MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Adult Women Can't Consent to Sex in Louisiana

Soliciting anyone under age 21 for sex will now get you 15 to 50 years in prison, as the state has ruled that 18-to-20-year-olds' consent doesn't count.

wiesiek_kr/Flickrwiesiek_kr/FlickrWelcome to Louisiana, where women who are old enough to vote and join the military have just been declared children under the state law, at least when it comes to sex and certain forms of employment. 

Why? Ostensibly, it has to do with sex trafficking. Under the new law, "sex trafficking victims" ages 18-20 cannot be convicted of prostitution. Sounds reasonable, right? But Louisiana law already declares that sex-trafficking victims—of any age—are to be excluded from prostitution charges ("No victim of trafficking ... shall be prosecuted for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked"). What the new law actually does is declare all 18- to 20-year-old sex workers as de facto trafficking victims, even if they're workin 100 percent willingly and independenty. No matter if there's no "trafficker" exerting force or coercion, Louisiana law considers them victims, rather than perpetrators, of a crime. 

So Louisiana just effectively decriminalized prostitution for 18-to-20 year olds? That's the positive spin we can put on it.

Conversely, however, the state has made anyone who works with or helps young-adult sex workers—a friend who gives them a ride, escort agency owners, other sex workers, and their clients—into folks guilty of the crime of human trafficking. And not knowing the age of the "victim" is no defense. 

Those convicted must register as sex offenders and spend a minimum of 15 years in prison. The law, which takes effect August 1, allows for a maximum sentence of up to 50 years. So a 20-year-old woman working in the sex trade independently—posting her own ads online, running her own website, arranging appointments with clients, keeping any money she makes—cannot be charged with prostitution, but anyone who books an appointment with her could face a lifetime on the sex-offender registery and a mandatory minimum prison sentence of over a decade. 

The age of consent in Louisiana, by the way, is 17-years-old. Fourteen, 15, and 16-year-olds can legally consent to sex with someone up to age 17. But if a 17-year-old attempts to pay an 19-year-old for sex, they could spend 50 years behind bars. 

The whole thing is obviously a disaster from a practical, criminal justice perspective. It's philisophical roots are also troubling. Here's how Louisiana's human trafficking law now reads (emphasis mine): 

A. It shall be unlawful:

(1)(a) For anyperson to knowingly recruit, harbor, transport, provide, solicit, receive, isolate, entice, obtain, or maintain the use of another person through fraud, force, or coercion to provide services or labor

(b) For any person to knowingly recruit, harbor, transport, provide, solicit, sell, purchase, receive, isolate, entice, obtain, or maintain the use of a person under the age of twenty-one years for the purpose of engaging in commercial sexual activity regardless of whether the person was recruited, harbored, transported, provided, solicited, sold, purchased, received, isolated, enticed, obtained, or maintained through fraud, force, or coercion. It shall not be a defense to prosecution for a violation of the provisions of this Subparagraph that the person did not know the age of the victim or that the victim consented to the prohibited activity.

The state has rendered consent—the thing on which all modern rape and sexual-violence policies are supposed to turn—into an utterly meaningless concept. Consent is supposedly so crucial that we're supposed to obtain enthusiastic, ongoing, affirmative consent throughout any sexual encounter if we don't want to be rapists. But also, according to Louisiana legislators, consent is irrelevent. You could obtain someone's sexual consent and give them hundreds of dollars, or you could knock them unconscious, chain them to a bed, and make money charging people to rape them, and the state of Louisiana says you are guilty of the same crime. 

The law not only declares young people's agency inauthentic and their consent null, it takes mens rea—the idea that a guilty mind must accompany a guilty act, and one of the foundational concepts in our legal system—and also declares it utterly meaningless. It doesn't matter if you have gotten explicit consent. It doesn't matter if the person you're paying is an adult woman. The state has decided that you are a human trafficker, and that's that. 

