Rick, I would say that the "mellowing" you are talking about comes as a result of learned experiences. Eventually, one realizes you don't need to get trashed and act like an ass in order to have fun. You also get tired of the hangovers and the really really late nights. Again, it is experience. Initially, all these clubs and drinking seem like a cool thing to do and make people seem like they are mature or w/e, but eventually you realize its not necessary.

Remember Rick, it's not like you never went to clubs and now continue not to go to them, you intially did go to them and eventually grew to dislike them; learned behavior.

Unfortuately, as humans, we learn best from experience, so it really doesn't matter what age you set for anything, dumb/irresponsible people will still do that action. In most ways however, 18 is better than 21 or 25 or any other age for gambling b/c at least they will only be pissing away spending money. As you grow older, you have more $$$ and less years of work left in your life. If you have to lose it all at some point, its better to do so when you have less money and more time. Would you rather giveup the lead in a baseball game in the 2nd inning or the 9th inning?

As far as the personal responsibility thing, I agree 100% with you, that was the point I was trying to make.

As far as the government goes, if they really want to "protect" me and my fellow 18 year olds from our "immature" decision making, perhaps they should warn us about the bullcrap propaganda that is military TV commercials. Perhaps they should stop using slogans like "be all you can be" designed to make those who do not enlist in the military feel inferior. Perhaps they should stop waving promises of 20k enlist bonuses in the faces of us immature" 18 year olds.

But I'm only 18, so I guess according to my government, I'm too immature to get it (unless I committed a crime or enlisted in the military, and then I am 100% mature). I guess I'm too immature to figure out why I can't risk $1000 of my hard earned money to win $500,000 , while I can risk MY LIFE to win $20,000.

I have a general question to everyone opposed to this law: Do you yourselves gamble or not? I see all of these people blaming gambling for ruining peoples' lives, saying its not the individual person's fault, blah blah blah, raise the gambling age, do away with gambling, its evil, etc. So essentially, you are saying you blame the action rather than the doer of the action... ok I can understand that.

But then I'm sure you watch Jerry or Maurie or any of those shows and hear about some dirt poor couple who have cheated on each other 10 times and think to yourselves "Dumb Rednecks". Why don't you blame the action (sex) for the problem in that case? After all, sex feels good, way better than gambling for most, and it can cause people to do stupid things, but because you engage in that action (as does 99% of the world), you would find it absurd if I started saying "Sex is evil, let's ban sex or raise the age for sex to 25".

And you are right... it would be absurd because government has no right to say when/where I can exercise my rights unless I would be infringing upon the rights of others. Having consensual sex doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, and neither does gambling at age 18.

I never intended to say that casinos were lowering the gambling age b/c they believe 18 year olds can handle it now. I understand 100% that it is an economic thing to the casinos, but as an 18 year old, it is more than that to me. Do you know why the age of majority is 18 in America? Well actually we chose the age randomly back in the 1700s, so let me rephrase... Why has the age of majority REMAINED 18? The answer is that in over 95% of humans (might even be 98%...I forget the exact % that I learned in Psychology) the brain is fully developed by age 18, meaning that the brain chemistry is where it will be for the rest of your life (excepting of course new memories and thus expanded neural networks, etc.). Therefore, any immaturity that exists in most 18 year olds will either exist for their entire life, or may be changed by experience.

Therein lies the argument of most people on this board against lowering the gambling age... "Well, if someone has to be 21 when they gamble, they have been an adult for 3 years, so they will have more experience and will be more responsible when it comes to gambling!!" Ehh.... not so much. You see, psychology teaches us that in order to truely learn to avoid something, that specific thing has to affect us or someone close to us. If its illegal for you to gamble from age 18 to age 21, you won't have a personal negative experience with gambling, and your friends won't either, since they are the same age as you, and odds are that if your parents have a gambling problem, you would've already had a negative experience within the first 18 years of your life.

So essentially... nothing is gained from having the gambling age at 21 instead of 18. People aren't more mature, they don't have more personal negative experiences to dissuade them from gambling, and if anything, that extra 3 years of itching to gamble might hook them even worse.

The same argument pretty much applies to the drinking age too... except it is easier to violate the drinking law than it is the gambling law. Don't believe me? Look at Germany. You are allowed to drink at age 16, and w/ parental consent, you can drink even earlier. Kids regularly drink wine/beer w/ dinner. And to make matters even worse, some of their roads have no speed limits. Yet, Germany has less car crashes per 1000 citizens than we do, less fatal car crashes per 1000 citizens than we do, less alcohol related accidents per 1000 citizens than we do.

Our stupid restrictive laws actually increase usage of the substances/things we are trying to outlaw. Cigarettes are considered "cool" because you have to be 18 to buy them, thus kids/young adults associate them w/ maturity. I personally think you should let a kid get drunk at age 10... the hangover will dissuade him from alochol forever. And let an 8 year old go gamble if he wants... lose all his allowance at Craps. Then when he wants that video game, he'll remember what he spent his money on.

And no, no single "Guy" set the age at 21, but rather the government as a whole did, which is really quite retarded. I do not need the government protecting me from myself" if I am old enough to vote, old enough to go to war and decide whether or not to pull the trigger, and am old enough to be imprisoned/put to death for the crime of murder (meaning that I am old enough to fully understand the consequences of my action in killing someone and that I am mature enough to control my emotions and make a rational decision in an intense/ pressure filled situation), then I should be old enough to spend my money the way I want to, old enough to gamble, understand odds, the fact that I could lose money, etc.

To me it would seems that emotion and immaturity would play a much greater role in a murder than it would in gambling (think about it, if an 18 year old robs a liquor store for the $500 in the register and gets scared and gets the hormones raging and shoots the guy at the register, I think he is a lot more immature and emotion plays a bigger role than in the case of a 20 year old who loses $5k at the casino), but when is the last time you ever heard of an 18 year old murderer getting a prison sentence less than 10 years?

The bottom line to me is that we need some consistency in our laws. If you are going to tell me I'm not mature enough to gamble, then I'm not mature enough to go to prison for life or be put to death. To be able to suppress emotion in a highly volatile situation and act 100% rationally is a lot more difficult to do than to quit gambling when you are down $. Likewise, it is a lot more difficult to understand the consequences and possibilities of enlisting in the army, to know that you can emotionally deal with killing another man and not shut down, etc. than it is to gamble. Yet I can enlist in the military at 18, I can be executed at age 18 (and often younger these days), but I can't gamble or drink? Something is wrong with this country.

RICKHLV, your counter arguments to matt, and your overall arguments are simply retarded. The fact that matt said when I grow up has nothing to do with his mental capacity/responsibility, he merely used the phrase to refer to a period of time when he will no longer be attending college. Unless you belief all of the Freudian crap about the subconscious, your comment about "when I grow up" is just a mangling of his words to make a convoluted point.

But anyway I digress. Rick, your knowledge of the Constitution astounds me. Every person actually does have the right to gamble, much as they have a right to free speech and to bear arms. Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I will translate for narrow minded people such as you Rick: Any right not denied by the Constitution is retained or given to a person/the people. Since gambling is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, I should have the right to gamble. However, much as new laws have restricted gun buying policies and sales of assault weapons and freedom of speech (is it legal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater?), our government has restricted the rights of a person to gamble to age 21. However, it does not mean we still do not have the right to gamble. Your point about the black book has nothing to do with ones right to gamble, as casinos are private enterprises and can thus obviously throw anyone they want out, much as a gun store could throw people out (but it doesnt mean the 2nd amendment doesn't still apply).

How about a better argument boftx ... if you are old enough to be held legally responsible for your actions and are old enough to be put to death/jailed for life for committing a crime, and are old enough to earn money, support yourself, and pay taxes, shouldn't you be declared legally responsible enough to gamble?

The whole military argument is just plain stupid. In fact, some of the most irresponsible people I know are joining/have joined the military. Look at the average IQ of a military member vs. the rest of society... or any other measure of intelligence and you will find that our most responsible and intelligent citizens are NOT members of the military (for the most part). Many members of the military have no mind of their own when it comes to important issues... look at election results, in most elections over 80% of the members of the military vote for the candidate who supports a war/ allocates more $ to defense/ advocates more military action, even if that military action would be unjustified and downright wrong. Now you are telling me that you want those people gambling/voting while the 19 year old intellectual who abides by a strict system of moral values and votes based on those principles to be stripped of his voting rights and denied the right to gamble?

Your argument is downright stupid and represents the views of any aging person... you want rights for young people when you are young, but once you get passed the age of 21... Let's raise the age necessary to do everything in this country.

Newsflash... people have fewer accidents as they get older b/c they become more experienced drivers... NOT b/c they are reckless/irresponsible at age 18. And another thing... I don't care if you raise the age to 30, people will still drive fast at first and be somewhat irresponsible b/c when you get something new at any age, it is COOL and you want to test the limits. Eventually however, it becomes a normal part of life to you, and you get used to it, and slow down a bit and become safer. Also, you hear peer stories about accidents, have some friends/classmates die in a car crash, and it affects you b/c it personifies what can happen, shows you that you aren't invincible. If we raise the driving age to 30, you will still feel invincible in that car when you first climb in.

And you know what boftx, maybe 18 isn't the perfect age, but then what is? 21? 25? 35? Where does it end? An 18 year old may be slightly less mature than a 21 year old, but not enough that it really makes a difference. The bottom line is that experience is what matters, no matter what age you set something at. And remember, the purpose of these laws is to protect a person/society from harm, and lowering the age from 21-18 really doesn't have any effect on that.