Fighting For Country, Not Allowed A Beer: Age Conundrum

In the U.S., 18-year-olds can do almost anything – get married, vote, buy a house, smoke cigarettes, and even fight for their country – but they can't legally drink alcohol. This has led to debates about whether the minimum drinking age should be lowered, especially for those serving in the military. While some argue that allowing underage military drinking could lead to a dangerous mix of alcohol and firearms, others contend that service members who risk their lives for their country should have the right to drink responsibly. Ultimately, the discussion revolves around the question of whether those old enough to fight for their nation are old enough to be trusted with a beer.

The minimum drinking age is a state decision, but federal law mandates that it must be 21

The legal drinking age in the United States is 21, but this hasn't always been the case. In the 1970s, several states experimented with lowering the drinking age, and during World War II, uniformed military personnel were routinely served in bars across the country. However, in the 1980s, Congress changed the law to require American military bases to adhere to local drinking age laws, which in many states had been increased to 21.

While the minimum drinking age is technically a state decision, federal law mandates that it must be set at 21. This is because, in order to receive federal highway funding, states must agree to maintain a minimum drinking age of 21. As a result, all states have set their minimum drinking age at 21, despite the fact that young adults aged 18-20 are considered adults in many other respects. They can get married, vote, buy a house, and even serve in the military, yet they are not allowed to drink alcohol.

Some people argue that this is unfair, and that if someone is old enough to fight and die for their country, they should be allowed to drink alcohol. This argument has gained attention in recent years, with several states proposing legislation that would allow military members to drink at 18. Proponents of this change point out that active-duty troops under 21 were once able to drink responsibly on base, and that allowing them to drink off-base would be easy to implement and wouldn't lead to a military crisis.

On the other hand, opponents of lowering the drinking age for military members argue that it could encourage unhealthy behavior and increase drunken driving arrests. They also suggest that it could set a precedent for allowing other young people in dangerous professions, such as police or firefighters, to drink at a younger age. Despite these concerns, no state has successfully lowered the drinking age for military members, as doing so would risk losing millions of dollars in federal funding.

Drinking alcohol is a right and privilege of adulthood

In the US, the minimum drinking age is 21, and this is a federal law that was implemented in the 1980s. This was despite the minimum age being a state decision previously, with some states allowing 18-year-olds to drink. The change in law was influenced by organisations such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), who believed it would reduce drunk driving deaths. However, critics argue that drunk driving was already in decline across all age groups, and that the real issue is the country's unhealthy perception of alcohol.

Those in favour of lowering the drinking age to 18 argue that it is a person's right to consume alcohol if they are considered an adult, especially if they are willing to fight and die for their country. They believe that it is unfair to deny young adults all the rights and privileges of adulthood. Some also argue that the current law promotes binge drinking and contempt for the law, as it creates a culture of hidden drinking.

Additionally, it has been pointed out that in other countries, the drinking age is far lower than 21, and in some cases, there is no drinking age at all. For example, in Italy, alcohol can be consumed at any age. Despite this, the rates of alcoholism and teenage problem drinking are lower in these countries than in the US. This is believed to be due to the way in which American teens are introduced to alcohol, often in an unmonitored environment with their peers, as opposed to learning to think of alcohol as part of a meal, as is the case in many European countries.

Overall, the argument that drinking alcohol is a right and privilege of adulthood is a compelling one, particularly when considering the responsibilities and risks that are entrusted to young adults in other areas of their lives.

Drinking alcohol can lead to unhealthy behaviour and affect responsibilities

Alcohol consumption can also impact an individual's ability to fulfil their responsibilities, such as work or family obligations. Drinking can cause people to neglect their duties, arrive at work late or hungover, or make irresponsible decisions that can have far-reaching consequences.

In the context of the military, there are concerns that allowing underage drinking could encourage unhealthy behaviours and negatively impact the readiness and performance of troops. Opponents of lowering the drinking age for service members argue that mixing alcohol and easy access to firearms could be dangerous. They worry that troops may be more likely to drive while intoxicated or engage in misconduct, which could compromise military discipline and effectiveness.