In addition, a related new law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from working at a strip club. Again, the excuse lawmakers have provided has to do with sex trafficking. To make sure that no one under 18 is working at a strip club and then gets sex trafficked, officials reasoned that we must also prevent anyone who looks like they could be under 18, and the best way to do that is to raise the minimum age for strippers to 21 years old. Supporters also added that 18-year-old women are not mature enough to make their own employment decisions.

Photo Credit: wiesiek_kr/Flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Wood.

  • Agammamon||

    The state has rendered consent—the thing on which all modern rape and sexual-violence policies are supposed to turn—into an utterly meaningless concept.

    They've also rendered *mens rea* - the thing on which all criminal policies *used* to turn - into an utterly meaningless concept.

    It shall not be a defense to prosecution for a violation of the provisions of this Subparagraph that the person did not know the age of the victim or that the victim consented to the prohibited activity.

    And that is, IMO, a worse and further reaching problem than the far more limited 'some people can't consent to sex for pay in a limited set of circumstances'. Not that the latter should be ignored (and you've got you're own particular focus for articles here), but this law is bad on sooooo many grounds.

  • sarcasmic||

    They've also rendered *mens rea* - the thing on which all criminal policies *used* to turn - into an utterly meaningless concept.

    That's not totally true. Police officers are considered innocent until proven innocent, and criminal intent is required to convict a cop. Of course criminal intent is impossible to prove because, as police officers, they are incapable of doing anything criminal.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    but this law is bad on sooooo many grounds.

    I think Louisiana should send more young people to prison for victimless crime, so I am behind this law.

  • Idle Hands||

    so I am behind this law.

    I'm pretty sure that was illegal even before this law was past since the subject in question is less than a year old.

  • frankania||

    Oh it is simple, whoever is arrested male or female, just declare "I am transgender!" and they will release you!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    They've also rendered *mens rea* - the thing on which all criminal policies *used* to turn - into an utterly meaningless concept.
    ...
    Not that the latter should be ignored (and you've got you're own particular focus for articles here),

    FTA:

    The law not only declares young people's agency inauthentic and their consent null, it takes mens rea—the idea that a guilty mind must accompany a guilty act, and one of the foundational concepts in our legal system—and also declares it utterly meaningless.

    It wasn't ignored. I know, I know: only fagz read the whole article.

  • Agammamon||

    Hey, I got all the way down to then end of the paragraph above that one.

    I'll cop to missing it - but will always have a lingering suspicion that there was a stealth edit (because my ego can't take it).

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep the madness at bay a little longer...

  • Agammamon||

    She's gaslighting me!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    My take: Louisiana is full of young dumb hoes who are too stupid to think for themselves.

    *books trip there*

  • Atanarjuat||

    My research has come up with the same finding, although I'm only familiar with New Orleans, which seems to be the country's epicenter of easy women.

  • Clint Eastwoodchipper||

    +1 The Big Easy

  • ||

    "New Orleans"

    I hope you were double bagging and afterwards rinsed with bleach.

  • commodious||

    *books trip there*

    Odds that johns who travel across the country and procure a prostitute there will be found guilty of sex trafficking?

  • Brian||

    Let's just go full retard and declare anyone who has sex with someone who's under 21 to be a human slaver sex trafficker, and execute them. Period.

    Two 18 year olds going at it? Sex slavers. 21 year old boning a 20 year old? Put him to death.

    That's the way you say you take care of the ladies: full retard.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Of course by "anyone", you mean straight males. The others are part of protected classes that are exploring their true identities.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    + not Muslims because any/all improper conduct results from white racism + Herr Trump

  • Agammamon||

    Look, if they're too dangerous to drink, they're too dangerous to have sex.

  • ||

    That's the way you say you take care of the ladies: full retard.

    Once you go full retard you never go back.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    *Archer voice*

    Wait, I had something for this... Something about "sex nuts and retard strong."

  • BambiB||

    Why stop at 21? Why not invoke the obvious truth that women are not responsible for their actions at any age, and eliminate the concept of "consent".

