If you are saying that military personnel should be exempt from the same laws that apply to the rest of us when they are on civillian property and not conducting military business, then I don’t agree. Unless you can show me a good reason that being able to drink in the bar down the street is necessary for the military to function properly, I’m not inclined to carve out an exception for them. They have to follow the same laws as the rest of us.
If you grow your own pot for your use, I agree it should not be taxed. However, farmers could grow pot, get it sold through probably the tobacco industry and have it taxed and still have it be cheaper than what it is currently. We might as well get some easy money into the federal coffers.
I could live with teens not drinking in bars, that seems reasonable, but why exactly the distinction?
Jim
Yes, because serving their country in a job risking their lives for shit pay is not worthy of any minor exceptions. Oh wait, yes it is worth some small privileges, especially in times of war.
Jim
Yes, exactly. The least they could do is give them that privilege.
As to why no teens in bars, I already said, I don’t want to go to a bar and see high school kids there. I do think there’s a significant difference in maturity between 18 and 21.
I have no problem with giving generous benefits to people serving in the military. But we live in a country where laws are supposed to apply equally to everyone and the military serves the civillian government–not the other way around.
There are plenty of people who risk their lives on a daily basis to protect us–firefighters, policemen. There are plenty of people who work extremely difficult jobs that are hazardous–such as teachers, paramedics and emergency room personnel. We don’t carve out special priviliges for them, I don’t see any reason to carve it out for the military.
There are several reasons that have been advanced in this thread for having the age restriction against drinking–such as maturity. I don’t buy those rationalizations, but if you’re going to claim that 18 year olds aren’t mature enough to drink, then they aren’t. Being in the military doesn’t suddenly make you mature enough to drink.
But, hey, why not just exempt them from speeding laws and drug laws too while we’re at it?
I’m not going to argue about whether the legal drinking age should be raised or lowered, as I don’t have any strong opinions on that matter. Nor do I have any strong opinions about whether reducing the drinking age will lower the incidence alcohol abuse.
However, do I think it’s fallacious to say that since 18-year-olds are allowed to serve in the military, they should also be allowed to drink. Why? Because not all 18-year-olds ARE allowed to serve. Rather, only the ones who complete the training process and remain in good standing are allowed to do so.
Lest anyone misunderstand, I am NOT suggesting that we should individually test each 18-year-old to determine if he or she is mature enough to drink. Rather, I’m simply pointing out that the two situations are by no means equitable. 18-year-olds are not presumed to be fit for military duty. Rather, they are treated as possible candidates for military service, which is a rather significant distinction.
I happen to think the military is good at making teenagers grow up. I knew lots of guys who were troublemakers in high school but when they went into the Marines you could see the change in them as soon as they visited home after basic training.
Of course, you CAN be 17 and in the military, with parental permission, but I would not want to see the drinking age lowered to 17. I’m fine with it at 21 and understand why it was raised back up to that age after having been lowered to 18 for a while. There have been whole other threads on this topic.
How many 18-20 year olds are teachers, paramedics, policemen , firemen and etc.? I believe it is a rather small percentage. How many in the military are 18-20 years old? I believe it is a much larger percentage, probably 33% or more.
Besides, I really think the drinking age should be lowered anyway. I thought it was wrong when they raised it to 21 and I still agree with my 15-20 year old self.
Yes, because that is exactly the same thing.
Well, fine. But, no offense, I don’t want the laws governing me based on your limited personal experience. And I don’t mean that insultingly, we all are limited to our personal experience.
We as a society have already decided that 18 year-olds are mature generally: they can vote, get married, sign a contract, own property and join the military. You are advancing the argument that they are too immature to drink. It’s not a question of whether the military makes them generally mature. It’s a question of whether the military alters them in some specific way as to make them mature enough to handle alcohol.
I want the laws to have some modicum of rationality. If it is possible for the military to alter an 18-year old in such a way that he is capable of drinking, then there must be some clear way to define alcohol maturity and some clear way to identify the process of becoming mature enough to drink alcohol. And if that’s the case, then we can allow anyone who meets this criteria to drink when they are 18. Otherwise, you are just making up arbitrary definitions of maturity and expecting the rest of us to live under your arbitrary definitions.
Alternatively, you can provide to me some empirical or statistical data that 18-year olds in the military are significantly less likely to abuse alcohol or injure others when drinking then non-military 18 year olds. I’d be willing to look at a carve-out in that case. But I’m not inclined to support blanket carve-outs for this group or that group based on your personal say-so.
Actually, with the laws in place in the late 80s when I serve*, alcoholism was probably higher in the military then outside. The laws don’t seem to stop people from drinking, at least not back then. Maybe it is different now, but I would be surprised.
I do think the illegality of it, leads to more binge drinking. As you drink regularly, you learn your limits and learn how to stay within them. When you need to drink on the sly, fake IDs or get someone else to buy for you, it seems to lead to more binge drinking and more really stupid behavior. This last paragraph is of course just my POV.
Jim
- and they weren’t allowed to serve me.
So, it’s based on percentages? What is the percent necessary to achieve the carve-out level? If it was 20%, would there be a carve-out?
I largely agree, although I could be convinced that the 21 drinking age is necessary. So far, nobody has tried to mount a convincing argument.
Sure it is. You want to arbitrarily exempt a group of people from general laws. Why stop with one? There’s a whole bunch of general laws on the books to exempt them from.
I am not sure, but are you aware that military personnel have to put up with many restrictions of things that civilians don’t. Any cop et al. at any time can quit for one thing. Their movements are not generally restricted.
The military has/had rules about joining in protests and even restrictions on free speech.
So if we don’t lower the drinking age back down, we should at least make an exception for the men and women in the military.
