Americans Still Oppose Lowering the Drinking Age 74%-25%.

  • 132 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by Master_Live (15112 posts) 5 months, 24 days ago

Poll: Americans Still Oppose Lowering the Drinking Age 74%-25%. (57 votes)

Yes, the drinking age should be lowered to 18. 54%
No, the drinking age should not be lowered to 18. 46%

Reject lowering age to 18 by 74% to 25%

Some people are just hypocrites, kids can go die for you abroad at 18 but can't drink a cold one at home.

Let the states set the drinking age without the heavy handedness of the federal government or lets standardize the age for drinking and joining the Army.

What you OT?

#51 Posted by Jacanuk (4960 posts) -

Good to see America is at least not that dumb so they would agree with lowering the age to 18

#52 Edited by dave123321 (34196 posts) -

Like we do get the confusion over why we can be trusted with the lives of other people but not with our ability to handle alcohol in a responsible manner, right?

People's willingness to serve isn't related to that factor.

#53 Posted by dave123321 (34196 posts) -

You can certainly try to just fight against people who only use it as some excuse that they dont really give a shit about, but then what are you really arguing about.

Like look at air. He's not a punk kid

#54 Posted by Serraph105 (28280 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic:

You know I have actually considered the economic aspect of raising the age of requirement for the military. A lot of people have to wait to get a decent paying job after they get out of high school either because college takes a few years or working their way up on a corporation takes time without a degree.

I guess my point is would it be that strange for kids to have to wait for a decent paying job when it comes to the military? Hmm maybe my argument should be refined a bit. Perhaps I should argue that you can serve in the armed forces prior to being 21, but not be allowed to see combat until then. Furthermore to do so you need to voluntarily reapply at that point in time.

That might be a better balance than simply not being allowed to do so.

#55 Posted by Shmiity (5171 posts) -

It's strange that it's 21 and not 18, but I don't care that much about this issue. I don't drink at all.

#56 Edited by ad1x2 (5730 posts) -

@airshocker: The drinking age and the age to join the military aren’t really supposed to be linked. The reasons for the drinking age have less to do with your ability to fight and more to do with maturity and pressure from the families of victims of drunk drivers. Some people just aren’t mature enough to drink and since we can’t give a test before giving out beer Uncle Sam just picked a number and went with it. That young 19-year old fresh out of high school who enlisted may be too immature to drink responsibly but in combat his leadership can mentor him so he does what he needs to do to be successful.

It just happens to be something college-aged men and women like to bring up so they don’t have to use alternative, illegal means to acquire alcohol. I would not be opposed to the drinking age being lowered because I know people are going to drink regardless. I also remember having a 20-year old Soldier under me get busted from E-3 to E-1 while I was in Camp Bucca, Iraq because of the fact that a month earlier he got shitfaced and altered his ID to get the booze while we were still in Georgia.

Fact of the matter is I could think of a handful of reasons to justify lowering the drinking age that has absolutely nothing to do with the 18-20 year olds who are either unwilling and/or unable to enlist that like to use the minimum age to join the military as an excuse why they should be able to drink. I just find it funny when some 20-year old overweight person who dropped out of school is trying to tell me he can enlist and die but he can’t drink.

#57 Posted by airshocker (30354 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@airshocker: The drinking age and the age to join the military aren’t really supposed to be linked. The reasons for the drinking age have less to do with your ability to fight and more to do with maturity and pressure from the families of victims of drunk drivers. Some people just aren’t mature enough to drink and since we can’t give a test before giving out beer Uncle Sam just picked a number and went with it. That young 19-year old fresh out of high school who enlisted may be too immature to drink responsibly but in combat his leadership can mentor him so he does what he needs to do to be successful.