    Wasn't it the feminist Dworkin who said all sex is rape?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Laugh. Prostitution is legal in Brazil but abortion is banned. The current female president was relieved of duties and is being impeached for signing a law that provides medical assistance--including DNA tests and pregnancy termination--to ruined girls. The abortion ban will, I'll wager, be repealed once a couple of girls survive long enough to testify with DNA evidence against johns on the bench and sitting in the house and senate.

  • The Fusionist||

    "Your honor, she said she was 25, I had no idea she was only 19."

  • ||

    But, doc...she was 15 years old going on 35, doc...and, uh, she told me she was 18, and she was...uh, very willing. You know what I mean?

  • Peace Be Upon [REDACTED], Jr.||

    "Your honor, she said she was 25, I had no idea she was only 19."

    "What was I supposed to do - ask for her wallet, get it, cut it in half, count all the layers in the cross section, then find the layer with the state-issued ID in it, and count the years?"

  • ||

    Looking at these number, it looks like your growth has been significantly enhanced by AGW.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    How much different does a young woman look, from age 19 to 25?

    So stay away from anyone who doesn't have wrinkles on their face?

  • Rasilio||

    Raising the age to 21 will not do a damn thing to prevent people who look 18 (and even under 18) from being sex workers.

    When my wife and I were first together and she was pregnant on more than one occasion she was asked if she was able to finish high school, she was 25.

    There were also several instances where people whispered that I was old enough to be her father behind our backs, I was 32 and looked closer to 28.

    At 25 she could have walked into any high school in the country and passed herself off as a Junior and no one would have questioned it for a second

  • Idle Hands||

    So in the short of it you are a sex trafficking pedophile? Which parking lots/playgrounds do you traffic?

  • Rasilio||

    Well I am a straight white male so I thought that was just assumed

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Yeah, but, 7 years difference? C'mon man, think of the children! (not yours)

  • ||

    I was dating a 20 year old before I met Banjos. She told me she was 21 and I thought she was until she got carded at a bar and started in with a bunch of excuses. It didn't make me feel like a Pedo.

  • Rasilio||

    In otherwords I looked more like someone a couple years out of college than a guy who was rapidly approaching his mid 30's as opposed to being 32 and looking closer to 40 than 25

  • lap83||

    I'm early 30s and people also think I'm in my 20s. I think it's a combination of not smoking and older people thinking all young people look alike.

  • Robert||

    Not only that, but doesn't it work recursively? You ban working under 21 so as to exclude anyone who looks like they may be under 18. But then what about those who look like they're under 21? Since the law excludes those under 21 from working, and the law is written to exclude those who look like they're under a certain age, isn't that justif'n for banning work by those under 24? And so on until nobody can work?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Adult Women Can't Consent to Sex in Louisiana"

    That's inaccurate.

    I'm glad Gary Johnson didn't say anything like that in his town hall. That would have been really awkward! Can you imagine that headiness about Johnson the next day?

    "Gay Johnson Thinks Women in Louisiana Can't Consent to Sex"

    And it would have been an accurate headline . . . if he'd said something silly like that.

  • ||

    "mens rea—the idea that a guilty mind must accompany a guilty act, and one of the foundational concepts in our legal system—and also declares it utterly meaningless. "

    We will have to see how that plays out. Our constitution, last I looked, has a section covering criminal trials and mens rea is a blanket requirement. If they try to get their teeth into the wrong one, someone who can hire top shelf defense, this may get crushed. If it goes to state supreme court it will certainly be struck down.

  • Rasilio||

    ROTFLMAO

    You seriously think the Supreme Court as currently constructed would EVER overturn a law simply because it lacked a mens rea requirement?

    The state won't even have to show up to the hearing, the justices themselves will make the "compelling state interest" argument for them and throw the entire thing out with prejudice.

  • ||

    State Supreme Court.

    We actually do have some first rate, but very expensive, defense lawyers.

  • ||

    Our constitution, last I looked, has a section covering criminal trials and mens rea is a blanket requirement.

    But it was written like over 100 years ago and stuff. By white slaveholders, mind you.

  • ||

    Well...it is true, we have some of the most craven, drooling idiots on the planet here as state legislators. Honestly, that gaggle of fuckwits can take your breath away.

