[Texaggie79]

No one's rights depend on whether the government thinks he can "handle" it.

No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people to have access to such dangerous things.

[NittanyLion]

No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people to have access to such dangerous things.

One could make the same claim about firearms and people of all ages. Are you making that claim?

[southern rock]

No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people to have access to such dangerous things.

No. The individual has inalienable rights. Communities/cities/states only have rights in their relationship with the Fed. Gov. The Communities/cities/states do not have that kind of power over a sovreign individual. This is not a democracy. Rights are not open to discussion at any level.

[LibertyGirl77]

No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people adults between the ages of 18-20 to have access to such dangerous things legal (and I daresay enjoyable) substances.

I would hardly call a glass of wine with dinner 'dangerous.' Yet it is illegal for a 19-year-old wife and mom to comsume. It's illegal for an 18-year-old serviceman to relax with a beer. I realize some younger adults will abuse this right. But a lot of 35-, 45-, and even 65-year-olds abuse this right as well. It doesn't make it any better or worse when it's a young person doing it.