It just happens to be something college-aged men and women like to bring up so they don’t have to use alternative, illegal means to acquire alcohol. I would not be opposed to the drinking age being lowered because I know people are going to drink regardless. I also remember having a 20-year old Soldier under me get busted from E-3 to E-1 while I was in Camp Bucca, Iraq because of the fact that a month earlier he got shitfaced and altered his ID to get the booze while we were still in Georgia.

Fact of the matter is I could think of a handful of reasons to justify lowering the drinking age that has absolutely nothing to do with the 18-20 year olds who are either unwilling and/or unable to enlist that like to use the minimum age to join the military as an excuse why they should be able to drink. I just find it funny when some 20-year old overweight person who dropped out of school is trying to tell me he can enlist and die but he can’t drink.

1) It's an arbitrary distinction. Everybody is different at every age.

2) The fact that you are considered an adult at 18 means that the drinking age should be lowered to that age.

That's really all that needs to be said on the matter.

#58 Posted by ad1x2 (5730 posts) -

@Serraph105: It wouldn’t be practical to allow people to join at 18 but exempt them from combat until they are 21. Units train and deploy together and if 30% of the unit is under 21 then the unit is only deploying at 70% strength. The military does allow you to join at 17 with parental consent but won’t allow you to deploy until you are 18. That is more practical because even if you ship to basic three weeks after you turn 17 by the time you finish all of your training you will be close to turning 18 if you haven’t turned already.

#59 Posted by MrGeezer (56665 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@MrGeezer said:

@airshocker said:

I'm not sure what your point is but either way if someone is old enough to serve their country, then that age should be the drinking age,

You can keep talking about it, but nothing is going to change my opinion on the matter.

The fact that you can't explain your position on the matter goes hand in hand with why nothing is going to change your opinion. That's a sign that you haven't really thought very hard about it, and aren't particularly willing to.

Again, WHY is it that being old enough to serve one's country entitles them to drink (or do other drugs, or hire a hooker, or anything else that's also currently illegal)? What exactly do the two things have to do with each other?

No, it's a sign that I don't believe your reasoning means anything with regards to this issue.

So...you're still not gonna explain your reasoning? Again, what the hell does being legally allowed to drink have to do with serving in the military? Can you please enlighten me on some kind of connection in which being able to do one entails being able to do the other?

My "reasoning" is simply "the argument presented seems like bullshit because no one seems to be able to explain how it makes sense." If you can explain how the military argument makes sense, then by all means go ahead.

#60 Posted by Serraph105 (28280 posts) -

@ad1x2:

I think that is a discussion of whether or not being practical is the same as being morally correct. There are plenty of jobs in the military that are not related to combat. Surely those can be done by the younger population of the armed forces. Meanwhile they can decide whether or combat is right for themselves as they grow older.

#61 Posted by airshocker (30354 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

So...you're still not gonna explain your reasoning? Again, what the hell does being legally allowed to drink have to do with serving in the military? Can you please enlighten me on some kind of connection in which being able to do one entails being able to do the other?

My "reasoning" is simply "the argument presented seems like bullshit because no one seems to be able to explain how it makes sense." If you can explain how the military argument makes sense, then by all means go ahead.

Why should I? Nothing you say is going to change my mind on the issue. I don't really give a fuck what you think about it.

#62 Posted by MrGeezer (56665 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@MrGeezer said:

So...you're still not gonna explain your reasoning? Again, what the hell does being legally allowed to drink have to do with serving in the military? Can you please enlighten me on some kind of connection in which being able to do one entails being able to do the other?

My "reasoning" is simply "the argument presented seems like bullshit because no one seems to be able to explain how it makes sense." If you can explain how the military argument makes sense, then by all means go ahead.

Why should I? Nothing you say is going to change my mind on the issue. I don't really give a fuck what you think about it.

Fair enough. But like I said before, that just sort of suggests that you didn't really think about it in the first place. If you're convinced that you''l never change your mind, and are simultaneously unable to explain the logic supporting your arguments, that is usually indicative of an argument that is held on shaky ground. That's sort of the same thing we see when religious fundamentalists get into debates with scientists.

