drinking age and military service?

[O6nop]

Personally, I don't like the correlation between military eligibility and drinking. Drinking is a voluntary act. After you join the military, you lose a lot of those abilities.

First of all, not ALL 18 year olds can or do join the military. So would there be exemptions?

Second, the military is (supposed to be) a structured organization. They are taking young men's (and women's) minds and teaching them the tactics and skills they need to survive in combat, or support those who do, and defend our country. Basically, they are being told what to do and how to do it 24 hours a day. I don't see where the use of alcohol benefits these soldiers or our defense at all. Soldiers need to abide by different rules than non-military citizens, they virtually have fewer rights than the rest of the citizens.

Additionally, if an individual decides not to join the military, he or she may go on to college. Again, shaping the minds to benefit them and the future of America. I don't see where alcohol benefits their education, either.
If they don't join the military, don't go to college, then they are likely getting into the workforce. They are creating a base for their future and hopefully benefit the free market system in America. Alcohol would not be a benefit there either.
If they choose to do none of the above, they are likely to be a drag on our society, I suppose with some exceptions, so alcohol is the last thing I'd like to see involved with those individuals.

I am not a tee-totaler, but I imagine that there is too much emphasis on alcohol in our society. A social drink here and there is OK, but rampant misuse is ridiculous. If everyone in America were to hold their drinking to 1 or 2 in a 24 hour period, I'd be willing to drop the age limit to 14, which is when I started (insert 'hypocritical' icon here)

Another thing, Why not, if a person is old enough to be in the military, is he/she not old enough to run for president? (If the laws haven't changed, you must be 35)

 

[spacemanspiff]

I want the age to drink increased.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Second, the military is (supposed to be) a structured organization. They are taking young men's (and women's) minds and teaching them the tactics and skills they need to survive in combat, or support those who do, and defend our country. Basically, they are being told what to do and how to do it 24 hours a day. I don't see where the use of alcohol benefits these soldiers or our defense at all. Soldiers need to abide by different rules than non-military citizens, they virtually have fewer rights than the rest of the citizens.

Yet 21-year-old soldiers can drink. In fact, at at least one stateside post (I know, I've been there) 18-year-old soldiers can drink. Is there any evidence than units stationed at Fort Bliss are less effective than other stateside units?

Additionally, if an individual decides not to join the military, he or she may go on to college. Again, shaping the minds to benefit them and the future of America. I don't see where alcohol benefits their education, either.

Except that underage college kids drink anyway. Yes, really. In fact, underage college kids, in my experience, drink more than those over 21. I think it's partly the "forbidden fruit" effect, and partly that when you can't just go drink a beer or two at a bar like a normal human being you'll "make the most" of any chance to drink that you get. Hence the rampant binge drinking among teenagers in college (and, for that matter, high school).

Plus, there are plenty of college students over 21. There are plenty of people who start college over 21. They seem to manage.

I am not a tee-totaler, but I imagine that there is too much emphasis on alcohol in our society. A social drink here and there is OK, but rampant misuse is ridiculous. If everyone in America were to hold their drinking to 1 or 2 in a 24 hour period, I'd be willing to drop the age limit to 14, which is when I started (insert 'hypocritical' icon here)

Again, in my experience one of the most effective ways to get people to limit their drinking to reasonable levels is to allow them to do it legally. Sure, most people will occasionally "let loose" and get positively pissed...but a vast majority of people would just have a couple here and there.

I saw it in Iraq (with people of all ages), I've seen it with underage kids here...the easiest way to encourage otherwise responsible people to binge drink it to make it illegal. Because at that point if somebody is going to drink, they're going to drink. Why risk the trouble over a single beer?

 

[applesanity]

I don't think drinking age and military service age are related enough to base one argmument off the other. Besides, I thought the point was not to die for your country, but to make the poor bastard on the other side die for his country.

I do think that driving age and drinking age are related subjects. I say, 16 to drink, 18 to drive. Learn to handle your booze and learn the limits and consequences of drinking before learning how to drive.

Dems talking about the effects of boozing.... Mary Jo Kopechne ends up in Poucha Pond. (tu quoque, I know... but I couldn't resist.)

 

[O6nop]

Well, I'm just stating my opinion. Admittedly, it doesn't involve research to have one, but it helps.

Yet 21-year-old soldiers can drink. In fact, at at least one stateside post (I know, I've been there) 18-year-old soldiers can drink. Is there any evidence than units stationed at Fort Bliss are less effective than other stateside units?

21 year-old anyone can drink. The 18 -20 year old mind and body is easier to train for the military. If someone joins at 21, the military has lost a little of the edge in training them to the level that they had more control over his preparedness in combat. If he hadn't joined until 21, was he drinking illegally before that? IMHO, at 21, drinker or not, it takes a little more training to overcome his civilian lifestyle unless he was involved in sports or something. What I'm talking about is the initial training to turn them into soldiers.

Again, in my experience one of the most effective ways to get people to limit their drinking to reasonable levels is to allow them to do it legally. Sure, most people will occasionally "let loose" and get positively pissed...but a vast majority of people would just have a couple here and there.

If they are going to binge illegally anyway, why not just make it later in life when their maturity level is higher. Just as in your statement, when I started drinking at 14, the legal age limit was 18 in the state I grew up in. I had friends who could buy it for me.
I drank a lot even when I was legal. It took some eye-opening experiences for me to stop before it was too late. As I said, I still drink occasionally, but not like before.
Also, I know of and see a lot of legal age drinkers who drink to the level of illegality. So I don't think being legal automatically inserts a sense of responsibility in anyone.

 

[Yellowfin]

Just like Prohibition itself, the drinking age causes the very problems it attempts to prevent. It is totally indefensible to me based on that alone. It is absolutely nothing more than a feeble gesture.

 

[O6nop]

Again, I'm just saying I don't agree with the correlation of drinking and military service. The issue does touch on Prohibition, except that Prohibition, whether, drugs or alcohol, was a prohibition on everyone, not the issuance of an age limit.

 

[JuanCarlos]

21 year-old anyone can drink. The 18 -20 year old mind and body is easier to train for the military. If someone joins at 21, the military has lost a little of the edge in training them to the level that they had more control over his preparedness in combat. If he hadn't joined until 21, was he drinking illegally before that? IMHO, at 21, drinker or not, it takes a little more training to overcome his civilian lifestyle unless he was involved in sports or something. What I'm talking about is the initial training to turn them into soldiers.

Huh? You still haven't addressed my point that at at least one major stateside installation (and several overseas ones) 18-year-olds can drink. Are these units less effective?

Also, I hate to break it to you, but a majority of people drink before 18. Binge drinking is not exactly uncommon in high school nowadays. So a majority of 18-year-old kids have actually had their fair share of alcohol before joining anyway. I don't see why they couldn't be allowed to drink at this point (after completing basic training) anyway. Especially since a fair percentage of them will be allowed to drink; anybody heading to Fort Bliss or most overseas posts.

To clarify, your original "point" is that due to the necessary structure and discipline and training and blah blah blah necessary for the average 18-year-old kid in the military, alcohol would be a bad idea ("would not benefit these soldiers or our defense at all"). How do you square this with the large percentage of 18-year-old soldiers who, simply by being lucky enough to be stationed somewhere it's allowed, can legally drink? Are those units less effective?

Because if they're not, this part of your argument falls apart completely.

If they are going to binge illegally anyway, why not just make it later in life when their maturity level is higher. Just as in your statement, when I started drinking at 14, the legal age limit was 18 in the state I grew up in. I had friends who could buy it for me.

I'm not following you. I argued that a primary reason they binge is because it's illegal. If you made 16 the legal drinking age, for instance, you'd probably have very few people still binge drinking at 18. Binge drinking drops off pretty rapidly once most people reach legal age. But what we have right now is kids leaving their parents' house at 18 to go to college (or wherever else) while still not being legally able to drink...thus encouraging not only binging, but binging without the faintest hint of parental oversight.

