Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Old enough to fight, old enough to drink
SeattlePI.com ^ | September 24, 2008 | DEBRA J. SAUNDERS

Posted on 09/25/2008 8:42:51 AM PDT by NCDragon

At age 18, an American can enlist in the military, vote, sign a contract, get married, have an operation -- hey, in California, a 14-year-old can have an abortion without telling her parents -- but cannot buy a beer. Not legally, anyway.

It makes absolutely no sense, and it is shameful that my generation, which won the right to vote at age 18, continues to infantilize people who are allowed to make life-and-death decisions on every issue save one. We believe in rights -- except for those of college-age kids, even if they are serving in the military.

Enter the Amethyst Initiative, pushed by former Middlebury College President John McCardell and signed by more than 100 college presidents, which is pushing for Washington "to reopen public debate over the drinking age." According to McCardell, it is time for Washington to reconsider a 1984 measure, signed by President Ronald Reagan, that withheld 10 percent of highway funds from states that had a legal drinking age lower than 21.

The reason for the Amethyst Project -- named for a gemstone believed to be "an antidote to the negative effects of intoxication" -- is simple. Many college officials do not believe that the 21-year-old drinking age works. They believe that most students break the law. Worse, McCardell argues, they believe that the age fosters a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking."

(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: CMAC51
or a military ID. I can live with that.

How about a Selective Service card?

21 posted on 09/25/2008 10:24:15 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NCDragon

I fully agree—prohibition-for-young-adults doesn’t work any better than prohibition-for-all-adults did in the 1920s. People like to drink and they will, law or no law. And developing a culture of law-breaking is not good for America’s soul.

THE SOLE REASON given for the 21 drinking age has nothing to do with the military—it has to do with automobile accidents. Since people under 21 have by far the highest number of fatal accidents, when the age was raised there was indeed a significant drop in accidents in that age range.

Unfortunately the age 16 drivers age found in most places was crafted in the era of the Model A. And as most of us know who went to public schools, high school drivers ed is pretty much a joke. So poor driver’s training + inexperienced, often foolish kids, equals disaster on the highway. The control of 2 tons of steel hurtling down the road at high velocity should just not be treated so casually.

The solution though, for minimizing death rates among young drivers, is not the short cut of raising the drinking age....rather WE SHOULD GET SERIOUS ABOUT DRIVERS EDUCATION AND TRAINING. We have MUCH faster, more powerful—and therefore more deadly vehicles that we did when the current laws were crafted—and yet still, we Americans treat driving as virtually a right, not a privilege.

In my state one need not to even be able to read the English on a traffic sign to get a license.

Take Germany for example. Their drinking aged was just last year RAISED to 18 (it used to be 16). Their car accident death rate is 8 per 100,000. That’s almost HALF of our rate of 15 per 100,000....and THAT’S IN A COUNTRY WITH UNLIMITED SPEED LIMITS ON MANY OF THEIR HIGHWAYS.

Driver’s ed in Germany is not in the public schools, is very intensive, costs quite a bit to take, and takes several months—with a high failure rate at that. Germans definitely treat driving not as a right, but a privilege.

It it perfect? No. Do they have some terrible accidents and drunk driving on the Autobahn? Yes—but still CLOSE TO HALF of our accident rate.

If we lower the 21 drinking age, it should be linked to raising the standards (greatly) for drivers education—and requiring adults to take it too (which also is common not to require)—as driving on public roads is dangerous, and should be treated as a privilege to be earned, not a right.


22 posted on 09/25/2008 10:27:13 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
How about a Selective Service card?

A selective service card does not in any way indicate the individual has been called on or voluntarily made the step into adulthood. Today's 18 year olds are predominately immature self involved individuals. Absent demonstrable evidence to the contrary, they are not prepared for the responsibility of adulthood.

23 posted on 09/25/2008 11:22:18 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
How about a Selective Service card?

