[Dead Corpse]

Your position is that it is ok for the goverment, just not the Feds, to deny certain activities, which cause no harm to others, to its citizens soley based on an arbitrary age limit.

No. That is not what I said. I quite clearly stated that the Age of Majority, where you could make those decisions for yourself, can be set at the State level. It is still up to the parents/legal guardian to ascertain which behaviors to allow/disallow. Any actual crimes committed by said children are also the responsibility of said parent/guardian.

[WildTurkey]

No. That is not what I said. I quite clearly stated that the Age of Majority, where you could make those decisions for yourself, can be set at the State level. It is still up to the parents/legal guardian to ascertain which behaviors to allow/disallow. Any actual crimes committed by said children are also the responsibility of said parent/guardian.

I think I now understand you. The state may set the Age of Majority, but it would only be a symbolic gesture to be used by private citizens as they may see fit.

For example, the state may set the age of majority for buying drugs at 21 but it would be legal to sell to those under 21?

Or would those parents who felt that was wrong be able to sue if the vendors sold to their minors based on the state sponsored age of majority determination?

[WildTurkey]

No. That is not what I said. I quite clearly stated that the Age of Majority, where you could make those decisions for yourself, can be set at the State level. It is still up to the parents/legal guardian to ascertain which behaviors to allow/disallow.

This is still confusing. The state says you reach adulthood, say at 21. Does this mean that a parent can still deny the child certain behaviors even when he is older than 21?