd to say that 20 year olds are as goofy as 10 year olds as it is to make a judgment about any other group of people. Why don't we try some consistency in this country for once and treat 18-20 year olds like the adults the law says that they are?