A selective service card does not in any way indicate the individual has been called on or voluntarily made the step into adulthood. Today's 18 year olds are predominately immature self involved individuals. Absent demonstrable evidence to the contrary, they are not prepared for the responsibility of adulthood.

24 posted on 09/25/2008 11:22:19 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
How about a Selective Service card?

A selective service card does not in any way indicate the individual has been called on or voluntarily made the step into adulthood. Today's 18 year olds are predominately immature self involved individuals. Absent demonstrable evidence to the contrary, they are not prepared for the responsibility of adulthood.

25 posted on 09/25/2008 11:22:33 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51
A selective service card does not in any way indicate the individual has been called on or voluntarily made the step into adulthood.

A Selective Service card indicates the individual is recognized, by Congress, as a member of the US militia, being an able-bodied male citizen 17-45, registered as our Founding Fathers prototyped in the Militia Act of 1792. The individual may be called up at any time and pressed into front-line service post haste. As a free adult citizen so recognized, they are expected to act as such.

26 posted on 09/25/2008 12:08:35 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
As a free adult citizen so recognized, they are expected to act as such.

Okay, I get it now, you are just trying to be funny.

27 posted on 09/25/2008 12:13:26 PM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51

Half funny.

Methinks a major problem is that our society has no “coming of age” ritual, no goal for a child to seek adulthood, no way for one to know they ARE an adult, no reason for anyone else to see them as one or not, no way for society to say “nope, you haven’t earned it yet, shape up”. Those supporting 18 as a may-drink age point to [potentially] obligatory military service and risk, while those in opposition point to late-teens acting like dangerous lunatics - _and_both_are_right_. We have no way for society to say to a youth “you have demonstrated yourself an upstanding responsible contributor to society - here, have a beer”.

In parallel, we have a government which won’t LET youth prove themselves militarily without total commitment thereto. The Founding Fathers expect all males of age would equip & train themselves to at least a minimum degree, and register that capability (as an informative “here I am”, not a “may I please”). Nowdays, if you want basic competence with an M16 you have to commit your life to the military instead of buying one at Wal-Mart for $700. Ergo, I’m inclined to say: don’t pull the “with military ID” thing unless one can, as the 2nd Amendment is primarily for, equip and train self accordingly.


28 posted on 09/25/2008 12:41:48 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Second, if one wants to base changing the law to 18 because one might be called upon to defend the country in uniform, then make the rule state that those that actually do defend the country in uniform legally drink, not just those who reach the age. Make it on actual merit, not potential merit.

I think potential merit is important. Enlisting in the military is a life-changing, possibly life-ending decision. If we say someone is old enough to make the decision to enlist, then they are certainly old enough to make the decision to buy and drink a beer.

29 posted on 09/25/2008 1:33:11 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NCDragon

A lot of the young soldiers here drink because there is not really anything else for them to do. They fight when they drink and can sometimes get pretty destructive. My husband has been called several times in the middle of the night to come and help deal with a drunken soldier. Before we met, my husband said he used to drink pretty heavily, thank goodness he no longer does. I think they should be allowed to drink at age 18 if they are serving their country, just wish some of them didn’t drink as heavily as they do.


30 posted on 09/25/2008 2:31:02 PM PDT by dougherty (I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free. - Michelangelo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timm22
The point isn't the age it is the maturity to do the right thing at that age.

Potential to enlist isn't the same as enlisting.

Considering defending the country isn't the same as doing it.

Thinking about service to country isn't the same as serving it.

Let those who actually chose to defend the country enjoy an additional privilege.

31 posted on 09/25/2008 5:08:54 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (She has a stronger resume than Obama. She's been a real mayor, he hasn't. She has been a real govern)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NCDragon
Old enough to fight, old enough to drink

And old enough to purchase a handgun to defend yourself and others

Current federal law requires one to be 21 to purchase a handgun from a FFL,you can own one at 18, and in some states purchase one from a individual.

