Should the legal minimum age for doing certain things be raised or lowered?

[AY1975]

AOC should be reviewed and should be a sliding scale. We have the situation at the moment that a person aged 16 years and 1 day having consensual intercourse with someone 15 years 364 days is statutory rape. But a 55 year old sleeping with a 16 year old is legal. The AOC should be 15, but with a proviso that the partner is no more than 5 years older until the youngest person reaches the age of 18 (or perhaps 21).

Lord. You've just criminalised a lot of perfectly ordinary and healthy relationships. See @Bletchleyite's post for but one example.

Exactly, I don't see the logic of that suggestion. IMO it would make a lot more sense to set the AOC at, say, 15 but with a proviso that if you are under 18 your partner must be over 18.

On the matter of drinking alcohol, it's not quite a blanket restriction at 18:

The law on alcohol and under 18s | Drinkaware

Find out about the laws relating to buying and consuming alcohol for under-18s & consequences for breaking them.

www.drinkaware.co.uk

Whereas AFAIK in most states of the USA you have to be over 21 to buy alcohol or drink anywhere in public, be it a bar or club or with a meal in a restaurant. I believe that a few states allow under 21s to drink alcohol in public in certain limited circumstances, though, for example in bars and restaurants if accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse who is aged 21 or over.

But even in the UK, although the legal minimum age for buying alcohol and drinking in pubs, bars and the like is 18, licensed drinking establishments and other age-restricted premises can, and sometimes do, have rules of the house that are more stringent than the law. Some pubs, bars and clubs have an over 21s only or even an over 25s or over 30s only policy. Presumably this is either because the landlord (or the brewery or pub chain that owns the pub) doesn't agree with the law and thinks the legal drinking age should be higher than 18, or because they want a clientele that is that much more mature and better behaved (and that has more money to spend).

In fact, according to this story from the BBC news site from 2004, Durham Police wanted pubs in their area to sign up to a "21 or over scheme" whereby only those aged 21 and over would be allowed to buy alcohol, although it was rejected by the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations as "draconian": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3872691.stm

"Police want an under-21 drink ban

Police want landlords in parts of the north-east of England to ban the sale of alcohol to people under 21.
Durham Police say the radical move will help cut drink-related crime during the summer months.

But the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations (FLVA), which represents self-employed licensees, described the move as "draconian".

The Durham force is planning high-visibility street patrols, coupled with unannounced visits to pubs and clubs.

In an effort to target the problem of young adults buying drink on behalf of under-18s, licensees are being asked to sign up to a "21 or over scheme" which only allows those aged 21 and above to buy alcohol.

A force spokesman said: "The misuse of alcohol has a direct impact on the quality of life of those living both in the vicinity of licensed premises and beyond.""

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Police often want things stricter than the law says because they may make their life easier, but this should never, ever be countenanced under any circumstances. It is absolutely key to a functioning democracy to separate legislature, police and judiciary. If a police officer thinks the law should change then they have open to them the same avenues as any other citizen, e.g. to write to their MP. Even if it's with the best of intentions, allowing the Police to make rules is incredibly, incredibly dangerous.

 

[BluePenguin]

Age of consent in Japan is 13 I believe, I think 16 for England is fine. Quite a lot of people in my school ignored this at the time anyway.

I think that sex at 16 should be allowed although it should be illegal to conceive a child before 18 for obvious reasons

 

[birchesgreen]

Exactly, I don't see the logic of that suggestion. IMO it would make a lot more sense to set the AOC at, say, 15 but with a proviso that if you are under 18 your partner must be over 18.

Also under surely?

 

[DelayRepay]

I think that sex at 16 should be allowed although it should be illegal to conceive a child before 18 for obvious reasons

That would be a very dangerous law because it could happen by accident, no matter how careful the parties involved are. And when it does happen, whether by accident or design, both partners should be supported, not criminalised (assuming the action was with consent, of course).

Personally I would leave the age of consent as it is. Whilst there may be some issues with the current arrangements, changing the law will just introduce other problems.