Whereas if those same 18-year-olds could just go to the bar and get a beer or bring home a six-pack, I'm suggesting that a majority of them would just drink like normal human beings rather than idiots.

I drank a lot even when I was legal. It took some eye-opening experiences for me to stop before it was too late. As I said, I still drink occasionally, but not like before.

You're projecting. Many people don't need those same eye-opening experiences to taper their drinking off to a responsible level.

Also, I know of and see a lot of legal age drinkers who drink to the level of illegality. So I don't think being legal automatically inserts a sense of responsibility in anyone.

Drink to the level of illegality? Huh? I'll guess that you're suggesting that they binge drink; and I believe you. There are plenty of idiots in the world, and they come in all ages. But from what I've seen even otherwise responsible people can turn into complete idiots when it comes to alcohol when it's not legal for them.


EDIT: If anything, I just think there should be an exception to the rule for soldiers. That a kid can get sent off to die, and indeed die for his country, without that country ever letting him have a beer...well, it just doesn't sit well with me. I have found, though, that outside of big cities and Joe towns most places won't bother to check the age if you show a military ID. I know they certainly don't tend to up here.

 

[O6nop]

Huh? You still haven't addressed my point that at at least one major stateside installation (and several overseas ones) 18-year-olds can drink. Are these units less effective?

Well, I'm just stating my opinion. Admittedly, it doesn't involve research to have one, but it helps.

I don't know if they are less effective. I would guess, logically, either they are less effective or just as effective, certainly not more!
Say you are a mail carrier, are you less likely to deliver a letter to the right house or more likely to deliver to the right house if you drink a six pack every night?

Also, I hate to break it to you, but a majority of people drink before 18. Binge drinking is not exactly uncommon in high school nowadays. So a majority of 18-year-old kids have actually had their fair share of alcohol before joining anyway. I don't see why they couldn't be allowed to drink at this point (after completing basic training) anyway. Especially since a fair percentage of them will be allowed to drink; anybody heading to Fort Bliss or most overseas posts.

I think that was my point, and I thought it was yours that whatever the drinking age is, kids will binge drink before that because it is illegal, i.e. at age 17 or earlier.
And admittedly, they would lose effectivity during basic training, but not after?

Drink to the level of illegality? Huh? I'll guess that you're suggesting that they binge drink; and I believe you. There are plenty of idiots in the world, and they come in all ages. But from what I've seen even otherwise responsible people can turn into complete idiots when it comes to alcohol when it's not legal for them.

Yes, that's what I meant.
So, you are equating idiocy (not the literal meaning, I'm sure) with alcohol. So why would we promote idiocy among our young, especially soldiers?

EDIT: If anything, I just think there should be an exception to the rule for soldiers. That a kid can get sent off to die, and indeed die for his country, without that country ever letting him have a beer...well, it just doesn't sit well with me. I have found, though, that outside of big cities and Joe towns most places won't bother to check the age if you show a military ID. I know they certainly don't tend to up here.

So as a soldier, they should be able to get wrecked because they may not be able to if they don't survive a war. What about peacetime? Still apply? What if during a binge, they get called to an emergency, an invasion of American soil? What happens to their level of preparedness?

 

[44 AMP]

Far in the past, for me....

I hadn't realized that some things had changed as much as they had. I grew up in a state where the drinking age was 18. When I went into the Army, every base I was ever on, the drinking age was 18. Some states I was in were 21. Maryland at the time was 18 for beer, 21 for liquor (didn't make a whole lot of sense to me).

By the time I settled down, it was in a state where the limit was 21, and I was over 21, so it never was an issue for me. I do recall hearing my home state raising their limit to 21 quite a while back, but again, for me, so what?

What bugs me is the inconsistancy. 18 to join the service (17 with parents approval-or at least it used to be), voting age lowered to 18, drinking age lowered to 18 in some places and not others, and since 1968, federal laws making 18 minimum age to pruchase a rifle or shotgun, and 21 to purchase a handgun. Drinking age raised back to 21, (nearly everywhere, as I understand it), but the voting age stays at 18.

Until/unless the re-institute the draft, going into the military is a voluntary action. So, equating the decision to drink and the decision to serve your country is valid. If you have the legal right to do one, you should have the right to do the other. And what about the vote? If you opinion (at age 18) counts for as much as any other individual in this country for choosing our elected leaders and representatives, if you are a legal adult at age 18, with all the legal responsibilities, why should you be denied some things until you are 21? To me this doesn not sound like equal treatment under the law. It is not just.

I believe the reason there is this injustice is because, simply that 18-20 year olds do not stay 18-20 years old. When they turn 21, it is no longer an issue that personally affects them. 18 year olds got the vote, not because of anything 18 year olds did, or could do, but because older politicians believed that they could benefit from giving the vote to the 18-20 age group. The drinking age was lowered in some places shortly after, because after all, if you could vote legally, you ought to be able to drink legally.

Apparently, later those good folks changed their minds. 21 for handguns, never had much of a chance to get lowered to 18. Seems like for the last 50 years and more, NO pro gun law has had an easy chance. Although some have gotten through, most have not.

Too bad that we allow an 18 year old to put on our country's uniform, risk death, or injury, posess a machine gun or a handgun (issued by the govt!), vote and drink, and yet not be allowed to do all those same things when they take off their uniform. Just doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I don't know if they are less effective. I would guess, logically, either they are less effective or just as effective, certainly not more!
Say you are a mail carrier, are you less likely to deliver a letter to the right house or more likely to deliver to the right house if you drink a six pack every night?

It would probably have no effect. So now something needs to provide a benefit to be allowed?

And admittedly, they would lose effectivity during basic training, but not after?

Yes, because the level of discipline required during basic training is higher than that required during regular duty, and there is little "free time" during which one could drink anyway. And privates in basic training are already not allowed to smoke, listen to music, read books, etc...obviously if drinking were legal it would be banned as well anyway (EDIT: Duh. It already is, for privates over 21 in IET. Forgot about that).

And no, the ability to drink legally would not make them any less effective* after basic training. I know this because many underage soldiers already drink illegally, and many drink legally (as previously mentioned).

* - Than they already are, that is. Since, as repeatedly mentioned, they drink anyway as it is.

Yes, that's what I meant.
So, you are equating idiocy (not the literal meaning, I'm sure) with alcohol. So why would we promote idiocy among our young, especially soldiers?

No, I'm equating idiocy with binge drinking. Not alcohol consumption in general. And while being legally allowed to drink doesn't seem to prevent binge drinking in all cases, not being able to drink legally doesn't seem to prevent it either and instead seems to encourage it.

So as a soldier, they should be able to get wrecked because they may not be able to if they don't survive a war. What about peacetime? Still apply? What if during a binge, they get called to an emergency, an invasion of American soil? What happens to their level of preparedness?

So are you suggesting that all soldiers should be barred from drinking at all times? Because a vast majority of soldiers (EDIT: 80% or so, according to numbers I'm finding) are over 21 anyway.

Regardless, the odds that a servicemember would be called into combat on less than a few hours' notice are...well, I'll go with "remote." But let's say that's a legitimate concern...it would be easy enough to simply keep some portion of each post on "alert status" at any given time. Set up a nice little rotating schedule, and make sure you've got a battalion or two on each post sober on any given night.

But I think I just put far too much thought into addressing an argument that was ludicrous to begin with.

 

[hj28rules]

Don't get me started. I was 18 when I joined the navy in 1964. The only place I could have a beer or a drink was in Europe. I served in Viet Nam (off the coast)... Any one remember Ologapo? If an 18 year old can be handed a rifle and taught to use it effectively with his young life on the line, he can also be handed a beer or a bottle of 27 year old single malt scotch. This subject pisses me of now as it did then.

If you weren't there, you don't know...
If you were there, God bless you.

I know a person who carried a bottle of whisky in his duffel bag and promised his Dad in West Virginia he wouldn't drink it until he was 21. He was KIA on a mission we flew over the Ho-Chi-Minh trail. He was 20.