#63 Posted by airshocker (30354 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@airshocker said:

@MrGeezer said:

So...you're still not gonna explain your reasoning? Again, what the hell does being legally allowed to drink have to do with serving in the military? Can you please enlighten me on some kind of connection in which being able to do one entails being able to do the other?

My "reasoning" is simply "the argument presented seems like bullshit because no one seems to be able to explain how it makes sense." If you can explain how the military argument makes sense, then by all means go ahead.

Why should I? Nothing you say is going to change my mind on the issue. I don't really give a fuck what you think about it.

Fair enough. But like I said before, that just sort of suggests that you didn't really think about it in the first place. If you're convinced that you''l never change your mind, and are simultaneously unable to explain the logic supporting your arguments, that is usually indicative of an argument that is held on shaky ground. That's sort of the same thing we see when religious fundamentalists get into debates with scientists.

No, that suggests I've thought a lot about it. Which is why I'm not going to be swayed by anything you say. Just because I'm not going to argue with you about it is meaningless.

Some of us believe freedom is paramount. I'm one of those people.

#64 Edited by indzman (18927 posts) -

MrGreezer is becoming like thegerg on OT ... lol.

#65 Posted by always_explicit (2972 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

Good to see America is at least not that dumb so they would agree with lowering the age to 18

Lowering the age is not dumb at all. The American age of 21 is a relic left over from prohibition, it was lowered in the 70's and raised again in the 80's.

What people forget is that setting a legal age of purchase doesnt stop alcohol related problems from occurring. Alcohol is always going to be a intoxicant and maturity is always going to be variable.

Plenty of countries have a legal drinking age of 18. Peoples attitudes change based on the laws that govern them. Relaxing laws such as allowing drinking with adult supervision means younger people can be introduced to alcohol gradually, learn their preferences and learn their tolerance levels before they turn 21 go to vegas have their first beer and fall out a hotel window.

#66 Posted by MrGeezer (56665 posts) -

@airshocker said:

No, that suggests I've thought a lot about it. Which is why I'm not going to be swayed by anything you say. Just because I'm not going to argue with you about it is meaningless.

Some of us believe freedom is paramount. I'm one of those people.

So sway ME. If it's a cause worth supporting, then wouldn't you want more people to see it your way?

All you've gotta do is adequately explain how this works. Which should be pretty easy for you to accomplish if your reasoning really is so sound and you really have put that much thought into it.

#67 Edited by lamprey263 (24417 posts) -

I would be in favor of allowing legalization of alcohol for consumption for underage people on the restriction that it must be done in the person's place of residence and only in their place of residence. There you go, they can drink and die for their country.

I don't think we should allow for it in the United States. I also don't think we should look at other countries that do allow for it at 18 or sometimes lower. In some of those countries they're much more densely populated, and when kids drink they simply walk down to the local watering whole, and/or they've much more reliable public transportation that people typically utilize on much larger scales. In the US everything is so sprawled out everywhere and people drive a hell of a lot more, and with that in mind it's far too great of a risk to allow teenagers to drink and then potentially drive.

#69 Edited by SolidSnake35 (58133 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

@limpbizkit818 said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

Either you're an adult at 18 or you're not. An age restriction at 21 suggests not.

Why link adulthood with alcohol consumption?

What other distinction is there? If you're an adult at 18, what happens at 21?

At 21, in the US, a person is lawfully old enough to drink.

Yes, what I meant was, what happens to an adult at 21? Greater maturity? Why not 20 or 22?

And the military thing is relevant insofar as you can't join the military until you're an adult. So if you're an adult at 18, what distinguishes a 20 year old from a 21 year old? Maturity or.. what?

#70 Posted by toast_burner (21990 posts) -

Can someone tell me why you even need a drinking age at all?

#71 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58133 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

Can someone tell me why you even need a drinking age at all?