 

[Howardh]

I think the age of driving (ie the earliest you can pass your test) is 17. I would like to see a dual test, the one at 17 allows you to drive vehicles up to 1200L; and beyond 21 a second test which will allow you to drive anything up to 7.5t should you wish. Not sure of the age in which you can take your test for vehicles above 7.5t (eg HGV)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Age of consent in Japan is 13 I believe, I think 16 for England is fine. Quite a lot of people in my school ignored this at the time anyway.

It's intended as a child protection/Safeguarding measure, not to criminalise similarly-aged young people exploring their bodies even if they technically shouldn't be. The idea is to make it easier to criminalise adults and older teens taking advantage of younger people when it may otherwise be difficult to prove rape, but also to act as a discouragement so as to push younger people to wait until they understand the implications properly.

That's not to say you should break it, but putting away a 15 year old couple when clearly nothing untoward was happening bar the simple age of both is unlikely, at worst it would likely be a caution but probably nothing as a sexual offence caution can cause issues later in life, and that's not what the law is in this case for.

13 is ridiculous, though.

I think the age of driving (ie the earliest you can pass your test) is 17. I would like to see a dual test, the one at 17 allows you to drive vehicles up to 1200L; and beyond 21 a second test which will allow you to drive anything up to 7.5t should you wish. Not sure of the age in which you can take your test for vehicles above 7.5t (eg HGV)?

On the basis that bureaucracy should only be in place where it brings a significant benefit, are there many young people ragging around in old Escort XR3is and crashing into trees that this would be worth doing? The fact that a powerful car costs £10K for a 17 year old to insure largely manages this. Other than in Mayfair, you don't see 17 year olds ragging round in powerful stuff. It's all 1l Corsas and the likes.

It's more of an issue for motorcycles, and there is indeed a stepped licence there.

With regard to HGV etc as I said above I'd base it on evidenced experience of driving a car (e.g. of being insured on one) and of not having been convicted of any driving offences for a period of say 2-3 years rather than absolute age. Having said that there are 18 year old bus drivers (not many, but there are) and I don't see any evidence of them being a problem.

 

[Howardh]

On the basis that bureaucracy should only be in place where it brings a significant benefit, are there many young people ragging around in old Escort XR3is and crashing into trees that this would be worth doing? The fact that a powerful car costs £10K for a 17 year old to insure largely manages this. Other than in Mayfair, you don't see 17 year olds ragging round in powerful stuff. It's all 1l Corsas and the likes.

It's more of an issue for motorcycles, and there is indeed a stepped licence there.

With regard to HGV etc as I said above I'd base it on evidenced experience of driving a car (e.g. of being insured on one) and of not having been convicted of any driving offences for a period of say 2-3 years rather than absolute age. Having said that there are 18 year old bus drivers (not many, but there are) and I don't see any evidence of them being a problem.

True, but there is always the possibility of hiring a high performance car for the "weekend", something which I understand is common up here in Lancashire/Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, but there is always the possibility of hiring a high performance car for the "weekend", something which I understand is common up here in Lancashire/Manchester.

Are you absolutely sure? Most hire companies won't touch anyone under 25 with a Corsa, let alone a powerful BMW.

Yes, some rich kids have powerful cars (would Rusholme* be the Mayfair of Manchester in this sense perhaps?) but it's very, very rare. When I was involved in the 18-25 section of Scouting most did own cars but they were old 1 litre Corsas, Saxos and the likes, not Beemers.

* Yes, I know, it's nothing like Mayfair, perhaps in terms of the area itself it's the dog muck on Mayfair's shoe, albeit with decent kebabs and curries. But what it does share with the likes of Mayfair is that it's a place where young rich kids and twentysomethings go to show off their fancy cars.

 

[Howardh]

Are you absolutely sure? Most hire companies won't touch anyone under 25 with a Corsa, let alone a powerful BMW.

"reputable" is missing! Even if hire firms are taken out of the equation, there are always families and friends that will allow an almost-kid to drive their cars. My dad was happy to let me drive his Ford Zephyr 6 as soon as I had passed my test at 17, but then again I was (I think) a considerate and careful driver.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"reputable" is missing! Even if hire firms are taken out of the equation, there are always families and friends that will allow an almost-kid to drive their cars. My dad was happy to let me drive his Ford Zephyr 6 as soon as I had passed my test at 17, but then again I was (I think) a considerate and careful driver.

I'm guessing that was a while ago, as these days putting a 17 year old on the insurance for such a car would either be swingeingly expensive or rejected outright. Even back in the late 90s I was only on my parents' small runaround (generally a Corsa, though I learnt in their Pug 105), not their bigger/more powerful family one.

I'm not saying young people don't sometimes find ways to drive (and crash) fancy cars, some clearly do, the likes of Youtubers can often afford to pay the £100K to buy one and another £100K to insure it, and then there are obviously those who drive illegally without insurance (but they won't care what their licence says either). I just dispute that it's a significant problem worth the cost and complexity of introducing a second test.

 

[Howardh]

I'm guessing that was a while ago, as these days putting a 17 year old on the insurance for such a car would either be swingeingly expensive or rejected outright. Even back in the late 90s I was only on my parents' small runaround (generally a Corsa, though I learnt in their Pug 105), not their bigger/more powerful family one.

I'm not saying young people don't sometimes find ways to drive (and crash) fancy cars, some clearly do, the likes of Youtubers can often afford to pay the £100K to buy one and another £100K to insure it, and then there are obviously those who drive illegally without insurance (but they won't care what their licence says either). I just dispute that it's a significant problem worth the cost and complexity of introducing a second test.

Yes, at the time I was driving on my dad's insurance; although getting my own, as you alluded to, wasn't anything like as expensive as it is now. Mind you, mum did all the driving for me from the back seat...


Under the law I propose I wouldn't be allowed into such a car until I was much older....which meant I would have been confined to mum's Triumph Dolomite (1.0 or 1.2), and would have had to park it 500 yards from college so I wouldn't be seen! To be fair, the colour of the car was brown, so it matched the rust. At least the age of consent wouldn't apply as no partner would ever be seen in it with me!!!!

 

[ainsworth74]

I think that sex at 16 should be allowed although it should be illegal to conceive a child before 18 for obvious reasons

I'd be fascinated to hear how you think that could possibly work on a practical level

 

[DanNCL]

It might seem weird but if a 20 year old wants to have a relationship with an 80 year old that's up to both of them. (There are 11 years between my sister and her husband for instance, they met at uni with her as a 20 year old ish student and him as a mature student). They are a loving family with 3 kids and there's nothing out of order about it at all. Edit: and it was her who approached him first, I'm told!

I agree. My grandparents also had 11 years between them, and were happilly married for almost 50 years.

I think that sex at 16 should be allowed although it should be illegal to conceive a child before 18 for obvious reasons

Unless you're suggesting compulsory vasectomies for boys when they turn 16 there's not a hope in hells chance of that working, and compulsory vasectomies would be immorral and possibly even a human rights abuse!

 

[najaB]

I think that sex at 16 should be allowed although it should be illegal to conceive a child before 18 for obvious reasons

And how does one enforce this law?

13 is ridiculous, though.

Or it's a recognition of reality. 13-16 year olds may not engage in full-on intercourse, but there is quite often a lot of "touchy feely" going on which, under current law, could be argued to be illegal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or it's a recognition of reality. 13-16 year olds may not engage in full-on intercourse, but there is quite often a lot of "touchy feely" going on which, under current law, could be argued to be illegal.

An age of consent of 13 means someone a lot older than 13 can have intercourse with a 13 year old. That's just plain wrong and needs guarding against as those adults are out there.

Nobody is going to prosecute a pair of 15 year olds for exploring each others' bodies, that's not what the law is for.

 

[MattA7]

On the subject of driving it is rather odd that they choose 17 in instead of the usual 16 or 18. It is also quite bizarre that a 16 year can ride a moped (which is basically a low powered motorcycle/scooter) giving motorcycle riding is far more dangerous than driving a car.

Also the UK is still one of the few countries that allows 16 year olds to join the armed forces.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the subject of driving it is rather odd that they choose 17 in instead of the usual 16 or 18. It is also quite bizarre that a 16 year can ride a moped (which is basically a low powered motorcycle/scooter) giving motorcycle riding is far more dangerous than driving a car.

Also the UK is still one of the few countries that allows 16 year olds to join the armed forces.

I have a feeling the idea of 17 is that it's so you are able to pass your test by 18 in order to be able to properly start your adulting.

The motorcycle thing is more about what you might hit with it than the risk to yourself. Riding a pushbike is probably more dangerous still than a 50cc motorcycle but you can do that from any age.

 

[najaB]

An age of consent of 13 means someone a lot older than 13 can have intercourse with a 13 year old. That's just plain wrong and needs guarding against as those adults are out there.

But only if the 13 year old wants to. If they don't want to then it's rape/sexual assault the same as it would be for a 16 year old here in the UK.

 

[Tester]

But only if the 13 year old wants to. If they don't want to then it's rape/sexual assault the same as it would be for a 16 year old here in the UK.

The whole point of an age of consent!

Reductio ad absurdum.....

Change 13 to 5 - are you going to say 'But only if the 5 year old wants to'? (Other ages are available)

 

[najaB]

The whole point of an age of consent!

Yes, it rather is the point of an age of consent: it's not the age at which a person must have sex, but rather an age before which they are presumed to have no desire to engage in sexual activities and before which any sexual activity is presumed to be non-consensual.

It is a fact that the onset of puberty is now several years earlier than it used to be (example source), which means that 13-15 year olds are going to be more likely to engage in sexual activities (up to and including intercourse) than they would have been a century ago.

Despite @Bletchleyite's protestation that that's not what the law is for, it is still the case that a 16 year old could find themselves facing legal consequences for digitally stimulating a 15 year old.

Change 13 to 5 - are you going to say 'But only if the 5 year old wants to'? (Other ages are available)

No. Because the average five year old isn't going to be sexually curious. Where the average 14 or 15 year old is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, it rather is the point of an age of consent: it's not the age at which a person must have sex, but rather an age before which they are presumed to have no desire to engage in sexual activities and before which any sexual activity is presumed to be non-consensual.

More than that. I think it is supposed to be the age at which the person is mentally competent enough to understand the risks etc surrounding intercourse. So it isn't just a case of when puberty is.

If we did reduce it, we'd absolutely need something to stop predatory paedophiles now-legally having sex with young teenagers. That cannot possibly be allowed to become legal. Sure, there's rape law, but what if they convinced them to consent?

I suppose my suggestion of the Scout Association's policy (over 18 can't have an intimate relationship or intercourse with under 18 unless both were under 18 when it started and with some other safeguards regarding positions of responsibility) would handle that issue while not criminalising a pair of 14 year olds. On the other hand that doesn't protect against a 15 year old influencing a 13 year old to do something they didn't really understand, which the current law does.

So overall I think it might be best left as it is but the Police guidelines being modified to make it clear that the presumption is that it is not in the public interest to pursue cases against pairs of closely-aged teenagers even if that isn't technically legal. We do still want, I think, to discourage young teens from having sex if they don't properly understand its implications in terms of producing children and STDs, but the best way to deal with it in my eyes is a strong word about them not really being old enough and what could go wrong that could destroy their life.

 

[Barn]

There is not, and will not be for the foreseeable future, any appetite to lower the age of consent below 16. Society just isn't anywhere near that mindset.

 

[busestrains]

One thing i do think is that we need some form of standardisation across countries. Countries should work together to come up with common ages across countries. So many countries have different ages to do the same things. Even when you look at similar countries that are next to each other.

