We don't know details as to how these girls have been treated, so I would hesitate to judge their actions.
But:
The basic idea is that they were fighting for their rights and freedom to do what they want. How you may ask?
First of all, people don't automatically turn "mature" on their 18th birthday, the system is only based around age because it's too lazy to actually look for maturity. Even further, as of now, kids don't really have their own rights and are just property. Why? Simply because the parents get to make the decisions for them, regardless of their maturity and the parent's maturity because the parent's basically possess their rights and are supposed to act as a representative until they have reached the age of maturity. I'm also saying that people's view of "maturity" is more often than not based on their own standards and what they would do, which isn't necessarily the right thing. The problem here is that most kinds just don't have the courage to right for the rights they cherish. So Kudos to these girls in that regard, they ceratinly do atleast have courage. It's also an important part of growing up to realize that your paren't aren't flawless and to rebel against them if you think their decisions are wrong to become an independent and healthy individual. After all, we aren't trying raise soldiers who just have to follow the orders that they're given, soldiers usually even made the inital decision by themselves, while kids are just forced to do what they're told. It's basically limited-time-tyranny (and currently you really aren't presented with any choice other than fighting or running if you want freedom. Kinda like the american revolution, but this oppression ends the day they turn 18 in most countries, and you don't necessarily have to fight. But put simply: If somebody is able to make his own decisions, bear responsibilities and can generally provide good reasoning for why he'd doing what he's doing, why interfere? You don't really force "protection from their own mistakes" on adults either, do you? What's the difference between the 22 year olds who keep drinking too much alcohol at parties and these teenagers? I'd call neather responsible, but both are probably aware of the consequences of their decisions.
But put simply: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The law is flawed. Why I may ask? Because children basically can't even go to court, hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit without their parent's assisstance. To understand what I'm saying, just imagine you would basically "belong" to your parents at your current age and maturity. Would you like it? Probably not. Would you fight for your freedom? Hell yeah!
Though, thb, I think drugging the parents might be understandable because in that situation, this is possibly the most harmless thing they could do to get what they wanted with the least possible effort and time.
Also fighting isn't as childish as you may want to put it. If that's childish, then you're also calling terrorists childish, but terrorists are just stupid. The point is, that it isn't the state's duty to protect its citizen from their own stupidity if they don't want the protection and aren't harming anyone else other than themselves.
To quote a famous quote on liberty and freedom(I don't really know anymore where I heard it):
"One man's liberty ends where another man's liberty begins."
Society should try to hold onto this principle a little more, I think.