To stop 10 year olds downing a bottle of vodka they just bought.

#72 Posted by toast_burner (21990 posts) -

@SolidSnake35 said:

@toast_burner said:

Can someone tell me why you even need a drinking age at all?

To stop 10 year olds downing a bottle of vodka they just bought.

No drinking age doesn't mean it's ok to sell alcohol to children.

In the UK the drinking age is 5 years old in a private premise. However you have to be 18 to buy it.

#73 Posted by Netret0120 (2255 posts) -

Lol like anyone seriously believes kids aren't drinking before they are 21 LMAO!

But that logic perplexes me. They are old enough to watch porn at 18 and a drivers license at 16 but drinking is a big no no:-\

#74 Posted by thegerg (15652 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@ad1x2 said:

@airshocker: The drinking age and the age to join the military aren’t really supposed to be linked. The reasons for the drinking age have less to do with your ability to fight and more to do with maturity and pressure from the families of victims of drunk drivers. Some people just aren’t mature enough to drink and since we can’t give a test before giving out beer Uncle Sam just picked a number and went with it. That young 19-year old fresh out of high school who enlisted may be too immature to drink responsibly but in combat his leadership can mentor him so he does what he needs to do to be successful.

It just happens to be something college-aged men and women like to bring up so they don’t have to use alternative, illegal means to acquire alcohol. I would not be opposed to the drinking age being lowered because I know people are going to drink regardless. I also remember having a 20-year old Soldier under me get busted from E-3 to E-1 while I was in Camp Bucca, Iraq because of the fact that a month earlier he got shitfaced and altered his ID to get the booze while we were still in Georgia.

Fact of the matter is I could think of a handful of reasons to justify lowering the drinking age that has absolutely nothing to do with the 18-20 year olds who are either unwilling and/or unable to enlist that like to use the minimum age to join the military as an excuse why they should be able to drink. I just find it funny when some 20-year old overweight person who dropped out of school is trying to tell me he can enlist and die but he can’t drink.

1) It's an arbitrary distinction. Everybody is different at every age.

2) The fact that you are considered an adult at 18 means that the drinking age should be lowered to that age.

That's really all that needs to be said on the matter.

"The fact that you are considered an adult at 18 means that the drinking age should be lowered to that age."

Why, exactly? I agree that the drinking age should be lower, but I fail to see why the arbitrary age of majority (18) is the reason it should be.

#75 Posted by thegerg (15652 posts) -

@SolidSnake35 said:

@thegerg said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

@limpbizkit818 said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

Either you're an adult at 18 or you're not. An age restriction at 21 suggests not.

Why link adulthood with alcohol consumption?

What other distinction is there? If you're an adult at 18, what happens at 21?

At 21, in the US, a person is lawfully old enough to drink.

Yes, what I meant was, what happens to an adult at 21? Greater maturity? Why not 20 or 22?

And the military thing is relevant insofar as you can't join the military until you're an adult. So if you're an adult at 18, what distinguishes a 20 year old from a 21 year old? Maturity or.. what?

"Yes, what I meant was, what happens to an adult at 21?"

They reach the age at which they can legally buy and use alcohol in the US. I guess the belief behind it is that these older young adults are more responsible than 18-20 year olds.

"And the military thing is relevant insofar as you can't join the military until you're an adult."

Not here in the US.

#76 Edited by udUbdaWgz1 (631 posts) -

i laugh at anybody thinking the age should be lowered to anything other than 21 in america. it's a perfect age, since, it deters and provides mild and severe punishment for those in high school and in their first few years after, most likely, while in college. stupid teenage and young adult abuse of alcohol is serious business and lowering the age limit takes the rationale of a mind lacking in critical thought.

at those times, humans are not fully developed physically and, more importantly, mentally. they don't deserve the freedom of responsible drinking.

ironically, i am not against parents or grandparents allowing their children to learn responsible drinking behavior while in their presence.