It is a mess when you look across Europe and other Western countries and they all have different ages:

----------------

The age of consent:

• 13 - Japan, South Korea.

• 14 - Albania, Andorra, Austria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia.

• 15 - Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden.

• 16 - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Cyprus, Norway, Romania, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

• 17 - Cyprus, Ireland.

• 18 - Turkey, United States Of America, Vatican City.

There are exceptions and conditions to the above. For example some countries allow younger ages if there is a small age gap. So it is complicating.

----------------

The age of purchasing alcohol:

• 16 - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, San Marino, Switzerland.

• 17 - Malta.

• 18 - Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Northern Cyprus, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

• 19 - Canada.

• 20 - Iceland, Lithuania, Sweden.

• 21 - United States Of America.

• BANNED - Vatican City.

There are exceptions and conditions to the above. For example in most of the 16 countries you can only buy beer and wine and need to be 18 to purchase other types. Luxembourg is the only country where you can purchase absolutely any alcohol at 16 years old.

----------------

The age of driving a car:

• 16 - Canada, United States Of America.

• 17 - Iceland, Ireland, United Kingdom.

• 18 - Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Cyprus, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Vatican City.

There are exceptions and conditions to the above. For example in many of the 18 countries you can drive earlier at 16 or 17 if you are supervised by an adult. In some of the 18 countries you can drive certain vehicles like motorbikes or tractors at 16 or 17 too. But you need to be 18 to drive a normal car and unsupervised. In the USA and Canada it is 16 in most states and provinces but crazily a few states allow 14 year olds to drive.

----------------

For the UK i think the driving age should be raised to 18 here. We are one of only three countries in Europe (with Iceland and Ireland being the others) to allow 17 year olds to get a full licence. Personally i think you should be at least 18 before you start learning to drive. Anything below that is too young as your brain is still developing. I think raising the age would increase road safety.

For alcohol it should remain 18 minimum. We have enough drinking problems with adults. The last thing we need is more youth to start drinking alcohol. I am quite in favour of tougher alcohol laws to prevent drinking problems and alcoholics.

For the age of consent i am not really sure. This is a far more complicating issue so i am not sure what age is best. For people that are the same age they should not be prosecuted. For example two twelve years olds should not be prosecuted and is very different to a twelve year old and a fifty year old. But where to put the age at for unrestricted is complicating. All over Europe it is 14 or 15 or 16 in most countries. So i guess around those ages. But i am not sure what i think of this as it is a more complicating matter.

 

[DelayRepay]

For the UK i think the driving age should be raised to 18 here. We are one of only three countries in Europe (with Iceland and Ireland being the others) to allow 17 year olds to get a full licence. Personally i think you should be at least 18 before you start learning to drive. Anything below that is too young as your brain is still developing. I think raising the age would increase road safety.

When you take into account the time needed post 17th birthday to learn and pass a test, I doubt there are many who start driving on their own before they reach about 17.5. I'm just not convinced an extra year would make that much difference.

If we were going to change the rules around driving, I would probably introduce a requirement for a minimum number of hours of driving with an instructor, rather than lift the age. Or expand the driving test. I took my test a long time ago but still find it odd that there was so much emphasis on being able to reverse around a corner compared to responding to hazards correctly.

For the age of consent i am not really sure. This is a far more complicating issue so i am not sure what age is best. For people that are the same age they should not be prosecuted. For example two twelve years olds should not be prosecuted and is very different to a twelve year old and a fifty year old. But where to put the age at for unrestricted is complicating. All over Europe it is 14 or 15 or 16 in most countries. So i guess around those ages. But i am not sure what i think of this as it is a more complicating matter.

I'd leave the age of consent as it is. It's not perfect but any changes will bring their own problems. Under the current rules, two 15 year olds having sex is illegal, but unlikely to result in prosecution as it would not normally be in the public interest. Like I say, not perfect but it seems to work as well as it can.

 

[AY1975]

One thing i do think is that we need some form of standardisation across countries. Countries should work together to come up with common ages across countries. So many countries have different ages to do the same things.