  • ||

    If they try to get their teeth into the wrong one, someone who can hire top shelf defense, this may get crushed.

    Oh, you mean if they try to charge Hillary under the espionage act under grounds of gross negligence?

  • BYODB||

    Hey now, we both know that kind of legislation if for people like Snowden, not Hillary! If you're Elected you can sell state secrets to China and not be prosecuted, but boy howdy if you mishandle a document as a flunky you better put that lotion on your skin, or you will get the hose again!

  • Agammamon||

    The SC has already made it clear that absent clear legislative intent, mens rea is to be an assumed requirement - at least at the federal level.

    But they're totes cool with legislatures *explicitly* removing the mens rea requirement.

  • ||

    Well, I was talking about the Louisiana state constitution and state supreme court. I don't know if they have dealt with this issue before.

    I was unaware of the situation on the federal level.

  • BambiB||

    Mens rea isn't necessary for a criminal conviction.

    Take kiddie porn. If you have any porn video of Traci Lords other than her last video, you're guilty of possession of child pornography. It doesn't matter that both videos were on the same shelf next to each other when you bought them in Holland, it doesn't matter that the videos were made mere months apart. It doesn't matter that no one knew Lords true age until after the videos were in distribution. You're guilty. You're looking at a decade in prison and a quart million dollars in fines.

    But wait, it gets better. If someone were to send you an encrypted file with a dozen nude photos of a female who was 1 day under the age of 18 at the time the pictures were taken, and you were unable to decrypt the file, had no idea what the content was, and deleted the file unopened - you're guilty. If a forensic recovery of the file was able to retrieve the photos - that's all the proof of guilt that's needed.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Oh shit.

    And I found some soft porn of a 15 year old Swedish chick from the 70's on YouTube.

  • BambiB||

    But wait - it gets better still! New York has a kiddie porn law that was applied to prosecute pornographer PARENTS. Yep, the parents shot photos of their naked daughter and dropped them off at the drug store for processing. A nosy processor called the cops and - viola! Instant criminal prosecution for taking baby bubble-bath photos! And no, I am not kidding.

    There is no "mens rea" element. In fact, technically, if you sent a half-dozen "kiddie porn" photos to every member of congress, and were able to have their computers seized with the photos still on them (even if the files had been deleted, but not wiped), they would be guilty and have no legal defense. And the penalties are PER PHOTO. Send them a dozen and they're looking at life in prison.

  • kevrob||

    Back when the age for drinking alcohol was raised (by federal financial blackmail) from 18 to 21, in the states where it wasn't already 21, we libertarians warned this violation of the idea of equal protection of the laws would be a "slippery slope." As the years have advanced, we have been proven right. Under 21 but over 18 and want to smoke cigarettes? Sorry, you aren't that much of an adult. This is more of the same. Meanwhile, proggy pols have arranged for 17-year-olds who will be 18 by election day this November to be able tob vote in party primaries and caucuses in some states, before the magic birthday. Then there are the anti-crime conservatives who keep lowering the age you can be tried as an adult for serious crimes. Of course, just-turned-adults can volunteer to get themselves shot at in the military.

    If we can't trust these "kids" to strip, smoke or drink, how the hell can we trust them to vote or fight for us?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    18-year-olds can't smoke, drink, or fuck, but they can go to war, dammit.

    "And I'm proud to be an American
    Where at least I know I'm free"

  • colorblindkid||

    It's amazing how feminists, Muslims, and conservative Christians have somehow all teamed up on so many issues involving women and sex.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Progressive feminists should be all out in favor of girls wearing burkas and being separated from boys for their safety. You know, because men can't control themselves.

  • BYODB||

    Ken, I'm not joking at all when I say have heard it from the mouths of these 3rd Wavers that the Burka is actually liberating to women because it removes their status as an object. Not. Even. Kidding. I've heard the same women talk about sex segregation as a good thing, mainly in the realm of college dorm separations, for the very reasons you've put forward.

    Your modern Progressive has not fallen far from their Protestant roots of social conservatism. They just don't like the Christian/Religious part, the rest of it they love though. They would have joined hands with the SoCon's a long time ago if not for pet issues like Abortion.

  • Ron||

    I guess its not their bodies after all. Right in line with you are no longer a citizen with self rights but a subject to be controlled by the government.

    If Gary Johnson wants to win he has to take the self right idea to the people and wake them up. because soon there will be no self rights as shown by this law and the no fly no buy laws.

  • Billy Bones||

    I have not read the bill, but I have to assume that a "gift" in lieu of "currency" for sex would still get me 15-50 years plus lifetime on pervert list. Therefore, by all accounts, if I take my 20 y.o. "girlfriend" to dinner and a movie, and I pay all expenses, and then she sleeps with me that night, I should still get 15-50?

  • Rich||

    "Now we're merely haggling over the price."

  • Rasilio||

    Depends on who you ask...

    If you ask the fundies the answer is yes, unless the gift was a wedding ring

    If you ask the SJW's the answer is yes, the gift isn't even a requirement, you are a male in possession of an assault penis, any use of that weapon of mass destruction on a female is rape so you go to jail anyway.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    you are a male in possession of an assault penis

    No one needs more than 7 inches...

  • Rasilio||

    The black ones are especially scary

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Therefore, by all accounts, if I take my 20 y.o. "girlfriend" to dinner and a movie, and I pay all expenses, and then she sleeps with me that night, I should still get 15-50?

    You should get 15-50 just for being a cis-gendered heterosexual male shitlord. /prog-derp

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Do NOT by her a $50 bottle of perfume as a gift for the date.

  • Rich||

    OT: Just heard from US Senator Ben Cardin that if you're stopped from boarding a plane because you're on the "no-fly" list, you can fly after being secondarily screened.

    W.T.F? If you're too dangerous to fly, you're *not* too dangerous to fly?

  • commodious||

    Isn't that just the "selectee" list?

  • Rich||

    Pretty sure that's not the way he couched it. I'll try to find the interview.

  • commodious||

    If he's conflating the two for the purpose of making hinging gun control on it, that's pretty rank.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    You must be new here...

  • commodious||

    Speaking of sex acts...

    The story's pretty nothingburger, but worth a click for the perfect stock photo.

  • The Fusionist||

    "The school in Haifa sent a text message to parents warning them not to allow their children to watch the discs, which were supposed to depict scenes from a recent graduation party."

    So they never said it wouldn't be pornographic...on the contrary, they hinted it would be.

    "About 90 students received the DVDs, which were prepared by a contractor, as part of the school's celebration of national "Hug Day" in Israel."

    I'll remember that...hey, baby, do you want a hug?

  • commodious||

    HUGS, NOT DRUGS PORN

  • commodious||

    Damnit

  • Peace Be Upon [REDACTED], Jr.||

    The thought of seeing your version on a bumper sticker is pretty goddamn funny, though.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    ...graduation party..."Hug Day"...

    Sounds like an honest mistake. A lot of pron involves both of those things.

  • The Fusionist||

    "The Ministry of Education has now replaced Hug Day with '10 Commandments day...'"

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    click for the perfect stock photo

    Are there really sixth graders who haven't seen porn?

  • Peace Be Upon [REDACTED], Jr.||

    Yes. Now quick, make fun of them!

  • ||

    So let me see if I have my math right here:

    15 will get you 20. But 20 will now get you 15?

  • Caput Lupinum||

    It is the commutative property of commutations.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Would...

    I bet ENB's search history for the stock photos she uses for the articles is interesting.

    E.g.: "slutty looking chick in short skirt"

  • Dallas H.||

    Same as mine. Maybe throw in "commando" if feeling saucy.

  • commodious||

    I must, once again, ask the question: if prostitution is now the crime of human trafficking, what prevents a woman busted for prostitution from claiming to be a victim of human trafficking? The concept seems pretty nebulous to me, so can a woman, for example, blame her john for trafficking her to the motel? Blame a friend, perhaps another prostitute, or her pimp or madame, and claim credit as a victim? Blame someone she knows who doesn't know her habits and rope him into defending himself against a trafficking charge? What possible reason does a hooker now have not to lie about being trafficked?

  • commodious||

    For that matter, women who deliberately and willingly agree to travel to the United States to engage in sex trade as a means of escaping their shitty home countries, then turn on their purveyors (heh). They're indistinguishable from trafficking victims.

  • commodious||

    And in each of these scenarios, cops and prosecutors are going to encourage and coach the girls to claim victimhood. It's great PR.

  • ||

    You are forgetting one element. Money.

    The courts make huge amounts of money grinding up those convicted of prostitution, more so than from busting pimps. Fines, lawyer fees, mandated counseling sessions, probation fees....I am not sure how that will play into this.

  • commodious||

    Of course. It's a huge racket. But even that aside, what specifically do human trafficking laws add to the mix? Abduction is already illegal, as is false imprisonment and rape. Presumably so is profiting from the commission of any of these things. Federal laws cover interstate and transnational instances of these crimes. And they require proving particular and defensible acts. Human trafficking, as far as I can tell, does not particularize any crime other than the non-crime of traveling with a companion. And it introduces the huge moral hazard I outlined above. So what, other than giving legal cover to the bizarre neopuritanical crusade against prostitution and giving cops and prosecutors even greater power, are human trafficking laws meant to do?

  • honeygirl||

    Oh and yes, sometimes this does happen. Sex workers turn on their friends and boyfriends, claim they were trafficked. They get off free, traveling conpanion get slapped with felony.

    $$$$But hey, la needs $$$$ from federal antitrafficking grants!!! $$$$$

  • honeygirl||

    Sometimes i wonder what stops women from charging cops with sex trafficking...? If a regular man held a hooker against her will, he goes to prison. Some cops will make you have sex with them, too. The state can hold a hooker in jail or prison (yes, prostitution can be a felony in LA) for years, but thats fine and in her best interest. These people dont follow their own laws!!!

    Then again, hookers dont have the best legal resources. Easy pickings for cops!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Texas courts won't let you on a jury unless you first swear to believe every word uttered by a cop or former cop in court. I have witnessed this on several occasions.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    ENB, can we get some definitions please? These terms have become nebulous, at best.

    Trafficking
    Sex Trafficking
    Human Trafficking
    Prostitution
    Sex Trade
    Whore

    It seems all of these things mean something different in each discussion and wrt federal and state law. It's getting so a guy is afraid to buy some nooky.

  • ||

    Ok, I finally figured it out. The chick in the picture looks like a cross between Cameon Diaz and the Goons from the old Popeye cartoons.

    Would NOT.

  • ||

    I couldn't remember who the goons were until I scrolled back up and looked at her face again. Then it came to me instantly.

    "Oooooh yeah, those guys. Goddamn, he's right."

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I had to google image search it. Her isn't that big, and I've seen more horsefaced chicks before. It's not like she's Sarah Jessica Parker.

    Although now that I've looked at the picture for than a couple of seconds, the bigger turn-off, to me, is the vacant, vapid look in her eyes.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    *nose* isn't that big...

    EDIT BUTTON!

  • commodious||

    The smart ones work as escorts, not hookers.

  • ||

    Like Diaz, and the gypsies that live in North Augusta, South Carolina, her eyes are just a little too far apart for me to feel comfortable. I bet her peripheral vision is off the fucking charts and that nose resembles a 500 ml Erlenmeyer flask.

    Not to mention she looks like she needs a sammich or two.

  • ||

    "...she looks like she needs a sammich or two."

    *Quietly pencils sloopy's name onto the 'Likes John's type' list*

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If I pay for dinner and a movie, did I buy the sex?

  • ||

    Do you have a penis between your legs? If yes, then you bought the sex.
    -prosecutor up for reelection

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • lap83||

    What if she doesn't have sex with you, did you get ripped off? Also, I wonder if this is related to the shortage of libertarian women.

  • W. Chipper Dove||

    Why not just go ahead and Rape a young lady? The penalty is about the same.

  • Warren||

    Meh. As long as the drinking age is 21 that's enough precedent to make 21 the age of whatever else you want to keep children from doing.

    There's a good argument that it doesn't make sense to allow children to join the military and not [whatever]. But you got to move that drinking age first.

  • commodious||

    Drinking and smoking will migrate up to 26.

    Meanwhile, voting will be lowered to 15.

  • BYODB||

    Everyone knows that it doesn't take more wisdom to get a true assault rifle and go a'killin' in foreign lands than it does to decide to have a drink or two. Duh, McFly!

    Frankly, they can't up the age of recruitment above 18. They require those fresh-out-of-highschool kids that don't know what to do with their future to continue adventuring abroad. If they had to rely on 21+ aged patriots we would have maybe 10,000 people in our entire military, and that's just not enough in 'peacetime' to continue cracking the proper amount of brown people skulls.

    I say this somewhat jokingly, but honestly this is pretty much the case. That's why our military is 100% mercenary. I.E. They are well paid to kill for us.

  • Hank Phillips||

    No. Teens were kidnapped and trafficked by the federal government as cannon fodder WAY before they could vote. Eve Of Destruction was written right after the JFK assassination--you're old enough to kill, but not for votin'. It was only when conscripts with guns and fragmentation grenades and libertarians with platforms came into play that the nationalsocialists relented and lowered the drinking age. By then most of those affected preferred LSD and hemp anyway. The LP managed to frighten away the draft, but not legalize peyote, legalize pot, or legalize psilocybin. That will take more spoiler votes.

  • Banquo||

    So, you joined the military too?

  • BYODB||

    I guess this just goes to show that women really aren't people, and that both the left and the right agree that they are timid creatures who just don't know what they want or what they can do.


    Oh, except for abortions. Women know when they should or shouldn't get one of those (hint: they should. Especially if they're black). It's like their only valid instinct. Everything else, well, you'll need a kindly and wise older man to make those decisions for you sweetie. It's for your own good, really!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    No wonder they're irrational, they aren't allowed to grow up -
    and if people like the LA Legislature has anything to do with it, never will.

  • wspackman||

    The regulation of sex has always been a favorite political weapon. The more recent adoption of language games where terms like terrorist, trafficking and consent are divorced from any practical meaning and co-opted to prop up overreaching legislative actions a real cause for alarm. And why these presumed definitions have been accepted by the courts in lieu of establishing any factual evidence of harm is defies explanation.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It is always the penis' fault.

  • Hank Phillips||

    During alcohol prohibition dry zealots shocked American sensibilities with news stories about Portugal licensing prostitutes at age 14--the age of consent in Louisiana at the time. This new hysteria may be a case of mystical overreaction to the Libertarian Party finally getting ballot access in the former Kingfish State.

  • jabster||

    This is a big SITYS.

    Back when that RINO Liddy Dole got the Progressive-Approved(TM) National 21 Drinking Age(R) passed in 1984, I knew that this would be the camel's nose in the tent to return to an actual age of majority of 21. Now you have to be 21 to buy smokes in some places, and the Credit CARD Act puts restrictions on issuing credit cards to 18-20YOs, and colleges are really moving to return to in loco parentis, with emphasis on the "loco".

    The proggies would probably have the 26A repealed if so many 18-20YOs didn't vote so damn prog.

    Side note: Can we quit referring to 18-20YO ADULTS as "minors" when it comes to alcohol? You're only encouraging and reinforcing these people when you do.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Used to in in Pennsylvania people under 21 couldn't get married without their parent's permission - so they caught the train to Maryland, and a guy could return with his perfectly legal 14 year old bride.

  • Business Attorney Indiana||

    They would have joined hands with the SoCon's a long time ago if not for pet issues like Abortion.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Adult Women Can't Consent to Sex in Louisiana
    Soliciting anyone under age 21 for sex will now get you 15 to 50 years in prison, as the state has ruled that 18-to-20-year-olds' consent doesn't count.

    The great state of Louisiana is doing this for the little people's own good.
    After all, they are in capable of rational thought.
    Just look at all the republicans and democrats they have voted into office.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online