#77 Edited by airshocker (30354 posts) -

@thegerg said:

"The fact that you are considered an adult at 18 means that the drinking age should be lowered to that age."

Why, exactly? I agree that the drinking age should be lower, but I fail to see why the arbitrary age of majority (18) is the reason it should be.

Not because it's THAT age but because that's the age the government, as it is right now, considers you an adult. I don't care if it's set even lower with parental consent but it has to be lower in commensurate with the responsibilities that age is given(the ability to enlist, the smoking age in most parts of the country, and the age the law considers someone an adult and thus fully responsible for their actions under the law).

#78 Posted by airshocker (30354 posts) -
@MrGeezer said:

@airshocker said:

No, that suggests I've thought a lot about it. Which is why I'm not going to be swayed by anything you say. Just because I'm not going to argue with you about it is meaningless.

Some of us believe freedom is paramount. I'm one of those people.

So sway ME. If it's a cause worth supporting, then wouldn't you want more people to see it your way?

All you've gotta do is adequately explain how this works. Which should be pretty easy for you to accomplish if your reasoning really is so sound and you really have put that much thought into it.


But I don't care how you feel on the matter.

#79 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58133 posts) -

@thegerg said:

"Yes, what I meant was, what hppens to an adult at 21?"

They reach the age at which they can legally buy and use alcohol in the US. I guess the belief behind it is that these older young adults are more responsible than 18-20 year olds.

"And the military thing is relevant insofar as you can't join the military until you're an adult."

Not here in the US.

Not responsible enough to drink a beer, but responsible enough to handle an assault rifle?

#80 Posted by thegerg (15652 posts) -

@udubdawgz1 said:

i laugh at anybody thinking the age should be lowered to anything other than 21 in america. it's a perfect age, since, it deters and provides mild and severe punishment for those in high school and in their first few years after, most likely, while in college. stupid teenage and young adult abuse of alcohol is serious business and lowering the age limit takes the rationale of a mind lacking in critical thought.

at those times, humans are not fully developed physically and, more importantly, mentally. they don't deserve the freedom of responsible drinking.

ironically, i am not against parents or grandparents allowing their children to learn responsible drinking behavior while in their presence.

"they don't deserve the freedom of responsible drinking. "

So continuing to allow their only option when it comes to alcohol use to be that which is irresponsible and unlawful is the right choice?

"i am not against parents or grandparents allowing their children to learn responsible drinking behavior while in their presence."

You think it should be illegal, but you're not against it?

#81 Edited by thegerg (15652 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@thegerg said:

"The fact that you are considered an adult at 18 means that the drinking age should be lowered to that age."

Why, exactly? I agree that the drinking age should be lower, but I fail to see why the arbitrary age of majority (18) is the reason it should be.

Not because it's THAT age but because that's the age the government, as it is right now, considers you an adult. I don't care if it's set even lower with parental consent but it has to be lower in commensurate with the responsibilities that age is given(the ability to enlist, the smoking age in most parts of the country, and the age the law considers someone an adult and thus fully responsible for their actions under the law).

I see. I think it's important to point out, though, that the drinking age is not the only age-limit that exists for certain things after legal majority.

#82 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (631 posts) -

@SolidSnake35: lol, i reject that rationale outright. to compare the physiological impact that alcohol has on one's mind and body to the use of a rifle is unbelievably foolish.

as well, you're completely eliminating the fact that people over 18 who sign up for the armed forces are trained to use rifles.

your opinion is proven false.

#83 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58133 posts) -

@udubdawgz1 said:

@SolidSnake35: lol, i reject that rationale outright. to compare the physiological impact that alcohol has on one's mind and body to the use of a rifle is unbelievably foolish.

as well, you're completely eliminating the fact that people over 18 who sign up for the armed forces are trained to use rifles.

your opinion is proven false.

The improper use of either can be dangerous. A comparison in that regard is fine. You offer only rhetoric in response.