LM...Fort Worth, Tx.
PO1 USN:1964-1972 Viet Nam Vet
SFC US ARMY (NG): 1982-1996 Desert Stortm Vet KKMC (ret.)
Social Security Commando

 

[O6nop]

OK, JC, touche' on all your points. I can't state my opinion anymore effectively (probably those two beers I had for lunch ) .

I appreciate your comments and unless I stop now I am in danger of being persuaded otherwise

Thanks for your responsible posts. I'll consider them carefully on future discussions in this manner.

 

[Alnamvet]

That would be

Olongapo, G.I....and the infamous JoLo Club...now THAT was the illusive good old days some have talked about here

 

[rwilson452]

I pulled more than one crew member out of the JoLo club

USN 62-81. Mostly on tin cans.

 

[Dirty_Harry]

IMO, if you can fight and die for your country, you can enjoy a beer. Our soldiers should have earned that right. Maturity level shouldn't have anything to do with it. It is true you do grow up a little bit in those 3 years, but not enough. We need to have enough respect for those 18 year olds that do put there life on the line for us, or even those who are working their a$$e$ off. Drinking age of 21 is stupid to me. There I have vented.

 

[C Philip]

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that many of the people here arguing to lower the drinking age are under 21 themselves.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that many of the people here arguing to lower the drinking age are under 21 themselves.

Oh, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that one. I don't think there are many under 21 that frequent L&P.

 

[Dewhitewolf]

There are reasons as to why 21 was made the "legal drinking age," and it seems that most people are unaware.

It goes back to the late '60's and early '70's, when a number of studies were done on patterns in car crashes. One of the conclusions was that there were disproportionate numbers of car crashes, fatalities especially, where alcohol was known or suspected to be a factor among drivers under 21. This is at a time when many 18 year olds either had their own car, or access to one, and were out on their own for the first time. This encouraged young adults to act irresponsibly.

With these same studies, it was found that the numbers dropped and leveled off with drivers 21 and over, since by the time a person was 21 he was either working a job or about to finish college, and it wasn't uncommon for people to get married by that time(in either case, people learned to take responsibility).

With this limited data, it was naturally concluded that increasing the legal age to drink would magically cause the number of alcohol-caused car crashes of people under 21 to diminish. The study did not address the near impossibility of enforcement, only an assumption that it would be naturally obeyed and followed.

If we compare to many other nations where the drinking age is 18, or 16, or even lower, there are many factors to consider. Just for example, let's take Europe. Do European youngsters aged 18-21 have their own vehicles? Not nearly as many as in the US, since public transportation is a lot more prevalent. Do the same European youngsters drink as much as Americans? Many Europeans customarily drink, especially at family meals, starting at a very young age. Not as many Americans raise their children by allowing them regular servings of alcohol (such as beer or wine), since it is culturally looked down upon. Consequently, when American youngsters reach their teen years, many have their first alcohol experience at un-chaperoned parties, and social status is gained by how much and how fast one can drink.

This is painting with a broad brush here for the sake of brevity. I am not trying to say that this is 100% accurate, only a general description.

If the drinking age is going to be lowered, I say it should be done gradually. Start with a law that will reduce the drinking age to 20, but it won't take effect for 3 years. When it goes into effect, study whether there are increases in alcohol poisoning, DWI arrests, and drunk driving collisions. If there are no significant increases, then we should consider enacting a similar law to reduce it again to 19, and study the effects again.

Suddenly lowering the drinking age to 18, in my opinion, will only encourage mass numbers of youngsters to flock the bars and liquor stores as numerous "celebrations" will take place, and irresponsible and excessive drinking causes the numerous problems we are all naturally trying to prevent.

 

[Redworm]

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that many of the people here arguing to lower the drinking age are under 21 themselves.

I think I have a ©1983 tattoo on me somewhere so I certainly don't qualify. I just realize that an arbitrary age limit for drinking doesn't actually do any good and in fact makes things worse.

Does anyone here believe that preventing those under 21 from buying handguns prevents crimes by 18-21 year olds?