<sup>I don't belong to the group of youths, but one do not need to belong to the particular group in order to defend their interests, like in the case of animal rights movements. Also, I belonged to it, therefore I have some experiences.</sup>

Let us look on legal drinking age laws. I know the reasons why do they exist, but yet these laws are oftenly overcome. I would say they felt like obstacles rather than justifiable prohibitions. Yet, adults do not have such obstacles. It seems as oppresion to me.

There also are other examples like driving age or age of consent. All of them are seen as oppression by me. If you can drive well, your age is irrelevant. If you want to have sex, your age is irrelevant.

What ethics do state they are oppression? What are the arguments for and against these ethics?

***

I do not assume there is no difference between youths and adults, I just say this difference is irrelevant, like how the difference between males and females is irrelevant when speaking about feminism (in the form of universal rights).

As [this paper](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/87565641.2016.1187033) says (link provided by @Conifold), adolescents on average are more impulsive, yet then we should merely to prohibit the driving for impulsive people, not for adolescents, why not? There indeed can be adolescents who are less impulsive than average adult. If it is wrong that these differences are foundations for these laws, then what are the arguments for existence of such laws?