And, I'm eliminating a fact? What does it mean to "eliminate" a fact? What fact did I eliminate here? The fact that people over 18 use rifles in the army? That fact was part of my argument.

You won't prove anything false with that pathetic attempt at reasoning.

#84 Posted by toast_burner (21990 posts) -

@udubdawgz1 said:

@SolidSnake35: lol, i reject that rationale outright. to compare the physiological impact that alcohol has on one's mind and body to the use of a rifle is unbelievably foolish.

as well, you're completely eliminating the fact that people over 18 who sign up for the armed forces are trained to use rifles.

your opinion is proven false.

So alcohol is more damaging to the body than a bullet? Even if you don't get shot, being in the army can seriously effect your mental health.

#85 Edited by SaintLeonidas (26445 posts) -

You are considered an adult at 18 and no longer under your parents guardianship. At 18 you can vote, smoke, gamble, join the army, marry...why you can't then also legally buy/drink alcohol is beyond me.

#86 Posted by EPICCOMMANDER (658 posts) -
@toast_burner said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

@toast_burner said:

Can someone tell me why you even need a drinking age at all?

To stop 10 year olds downing a bottle of vodka they just bought.

In the UK the drinking age is 5 years old in a private premise.

Sorry, but I find that incredibly reckless. A 5 year-old drinking even a small amount of alcohol has been scientifically proven to result in liver damage. Just for clarification, I'm for lowering the drinking age to 18 or maybe even 17, but no lower than that.

#87 Edited by toast_burner (21990 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER said:
@toast_burner said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

@toast_burner said:

Can someone tell me why you even need a drinking age at all?

To stop 10 year olds downing a bottle of vodka they just bought.

In the UK the drinking age is 5 years old in a private premise.

Sorry, but I find that incredibly reckless. A 5 year-old drinking even a small amount of alcohol has been scientifically proven to result in liver damage. Just for clarification, I'm for lowering the drinking age to 18 or maybe even 17, but no lower than that.

Just because something isn't illegal, that doesn't mean you have to do it.

Why do you need the law enforcing stuff like this? Should this be down to the parents and proper education about alcohol and other drugs?

#88 Posted by EPICCOMMANDER (658 posts) -
@toast_burner said:

@EPICCOMMANDER said:
@toast_burner said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

@toast_burner said:

Can someone tell me why you even need a drinking age at all?

To stop 10 year olds downing a bottle of vodka they just bought.

In the UK the drinking age is 5 years old in a private premise.

Sorry, but I find that incredibly reckless. A 5 year-old drinking even a small amount of alcohol has been scientifically proven to result in liver damage. Just for clarification, I'm for lowering the drinking age to 18 or maybe even 17, but no lower than that.

Just because something isn't illegal, that doesn't mean you have to do it.

Why do you need the law enforcing stuff like this? Should this be down to the parents and proper education about alcohol and other drugs?

As if making an activity legal removes the harms of the activity. In this case, giving a 5 year-old something that damages one of the most critically important organs in the body isn't a good decision in my eyes, and it should be illegal in all circumstances. What the hell is the 5 year-old going to gain from it anyway? Get drunk and have a night out on the town?

#89 Edited by toast_burner (21990 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER said:
@toast_burner said:

@EPICCOMMANDER said:
@toast_burner said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

@toast_burner said:

Can someone tell me why you even need a drinking age at all?

To stop 10 year olds downing a bottle of vodka they just bought.

In the UK the drinking age is 5 years old in a private premise.

Sorry, but I find that incredibly reckless. A 5 year-old drinking even a small amount of alcohol has been scientifically proven to result in liver damage. Just for clarification, I'm for lowering the drinking age to 18 or maybe even 17, but no lower than that.

Just because something isn't illegal, that doesn't mean you have to do it.

Why do you need the law enforcing stuff like this? Should this be down to the parents and proper education about alcohol and other drugs?

