>>>But let's be clear. No one is saying they can't make or sell those things, only that they can't market them to kids.
>>>
>>>Surely we can agree that children are a special class,
>>
>>I absolutely do not agree that anyone is a "special class". The very concept goes against everything I believe.
>
>So are you opposed to all laws that treat children differently than adults?

Not all. There's merit in some minimum and maximum age restrictions. To your specific examples:

>Should a child of any age be allowed to drive?

Yes, if they can pass the required examinations. I was driving a pick-up on our ranch daily at 6, tractors by 8 and other heavy machinery at 10. My father had a legal driver's license at age 12.

>to smoke? to drink?

yes & yes. In fact, various cultures and religions encourage these behaviors.

>to serve in the military?

Yes providing one is capable of fully performing the required duties. However, the military is a Constitutionally mandated function of the government and therefore the government gets to set the minimum requirements.

>to vote?
No. See the 14th and 26th Amendments.

>What about laws that require parents to provide for their kids in various ways?

Depends on which specific laws you're referring to. For instance, laws should exist requiring parents to feed, cloth & shelter their children as that's required to ensure their right to life. Laws should not exist requiring parents to provide "healthy" or "organic" food, trendy clothes or a house.

>Isn't that treating children as a special class?

Perhaps it's your use of the word "special" I object to.
Special : distinct, different, unusual, or superior in comparison to others of the same kind

That laws treat children differently due to their age does not make them distinct, different, unusual nor superior to adults. Children are subject to different restrictions than adults, however, those adults were children once and went through the same aging process. There's nothing "special" about it. In fact, being a child is quite ordinary.

>What do you do about the science that says clearly that the portion of the brain responsible for decision-making doesn't finish developing until sometime in the early 20's?

Experience is very important in decision making as well. There's a bit of a push to lower the voting age to 16, frankly I think the minimum voting age for non-military citizens should be raised to 25 when the frontal lobe is fully developed. ;)

>>>and that it is reasonable to exert control over what is marketed to them.
>>
>>It is the responsibility of the parents to raise their children. Part of raising them involves teaching them what marketing and it's manipulative effects are. It's an important life lesson to impart to children because they're going to experience it throughout their lives. Sheltering them from life does them a grave disservice.
>>
>
>As children grow and get more into the world, they do experience marketing. But I think it's reasonable to limit the marketing that comes into people's homes, especially that aimed at young children. After all, they are the public's airwaves.

The restrictions are not limited to the "public's airwaves"(sic), they are applied to all marketing including private cable & satellite, print and satellite radio. The entire Joe Camel campaign (tv, radio, print & even the "bucks" and packaging itself) was rendered illegal due to restrictions specifically designed to eliminate that specific ad campaign.

For that matter I do not agree with the government (FCC) acting as a moral arbiter of what can and cannot be broadcast. It's an overstepping of government and an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. The spectrum of frequencies needs a traffic cop to ensure their orderly use, however, the arbiter of what is listened to should reside with the public and their ability to turn the dial.

>>>Do you have a problem with the laws that prohibit marketing tobacco products to children?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>Do you have a problem with laws that prohibit selling tobacco to children?

I disagree with them but I do not have a problem (legally or Constitutionally) with them.

>Tamar