Not sure that there'd be much chance of that because of differences in attitudes and cultural norms between countries.

The age of purchasing alcohol:

• 16 - Switzerland.

• 19 - Canada.

There are exceptions and conditions to the above. For example in most of the 16 countries you can only buy beer and wine and need to be 18 to purchase other types. Luxembourg is the only country where you can purchase absolutely any alcohol at 16 years old.

According to Wikipedia it's 18 in Ticino but 16 in all other Swiss cantons. Likewise, in Canada it's 19 in most provinces but 18 in Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec.

• 20 - Sweden.

According to Wikipedia it's 20 for off-sales and 18 for sale and consumption on the premises in Sweden.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age

For alcohol it should remain 18 minimum. We have enough drinking problems with adults. The last thing we need is more youth to start drinking alcohol. I am quite in favour of tougher alcohol laws to prevent drinking problems and alcoholics.

I agree that it should probably remain 18 minimum, and maybe there should also be lower alcohol limits (or even zero alcohol) for motorists aged under 21 or even 25 to combat drink driving among young drivers.

I'm not convinced that raising the drinking age would do much to tackle the problem of young people binge drinking, though, in fact I think it would make the problem worse by driving it underground, as I believe happens in the USA not in spite of their stricter alcohol laws and their higher minimum drinking age but because of it. The USA has a long history of the powers-that-be being quite strongly anti-alcohol, probably a legacy of the Prohibition era. But I don't think that kind of approach would work in the UK.

I suppose supporters of raising the drinking age to 21 would say that it would mean that young people would remain alcohol-free for longer, with obvious health benefits, and that it would enable 18 to 20 year olds, many of whom are students, to concentrate more on their studies. But many 21 year olds are also students, and if they started university at 18 and are doing a straight three-year course they are often nearing their final exams. Setting the drinking age at 21 would merely delay the age at which young people drink themselves crazy as they take advantage of being allowed to drink for the first time.

Raising the age to 21 would also mean that pubs whose main clientele was 18 to 25 year olds would lose a lot of business, and in university bars it would be a nightmare trying to segregate students who were old enough to drink from those who weren't. It would penalise 18 to 20 year olds who drink sensibly by turning them into under-age drinkers, although I believe that many states of the USA that raised their drinking ages from 18 or 19 to 21 in the 1980s gave grandfather rights to anyone who was under 21 but had already reached the previous legal drinking age in their state before the age was raised. For example if you lived in a state that raised its drinking age from 18 to 21 from 1st January 1986 and you'd had your 18th birthday on or before 31st December 1985, you could still buy alcohol and drink in bars after that date.

 

[Butts]

If you are in favour of allowing people to vote in UK Elections at the age of 16 how can you logically object to them buying Cigarettes. Fireworks or Alcohol at the same age ?

It would be lot simpler if everything was standardised at 18, but too late for that as our hybrid restrictions have evolved over the years.

 

[DelayRepay]

If you are in favour of allowing people to vote in UK Elections at the age of 16 how can you logically object to them buying Cigarettes. Fireworks or Alcohol at the same age ?

Well you used to be able to buy cigarettes at 16. It changed to 18 in 2007. I think the age limit for buying lottery tickets changed from 16 to 18 in the last couple of years too. So it is certainly possible for these age limits to change if there's the political will.

 

[Intercity110]

i think, if you're below 18 you can take a test on how the government works to vote.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If you are in favour of allowing people to vote in UK Elections at the age of 16 how can you logically object to them buying Cigarettes. Fireworks or Alcohol at the same age ?

Because they are different things?
As someone else has said, cigarettes were 16 not that long ago, and there are conversations about the age for them being increased even higher.
Alcohol has different ages in other countries where it isn't the same as the voting age.

It would be lot simpler if everything was standardised at 18, but too late for that as our hybrid restrictions have evolved over the years.

Simplier yes. But the right thing? Why? They are different things, and the reasons we have an age limit for each one are different, so having different ages makes perfect sense.