However, proponents of changing the law argue that active-duty servicemen and women already have access to firearms and are trusted with significant responsibilities, including the power to kill. They argue that drinking alcohol does not inherently lead to irresponsible behaviour and that service members should be trusted to make mature decisions regarding alcohol consumption.

Additionally, some argue that the current drinking age laws create a culture of hidden drinking and disrespect for the law. By treating young adults as irresponsible, we may be encouraging binge drinking and contempt for authority.

The debate around this issue is complex and multifaceted, and it is essential to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of any policy change. While there are valid concerns about the potential negative consequences of alcohol consumption, it is also important to trust individuals, especially those serving in the military, to make responsible decisions and respect their rights as adults.

Drinking alcohol can increase drunken driving arrests and misconduct incidents

Drinking alcohol can have severe consequences, including an increase in drunken driving arrests and misconduct incidents. Alcohol impairs a person's judgment, coordination, and ability to make quick decisions, all of which are crucial for operating a vehicle safely. In the United States, driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol is defined as having a blood alcohol content (BAC) of at least 0.08%, which is illegal in all 50 states. The effects of alcohol on driving ability are significant even at lower BAC levels.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that approximately 11,654 Americans died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2020, accounting for 30% of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the country. These numbers translate to about 32 people dying every day, or one person every 45 minutes. The financial impact of drunk driving is also substantial, costing taxpayers $100 billion annually.

When it comes to the military, there is an ongoing debate about the legal drinking age for active-duty servicemen and women. While some argue that those who are old enough to fight and die for their country should be allowed to drink, others oppose changing the current law, which mandates a minimum drinking age of 21. Opponents of changing the law express concerns about a potential increase in drunken driving arrests and misconduct incidents among young soldiers. They argue that lowering the drinking age for military personnel could lead to more soldiers driving back from off-base bars while intoxicated, resulting in higher arrest rates. Additionally, alcohol is already involved in a significant number of misconduct incidents on military installations, and providing easier access to alcohol could potentially exacerbate this issue.

However, supporters of changing the law argue that it is unreasonable to deny adult servicemen and women the rights and privileges of adulthood, including the ability to drink alcohol responsibly. They contend that soldiers will still be subject to the same laws regarding drunken driving and that assuming they will start breaking the law shows a lack of faith in their discipline and responsibility. Furthermore, they argue that the current law promotes a negative perception of alcohol and contributes to binge drinking and contempt for the law among young adults.

Drinking alcohol can be viewed as a right of passage into adulthood

Drinking alcohol is often seen as a rite of passage into adulthood. This is reflected in the legal drinking age of 21 in the United States, which is intended to ensure that individuals are mature enough to handle alcohol responsibly. However, this age restriction has been the subject of debate, particularly in relation to members of the military, who are allowed to enlist and fight for their country at the age of 18.

The argument centres on the idea that if someone is deemed old enough to risk their life for their country, they should also be allowed to consume alcohol. This view is supported by the fact that, prior to the 1980s, military leaders had more leeway to allow on-base drinking under 21, and during World War II, uniformed military personnel were routinely served in bars across the United States. Today, 18-year-old service members are allowed to get married, vote, buy a house, and smoke cigarettes, but they are not permitted to drink alcohol.

Proponents of lowering the drinking age for military personnel argue that it is hypocritical to trust individuals with weapons and the responsibility of defending the nation while simultaneously denying them the right to drink. They contend that active-duty troops under 21 have been allowed to drink responsibly on base in the past and that forbidding off-base drinking is even more illogical. Additionally, they argue that the current policy contributes to a culture of hidden drinking and disrespect for the law.

On the other hand, opponents of lowering the drinking age for military personnel raise concerns about the potential dangers of mixing alcohol and gun-toting troops. They also worry that allowing underage military drinking could encourage unhealthy behaviour and increase drunken driving arrests. However, supporters of a lower drinking age counter that soldiers would still be subject to the same laws as civilians, and that suggesting they might start breaking the law shows a lack of faith in their discipline and responsibility.

Ultimately, the debate surrounding the drinking age for military personnel highlights the complex nature of alcohol regulation and the differing views on what constitutes a rite of passage into adulthood. While some see drinking as a natural part of adult life, others view it as a privilege that should be restricted to those who have reached a certain level of maturity, regardless of their other responsibilities or achievements.

Frequently asked questions