As a society, we depend on laws to preserve order, safety, and a standard of ethical behavior. Now more than ever--in the wake of the Columbine High School tragedy and other horrific incidents of teenage violence--people are anxious to establish legal regulations that will keep kids out of trouble. Many "age laws", however, as they currently stand, are so arbitrary and inconsistent that they provide little useful guidance.

We cannot keep sending kids mixed messages with age laws. For example, consider New York's drinking laws. In New York State, a person under the age of 21 is not legally permitted to consume alcoholic beverages, yet a youth may work as a bartender at age 18. How much sense does that make? Also, in New York State a 16-year-old kid may drive a car during the day but, not at night. Other states have different--but no less arbitrary--laws and age requirements. So, theoretically, your level of "maturity" varies depending on which state you happen to be driving through. Here's another example: We do not want drivers to exceed posted speed limits, the highest of which is around 80 or 85mph. Yet, we sell cars that can reach speeds of 140 mph or more. Is this an effective way to discourage reckless driving? The list goes on. Now the President wishes to to make it illegal for people under age 21 to purchase a gun. However, at age 18 you can be drafted or join the military and learn to operate these and other killing machines with the government's blessing. Furthermore, some schools teach riflery and have done so for years. Are there any statistics that reveal students from these classes to be more prone towards gun violence later in life than the general public? We must start asking ourselves what is the purpose of these age requirements. Will they really make things better or are they simply politically beneficial?

We must also examine the efficacy of law enforcement in these types of cases. Enforcement efforts against the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors is far from perfect. The control over underage drinking, though, is far better than the control over underage tobacco use. The law prohibiting tobacco sales to and use by persons under 18 has been on the books since the turn of the last century, but it is only in the last 5years or so that any serious efforts have been made to uphold it. Can we just pronounce people mature and responsible simply because they have reached a certain arbitrarily designated age? Aren't we just kidding ourselves?

Passing laws that don't get enforced or cannot be enforced won't solve our problems. A recent conversation I had with a police officer illuminated the inadequacy of age laws to control behavior. When I asked the officer what he thought about the gun purchase age requirement, he shrugged and replied, "If I go hunting with my son, I'll just let him use my gun." We can't just throw legislation at problems to make them go away; it won't work. I'm not passing judgment on the rightness or wrongness of age laws, but when so many of them are inconsistent, ill-conceived, and under-enforced, it's time to reevaluate their usage.

James C. Benerofe

Editorial #18

Sept. 1, 1999