21 or 18?

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_perils_of_a_lower_drinking.html

Ok, this topic is one that we discussed long ago on politics.com. Now it seems as though some collegiate heads are petitioning to change the drinking age back to 18. Since this is a non-partisan issue I thought it would be a nice outlet for discussion.

Personally, I believe that the drinking age should be lowered back to 18. For many of the reasons stated in the article. If you are able to join the military, fight and potentially die for your country, you should be able to buy a beer. If you commit a crime and can be tried as an adult, potentially sent away for life or even receive the death penalty because you are "responsible for your actions" then you should be responsible enough to decide when to buy a beer.

I think they attempt to show correlation without causation. Yes, the number of alcohol related deaths has dropped, but given that it has done so in all age groups, I think it has more to do with stricter penalties for driving under the influence and more involvement from groups such as MADD and SADD.

If you use the authors position of 'it is harder for high school kids to get beer because 18 year old seniors are no longer able to buy beer' and follow that line of thinking, then why not extend the drinking age to 24 and use the same justification for college students? Hell, just extend the age to 35 and then it will REALLY be harder.

This line of thinking just doesn't hold up, from personal experience and the experiences of those I know... it was NEVER hard to get alcohol. If you wanted it, you found a way to get it. Same in college.
 
I think they should raise the age of military enlistment to 21
lower drinking to 19
 
Personally I have always found the argument of “If you’re old enough to be drafted and die in a jungle you’re old enough to drink legally” to be extremely compelling, and I don’t believe there is a good counter-argument to that.

Therefore I have always supported raising the age of military eligibility to 21.
 
LadyT said:
I think they should raise the age of military enlistment to 21
lower drinking to 19
Click to expand...

Well, I would have to disagree.... the defintion of "adult" should be the same regardless.

Voting, drinking age, military enlistment, legal system etc.... the age needs to be the same. No more voting at 18, drinking at 21, enlistment at 18, and prosecuting as adults at 18 (unless some arbitrary decision occurs to prosecute a 14 yr old as an adult) etc...

It needs to be consistent. IMO.
 
Superfreak said:
Well, I would have to disagree.... the defintion of "adult" should be the same regardless.

Voting, drinking age, military enlistment, legal system etc.... the age needs to be the same. No more voting at 18, drinking at 21, enlistment at 18, and prosecuting as adults at 18 (unless some arbitrary decision occurs to prosecute a 14 yr old as an adult) etc...

It needs to be consistent. IMO.
Click to expand...

personally i don't care what they do to the drinking age as long as they can control drinking and driving in that age group.

I still think you need to be at least 21 b/f joining hte military.
 
LadyT said:
personally i don't care what they do to the drinking age as long as they can control drinking and driving in that age group.

I still think you need to be at least 21 b/f joining hte military.
Click to expand...

If you make the punishment harsh enough and continue promoting groups likd MADD and SADD, then the numbers should stay down.

As for the military age, again I disagree. At 18 it should be up to the adult to decide. While you will get some that sign up without understanding the committment they are making, most do understand and sign up due to choice or potentially necessity. If you are looking to make sure that the number of "didn't know what they were getting into"'s are reduced as much as possible, then I would suggest the following if not already being done...

A very clear concise document (in laymens terms) that spell out the worst case scenarios (ie you are going to be in a hot zone with the possiblity that you could die) that every candidate must sign with a non-military adult witness to ensure everyone knows exactly what they are signing up for.
 
Superfreak said:
If you make the punishment harsh enough and continue promoting groups likd MADD and SADD, then the numbers should stay down.

As for the military age, again I disagree. At 18 it should be up to the adult to decide. While you will get some that sign up without understanding the committment they are making, most do understand and sign up due to choice or potentially necessity. If you are looking to make sure that the number of "didn't know what they were getting into"'s are reduced as much as possible, then I would suggest the following if not already being done...

A very clear concise document (in laymens terms) that spell out the worst case scenarios (ie you are going to be in a hot zone with the possiblity that you could die) that every candidate must sign with a non-military adult witness to ensure everyone knows exactly what they are signing up for.
Click to expand...

Its not that the contracts are unclear. Its that kids that age don't read them and they foolishly trust their recruiter at face value. Bottom line is that they are still kids and committing themselves to essentially endentured servitude through rose colored glasses. Its not ike they are signing a contract for a loan amount which is ultimately just money and an assets. This is their life that they are giving up and in my opinion not even comparable to how many shots they should have for their birthday.
 
LadyT said:
Its not that the contracts are unclear. Its that kids that age don't read them and they foolishly trust their recruiter at face value. Bottom line is that they are still kids and committing themselves to essentially endentured servitude through rose colored glasses. Its not ike they are signing a contract for a loan amount which is ultimately just money and an assets. This is their life that they are giving up and in my opinion not even comparable to how many shots they should have for their birthday.
Click to expand...

