What is the true age of an adult?

In the last month, IU's "alcohol problem" has been given increased attention. Much ink has been spilled in this publication on that topic. Sigma Alpha Epsilon and Delta Tau Delta had parties raided and are facing real consequences for making alcohol available to adults. \nYes, to adults. "Why would that be a problem?" one might reasonably ask. "Because those adults weren't twenty-one years old," would be the correct reply. \nPersons of eighteen years of age have reached their "majority," meaning that they are adults in the eyes of the law. But even though they are legally adults, they may not purchase, consume or possess alcoholic beverages. \nLet's take a look at what responsibilities the law says 18-year-olds can handle: They can vote, serve on a jury, consent to sex, hold public office, drive an automobile, own and operate a business, sign contracts, assume and pay off debt, face the death penalty, marry, smoke cigarettes, own and carry a loaded handgun and be sent off to war. \nGod forbid an 18-year-old gets his hand on a beer -- all hell would break loose!\nIf someone can explain to me why a person responsible enough to carry a handgun can't be trusted with a gin and tonic, I would laud him as wiser than Shakespeare. \nIf someone can give me one credible reason why a young man who can be forced to go overseas to kill and die for his country but can't have a beer with Dad before he leaves for war, I'd say he was more persuasive than Bill Clinton in an all-female trailer park. \nI'd also ask this fount of wisdom why an 18-year-old should be able to marry, sign a life-long contract and not able to have champagne at the reception. Why is an 18-year-old competent enough to hold public office but not competent enough to decide whether to have a margarita?\nThe question is clear: When is someone an adult? If it's eighteen, then 18-year-olds should be able to drink. If it's twenty-one, then 18-year-olds shouldn't be able to marry, carry handguns, go off to war and vote.\nMany I've spoken to say the drinking age should be even higher. "I've seen a lot of people hurt or killed by alcohol," Greg Van Hook, an advanced EMT, said. "A lot of young people are not mature enough to handle the responsibilities of alcohol."\nWhile this may be true, I say if someone's not mature enough to handle alcohol, he or she is not an adult. But 18-year-olds are, by law, adults! \nAlso, the question is not whether drinking is beneficial. Alcohol has harmful effects for just about everyone -- the drinker, his family, friends and society at large. Believe me, I've had my own problems with drinking. The question is, if young people aren't mature enough to handle drinking, why are they mature enough to handle such epic responsibilities as raising a child and waging war? Why is the law so incoherent on this subject?\nThe law endows 18-year-olds with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges of full citizenship -- except the choice whether to consume an alcoholic beverage. As long as those who are adults in nearly every legal respect are kept from being adults in arbitrary respects, the tension will only mount between the IU administration and students and between "underage" drinkers and the police who enforce such peculiar laws.