I’ve always assumed that the point of raising the drinking age to 21 was that the 18-year-olds would still easily be able to get alcohol, but it makes it a little harder for the 14 and 15-year-olds. Lots of 18-year-olds have 21-year-old friends (or know someone with a friend who’s 21, or get invited to parties thrown by 21-year-olds, etc.) whereas not so many 14-year-olds do.
In other words, I always figured the point was to let the college kids drink but try to keep it out of the high schools. Certainly when I was in college, underage drinking was prevalent and largely ignored. The cops weren’t going around to house parties checking IDs and arresting people – even when they did show up it was just to tell you to turn the music down.
That said, I can see how it’s rather insulting to 18-year-olds. We expect you to behave responsibly when it comes to the law, and if you don’t you’ll be tried as an adult. And yet we don’t expect you to behave responsibly when it comes to drinking? Certainly some 18-year-olds aren’t very responsible, but if we’re going to arbitrarily pick that as the age where we expect you to be responsible, why doesn’t it count for everything?
Speaking of ageism, how come you have to be at least 35 years old to be President? I’d rather that was 18 too. Sure, most people wouldn’t want an 18-year-old running the country, which is why they wouldn’t vote for him. But the way the system is set up now, even if the majority wanted to vote for an 18-year-old – or, more reasonably, a 32 year old – they still wouldn’t be allowed to elect him. What kind of democracy is that?
-
Military personel have voluntarily chosen to accept the restrictions placed on them.
-
Many civilian government jobs have restrictions on your ability to leave. For example, in a number of places, police aren’t allowed to strike. Lots of other jobs, such as attorney, have restrictions on free speech, with the threat of criminal sanction. I don’t claim that the restrictions placed on the military are particularly pleasant or easy, but they aren’t the only ones who get told what to do, when to do it and how to do it.
-
What is special about the drinking age that it is the only law you want to exempt the military from? Using your reasoning, there are any number of laws they can be exempted from. Why stop at one?
When I was 17, I was in the Army with my very own M16. I never had any problem getting beer. In those days, a military ID card was good enough for military and civilian drinking establishments, even if it was technically illegal in some places. We even had beer machines in the barracks when I was going to the U.S. Army Signal School at Fort Gordon, Georgia.
I would have been really pissed off if someone had said that I was too young and immature to have a few beers. I grew up in a family where drinking beer and wine was a normal part of life and it wasn’t unusual to have a glass of wine or beer with a meal. When I went to extended family picnics, it was normal to have a keg of beer, even when they were held in a county park. There was none of this “alcohol is evil” crap that is so prevalent today.
Can we ship the Puritans and all the other busy-bodies back to where they came from?
Shit pay? At 19, I was living in a three bedroom mostly-marble apartment at the foot of the Italian Alps, I was driving a relatively new BMW, and I was pulling in $35,000 a year (considering my rent and food were paid and I was receiving COLA).
After I separated, it took me three years as a civilian to earn that kind of living.
Don’t paint the picture that being in the military is always bad.
While an 18 year old is in high school they are around much younger underclassmen. If the drinking age were to be lowered to 18 then those younger would have even greater access to illegal booze than they do now, high school would be more like college.
Although moderate and responsible alcohol use is not a bad thing (may even have health benefits that outweigh risks) since when do teenagers do anything moderately and responsibly? This is the population that can still drop 20-30 White Castles and wear that badge with pride. Competitivness and perceived social status run amok in youth, always have and always will. It is this level of maturity that makes alcohol use under 18 more of a risk.
If we as parents are really interested in teaching our children responsibility and moderation then we will do it. It begins with television, moves on to Playstation and touches bases all around with conspicious consumerism, status symbols and social behaviors. If we cannot teach our children well in these areas sober then what the hell business do we have trying to teach them drunk?
That said, I don’t see why someone who picks up the banner and puts his/her life on the line in service should not have all rights established as at any age. Yes, allowing underage service men and women while continuing to restrict it for civilians seems like special treatment. But, we allow these 18 year olds to carry grenades and nobody else is allowed so isn’t that already special treatment? The military teen could get shot and die tomorrow, the university teen has better odds (slightly but still better), do we not see the difference?
The military works to instill dicipline and responsibility by it’s own necessity. Those who lack both are either weeded out, not accepted or killed in action. Those who are boarderline snap to somewhere around the front, right about when reality blows up in their face like an IED.
So yeah, I thing if a kid is 18 and in the military they should be allowed to drink. If a kid is 18 and in high school then no, they shouldn’t be allowed to drink.
-
They are still treated very differently from civilians by the government they have sworn to protect. That is what they signed up for, but minor differences in treatment can be two way if we continue the farce of a 21 drinking age.
-
Police can still quit, military cannot.
-
Good point, honestly, the best point you made. I can tell you that this was the only one that bothered me when I was in that age bracket and in the service. So I am letting my opinion be clouded by remembering how annoying and stupid it seemed back then.
When were you in and what was your rank?
I mean holy shit, no one at age 19 made close to that kind of money when I was in and I can’t even comprehend how what you wrote could be factual. E5 was about the highest enlisted rank that was possible for a 19 year old and Cadet for those in training to be an officer. Neither of these ranks could hope to make $35,000 per year as late as 1989.
I made at most, maybe $14,500 with sea pay and was lucky I had found a great '77 Camaro that I could afford and maintain myself. When I was in the pay was absolute shit. Somehow the money spent to build a 600 ship Navy and modern weapons for the other services never seemed to make it down to us serving.
I think you mentioned that you were 34 and so you seem to be saying by 1993 the pay scale had jumped that far? Something sounds wrong here. Perhaps you wrote the wrong figure or you are calculating in worth of benefits?
Jim
I gotta ask too - what the hell did you do? Were you the son of the CIA director?