This is where we disagree then. Because while I agree that some ADULTS of that age are irresponsible and thus may not comprehend, I do not think it right to hold everyone to the standards of the lowest common denominator. If you will notice, my suggestion was that they also have a non-military adult with them to witness their signature and to make sure they understand.

While I do agree the military is a committment in which you cannot rescind and thus is more significant than entering other career paths or drinking etc... any age set is arbitrary. There are a lot of 22 year olds that don't have a friggin clue either. Age should not be the eliminating factor. IMO.
 
Superfreak said:
This is where we disagree then. Because while I agree that some ADULTS of that age are irresponsible and thus may not comprehend, I do not think it right to hold everyone to the standards of the lowest common denominator. If you will notice, my suggestion was that they also have a non-military adult with them to witness their signature and to make sure they understand.

While I do agree the military is a committment in which you cannot rescind and thus is more significant than entering other career paths or drinking etc... any age set is arbitrary. There are a lot of 22 year olds that don't have a friggin clue either. Age should not be the eliminating factor. IMO.
Click to expand...

I have a real problem with sending effective children to battle zones. I understand that we've arbitrarily stated that 18 is the age that you are an "adult", but the overwhelming majority of kids that age are not mature enough to fully understand what they've signed up for, what they are giving up, and the consequences of that until its too late. I"m sure they can pay lip service to it and mechanically know what's happening, but its not the same.

I could live with a few caveats if you say they can sign when they are 18:

1) absolutely no battle zones until they are 21
2) automatic renewal off contract offered 30 days before their 21st birthday in which time they can decide whether they want to stay in the military or leave
 
LadyT said:
I have a real problem with sending effective children to battle zones. I understand that we've arbitrarily stated that 18 is the age that you are an "adult", but the overwhelming majority of kids that age are not mature enough to fully understand what they've signed up for, what they are giving up, and the consequences of that until its too late. I"m sure they can pay lip service to it and mechanically know what's happening, but its not the same.

I could live with a few caveats if you say they can sign when they are 18:

1) absolutely no battle zones until they are 21
2) automatic renewal off contract offered 30 days before their 21st birthday in which time they can decide whether they want to stay in the military or leave
Click to expand...

Ok, we disagree on whether they are mature enough at 18.

But by your comments, then no one should be tried as an adult until they reach the age of 21.... and should also not have access to alcohol or tobacco until they hit 21 either. Also, if they are not responsible/mature enough at 18, then they should not be involved in electing our leaders. Because by your definition they are not capable of understanding the ramifications of their decisions and how it will affect them.

As for your caveats....

I would support having a one year training period, where they are guaranteed no hot zone/war deployments. I would also support a re-up requirement at the end of the one year period. They should know within a year what the military is like and whether or not they want to continue on.

I would add to that they would not be eligible for the GI bill etc... unless they chose to re-up. If they do choose to re-up then their four year commitment and bene's are retroactive to when they first signed up.
 
you can get married, or go in the military like Ib1 wants to and get your head blown off for some fat ass senators personal profit at 18.
But don't dare have a beer.
 
Darla said:
Personally I have always found the argument of “If you’re old enough to be drafted and die in a jungle you’re old enough to drink legally” to be extremely compelling, and I don’t believe there is a good counter-argument to that.

Therefore I have always supported raising the age of military eligibility to 21.
Click to expand...

ya but we no longer have a draft.. mute point

i dont have a problem lowering it to 18, the age isnt the problem. its the way people use it, and the laws that drive the problems... like a dry county, or hi price's from taxes, givving people more reason to preparty and drive under the influance.
 
Superfreak said:
Ok, we disagree on whether they are mature enough at 18.

But by your comments, then no one should be tried as an adult until they reach the age of 21.... and should also not have access to alcohol or tobacco until they hit 21 either. Also, if they are not responsible/mature enough at 18, then they should not be involved in electing our leaders. Because by your definition they are not capable of understanding the ramifications of their decisions and how it will affect them.

As for your caveats....

I would support having a one year training period, where they are guaranteed no hot zone/war deployments. I would also support a re-up requirement at the end of the one year period. They should know within a year what the military is like and whether or not they want to continue on.

I would add to that they would not be eligible for the GI bill etc... unless they chose to re-up. If they do choose to re-up then their four year commitment and bene's are retroactive to when they first signed up.
Click to expand...
That "one year training period" was well overspent when I was in, boot camp and a-school were about 1 and 1/2 years for me. Of course, there are others who have much shorter a-schools.
 
Superfreak said:
Well, I would have to disagree.... the defintion of "adult" should be the same regardless.

Voting, drinking age, military enlistment, legal system etc.... the age needs to be the same. No more voting at 18, drinking at 21, enlistment at 18, and prosecuting as adults at 18 (unless some arbitrary decision occurs to prosecute a 14 yr old as an adult) etc...

It needs to be consistent. IMO.
Click to expand...

Why should it be consistent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top