32 posted on 09/25/2008 9:05:04 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
The point isn't the age it is the maturity to do the right thing at that age. Potential to enlist isn't the same as enlisting... Let those who actually chose to defend the country enjoy an additional privilege.

I agree with much of what you said. No matter what, someone who *has* served their country deserves full treatment as an adult. Ideally, that is how people should be able to take on the rights of adulthood; by demonstrating their maturity.

Unfortunately, that's not the system we have. For a variety of reasons, we assign (most) of the rights of adulthood at a certain age. Within this system we can debate what that age should be. But whatever we decide is the proper age, there should be some consistency in how we recognize rights once a person reaches that age.

It is inconsistent, in my opinion, to say that everyone at 18 can make the VERY serious decision to enlist in the military, but that they are incapable of being trusted with the decision to drink a beer.

I think you may underestimate the significance of the *potential* to enlist. When we say Joe Snuffy may enlist, we are saying that he has the capacity to make a very serious decision that will affect his life and the lives of many others. Just before Joe Snuffy signs the dotted line, he hasn't proven anything about himself. As far as we know, he's just like any other 18 year old out there. He may have never worked a day in his life, owned up to his past mistakes, or contributed anything else to society.

But we still believe him to be capable of committing himself to several years of military service. That's putting a lot of confidence in someone who hasn't demonstrated anything about his maturity at that point. Why is he capable of this decision- without having ever proven anything about himself, mind you- but not the decision to buy a beer?

Would you likewise restrict the right of an 18 year old to marry, enter a contract, purchase a firearm, vote, or exercise any other adult right if he had not actually served in the military?

33 posted on 09/26/2008 12:14:45 AM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: timm22
Would you likewise restrict the right of an 18 year old to marry, enter a contract, purchase a firearm, vote, or exercise any other adult right if he had not actually served in the military?

If those issues were brought up in the same context of 'if they're old enough to fight they're old enough to....' then I'll stick with the idea that once they actually put themselves in the position of having the responsibility then they can have the privilege.

Are there inconsistencies that I don't understand? Sure. Why can an 18 year old buy .22 ammo for a rifle but not for a pistol?

IMO by denying youths alcohol until 18, 19, or 21 we provide incentives for abuse by way of the Forbidden Fruit instead of teaching them responsibility as the mature.

Again, imo privileges go to those who step up to the potential not just because of the potential.

34 posted on 09/26/2008 7:43:21 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (She has a stronger resume than Obama. She's been a real mayor, he hasn't. She has been a real govern)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
If those issues were brought up in the same context of 'if they're old enough to fight they're old enough to....' then I'll stick with the idea that once they actually put themselves in the position of having the responsibility then they can have the privilege....Again, imo privileges go to those who step up to the potential not just because of the potential.

I do understand where you are coming from. While I don't agree with your approach, you seem consistent in how you would assign the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. That's what is most important to me.

35 posted on 09/26/2008 8:19:58 AM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NCDragon

The law should be changed back to 18 — or at the very least it should be thrown back to the states instead of being used as extortion by the FedGov. And it’s not just about “fighting and dying for your country,” although that is certainly a valid point.

There are millions of responsible young adults out there who are over 18, handling adult responsibilities (like paying income taxes on their wages). Of course we rarely hear of them in the news ‘cause good kids make for boring TV. Nevertheless, they’re out there.

That being said, I’m afraid I have to agree with the Europeans on this one (and I almost NEVER do that). They seem to have a handle on how to teach their young people
the ins and outs of social drinking with much less binge drinking going on. In other words, the parents should be the final arbiters on how to go about completing this task, and NOT the government.

Regards,

PS: I have more respect for parents who teach their children about responsible drinking and make Junior work for and purchase his beat-up used first car than I do for teatotallers who buy Junior a brand-new Mustang for his 16th birthday.


36 posted on 09/26/2008 8:36:05 AM PDT by VermiciousKnid (Wake up and smell the incense!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

Bravo.

Well stated.


37 posted on 09/26/2008 8:41:53 AM PDT by PurpleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson