Why would anyone think 16 year-olds should be allowed to vote?

[MsAmerica]

Be honest - think back to when you were 16. Did you have an understanding of a broad range of issues? Did you pay serious attention to national news? Okay, even many adults may lapse on the score, but still, it seems crazy to me.

In the U.S., voting age had been 21 and the only reason it was lowered to 18 was that teens were being drafted to fight in Vietnam, and it was felt as unfair for them to have no say.

It's perfectly possible to cultivate old school cannabis. I'm from the Netherlands. If you don't want skunk, you don't have to buy it.

That's not paranoid at all, is it?

I guess it depends who you vote for ?

I mean, "Vote Bruv" ?

The war on drugs has been a total failure on every possible level, except to make dealers very very rich. (And society very very much poorer).

Rich enough to be able to ensure the media keeps their cash cow well sacred.

(See also: "small boats" or "people smugglers" who are now rich enough to do the same).

I guess we’ll see but whatever Labour do is also available to the next gov if they get voted out. Perhaps it’s little influence on 16 / 17 year olds, but it might not always be Labour in power.

@EasternStandard that is true, but a party putting 'We will take the vote away from x group of people' is going to be a political hot potato - because if they do it to one group, what's to stop them doing it to another? I don't see how it's going to fly.

I'd prefer it not to be legalised so my kids buy it. Although I'm not an expert on the manufacturer of Class B drugs like you, I have direct family experience of the disaster that cannabis can lead to.

Luckily all the dealers agree with you.

It should be illegal. And dealers prosecuted. What are you suggesting...legalising it so that the dealers are put out of a job?

It's a pernicious drug, a lot stronger these days and can wreck lives. Sorry.

Dealers want it illegal - you're their poster child. They detest all these liberal types who want to legalise it and remove the profits. Luckily for them they've invested enough in the media and politics they will stay rich and getting richer for a long time to come.

Personally I'm not sure I'm a fan of supporting the business development model of drug dealers. Still, who am I to counter the will of the people ? Especially when they are so committed to it.

E2A: Anyway, enough from todays sponsors, on with the thread ! 😀

I run a support group for families of people with drug and alcohol dependence - therefore, so do I. People in my group have had to deal with their kids' serious illness due to the cannabis they used being contaminated with spice - because no quality control.

And while legalisation isn't perfect (because perfect would be nobody needing to use cannabis), it's better than what we have now. The Netherlands have had to tweak their system because foreign nationals were taking advantage of it, but there are states in the US where cannabis is legal and the people I know who live there report no huge spike in use and associated problems. The reverse is the case. Prohibition doesn't work.

Emotionally I was a mess as a 16 year old but I was very switched on with current affairs, politics, news, etc. My kids are pretty switched on too as we talk about these things at home and they have been involved with local youth councils, model UN, volunteering... Some kids are arseholes but so are some adults. I know loads of adults who don't have a clue and are no longer capable of learning critical thinking skills but an average 16 year old is if we give them the chance.

Which drugs would you like to see legalised?

Rather binary thinking there ? If not this, then that ?

Noting the complete and utter failure of the current system (there isn't a single person in the UK it prevents from getting drugs if they want to) doesn't automatically lead into a "Buy one get one free spifftastic offer at Tescos".

Ironically, as with addiction, the first stage is admitting there is a problem. And that is never going to happen because - spoiler alert - too many people have a livelihood that depends on the status quo. You'd need to remove that first.

Ok but I am interested, did you just mean cannabis or other drugs / all of them?

Realistically - all of them. Or at least we should move away from prohibition and towards harm reduction. The Portugal model would be worth a shot: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250131-portugal-s-radical-approach-to-drug-decriminalisation-a-model-for-the-rest-of-the-world

I'm just pointing out that if you have even a scintilla of belief that the current situation is "working" then I have a yard full of bridges for your perusal.

And I say "working" because it clearly is working. Working perfectly if you have chosen to make a quick buck from people who aren't interested in whether drugs are legal or not.

Obviously it's not "working" if you think it was meant to reduce the use of drugs or the harm they do. But then (spoiler alert) it was never meant to.

Quite happy to discuss hypotheticals, but it would be a shame to derail an otherwise thoughtful measured and educational thread.

Education isn’t a luxury, you are not going to understand. Let’s just leave it.

One thing is for certain, Labour have reduced education options for children and given children the vote. If they announce some mandatory ‘politics’ or ‘equality’ courses for state school kids in the next few months, then think of me.

Education isn’t a luxury

Nice snipping !

Education isn’t a luxury, you are not going to understand. Let’s just leave it.

No, let's not.

We have state education, which is free for everyone. Private education is there for people who want smaller classes, better facilities, more extracurriculars. That is a luxury and a choice. Why do you find this difficult to understand?

We all need food. We do not need cake, which is why it is more highly taxed. Private education is cake.

It would be good if there could be exemptions for parents of children with SEN, but that is not the majority of children accessing private education.

Private education is there for people who

can afford it.

And that is that. (Rule 1 of efficient debate is to reduce the froth 😀)

Don't private schools do 'politics' or 'equality'?

Ok the latter might be a bit harder to teach.

I believe Eton has a class on what shoes to wear for PMQs.

I’m not going to engage further with someone who thinks education is a luxury, that view alone tells me everything I need to know about a person and that any further discussion is a waste of time.

Keep an eye out for Labour finishing off the job on grammar schools, closing academies and ‘politics’ classes though. You’ll know I was right.

Snipping noted.

Again.