As Iowa State students were returning from spring break two weekends ago, a minor made headlines by winning over $13,000 on a Davenport riverboat before being arrested by authorities.

This story points out one of the biggest hypocrisies in Iowa law. During the infancy of state gaming laws, those 18 and over could gamble legally. However with a state law passed about four years ago, that all changed. You now have to be 21 in order to participate in any state-licensed gaming operation. You can’t even buy a lottery ticket anymore.

This law was actually a provision of a smaller bill that eliminated the $200 per day maximum loss provision and further loosened gaming regulations. Lawmakers passed the bill with some debate, but few (if any) legislators raised questions on the age stipulation.

Since this law was passed, there have been countless stories in the media about underage gamblers arrested for breaking this law. The most notable story involved golf sensation Tiger Woods. While on break from a golf tournament in the Quad Cities, his visit to a riverboat cost the casino $5,000.

Why now do we find it necessary to prosecute minors for committing a crime that was legal only a few short years ago. I did not see the need for the law then, and I certainly do not see the need for it now. When the state began permitting organized gaming, few saw a problem with underage gambling. Why now do we feel a need to prosecute minors who gamble?

One possible reason could be that legislators were worried that if they removed the $200 per day loss provision, minors might gamble their money away. When you think about it, this really isn’t a sensible reason, since most people 18-21 don’t even have $200 to gamble away. Since I’ve been 21, the most money I lost in one day has been $30 and I haven’t known any friend of my age group to lose more than $100 in a single day.

When you recognize all the other rights and burdens to which those 18 and up are entitled, laws like this are legislative hypocrisy. In the state of Iowa at the age of 18 you can: be arrested, sent to prison, pay taxes, own a car, rent property, own a house, be sued, get married, be drafted, own a gun, serve on a jury, and most importantly: vote!

The simple fact is that the legislators do not have any reason for barring otherwise legal adults from gambling establishments. If we can trust an 18-year-old with a firearm, then we should be able to let him blow 50 bucks at Meskwaki.

Despite the fact I am of legal age, I still do not see why we should prohibit someone a day short of 21 from having a little fun at his own expense. If they are otherwise a sensible and halfway intelligent person, then what is wrong with giving them a chance to win a little money?

When you account for the fact that any 20-year-old can still win $10 million from Ed McMahon or from any other sweepstakes. This all seems really silly. I have not ever heard one good explanation from any legislator or state official for why they changed the minimum gambling age.

Where is the explanation? I know many who would like to hear one. This argument may have grown old for many people, but the only reason it grows old is because it is one-sided.

There are no arguments for those from the other side of this issue. Even those against lowering the minimum drinking age have statistics to back up their argument. This is not the case with the debate over gaming laws. I can see no legitimate reasons to support a minimum gambling age.

For that reason I am proposing a challenge to all the state legislators who happen to read this article: If you voted for or support this law, I would like a public debate with you at the time and manner you prescribe. You may debate me in public or write a letter to the Daily; it does not matter. All I would like to see is the reasoning behind what many people (even those of legal age) call a ridiculous law.

I do not believe that many will accept my challenge to defend this law since it is indefensible. What else do you call it when laws place certain age-based burdens on you but you do not receive similar age-based privileges? Maybe someone will accept my challenge and we can all find out why lawmakers continue to withhold certain privileges of an increasingly important voter group.

Robert Zeis is a senior in finance from Des Moines.