As if making an activity legal removes the harms of the activity. In this case, giving a 5 year-old something that damages one of the most critically important organs in the body isn't a good decision in my eyes, and it should be illegal in all circumstances. What the hell is the 5 year-old going to gain from it anyway? Get drunk and have a night out on the town?

Seeing how you have no intention on debating this rationally and instead resort to strawmen, I'm going to give up now.

#90 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58133 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER said:
@toast_burner said:

@EPICCOMMANDER said:
@toast_burner said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

@toast_burner said:

Can someone tell me why you even need a drinking age at all?

To stop 10 year olds downing a bottle of vodka they just bought.

In the UK the drinking age is 5 years old in a private premise.

Sorry, but I find that incredibly reckless. A 5 year-old drinking even a small amount of alcohol has been scientifically proven to result in liver damage. Just for clarification, I'm for lowering the drinking age to 18 or maybe even 17, but no lower than that.

Just because something isn't illegal, that doesn't mean you have to do it.

Why do you need the law enforcing stuff like this? Should this be down to the parents and proper education about alcohol and other drugs?

As if making an activity legal removes the harms of the activity. In this case, giving a 5 year-old something that damages one of the most critically important organs in the body isn't a good decision in my eyes, and it should be illegal in all circumstances. What the hell is the 5 year-old going to gain from it anyway? Get drunk and have a night out on the town?

Is it legal for kids to drink wine at Church in the US? Just one instance that came to mind.

#91 Posted by thegerg (15652 posts) -

@SolidSnake35 said:

@thegerg said:

"Yes, what I meant was, what hppens to an adult at 21?"

They reach the age at which they can legally buy and use alcohol in the US. I guess the belief behind it is that these older young adults are more responsible than 18-20 year olds.

"And the military thing is relevant insofar as you can't join the military until you're an adult."

Not here in the US.

Not responsible enough to drink a beer, but responsible enough to handle an assault rifle?

This question makes no sense.

#92 Posted by Wilfred_Owen (20895 posts) -

Whats absurd here is that an 18 year old in the military can drink if the host countries laws allow it but as soon as he gets back to the states it's illegal. Ha Ha Ha!

#93 Edited by Wolf-Man2006 (4187 posts) -

I'm not affected since I'm almost 22

#94 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@GamingGod999 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@GamingGod999 said:

If those who are 18 aren't "mature" enough to purchase and consume alcohol, then they're certainly not prepared to fight for their country abroad.

Law>your opinion.

Laws can change.

Yeah, but it won't. You are welcome to hold your breath though.

#95 Posted by Big_Pecks (5428 posts) -

Eh. 19 is ideal but I think 18 may be too low even if it's only a year difference. 21 seems like a long wait.

#96 Posted by magicalclick (23023 posts) -

I am quite sure if you kill someone while drinking and driving at age of 16, you don't get charged with murder. If you want to lower the age, of course, this means can must hold responsible for the murder.

#97 Edited by ad1x2 (5730 posts) -

@airshocker said:

1) It's an arbitrary distinction. Everybody is different at every age.

2) The fact that you are considered an adult at 18 means that the drinking age should be lowered to that age.

That's really all that needs to be said on the matter.

I'm not saying that 18-year olds shouldn't be allowed to drink. At 18 they can already vote, join the military, enter a financial contract, be sentenced to death for a capital crime, and smoke their way into eventual cancer. No point in denying them booze even if it isn't the most healthy thing they can partake in considering that their brain is still developing.

I'm just saying that using the fact that you can enlist at 18 is a poor reason to justify it when the military is 100% volunteer right now and around one in four men and women are even eligible. If you want to get technical, you could argue that we should allow people to drink at 17 since you can join with parental consent at that age.

#98 Posted by ad1x2 (5730 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@ad1x2:

I think that is a discussion of whether or not being practical is the same as being morally correct. There are plenty of jobs in the military that are not related to combat. Surely those can be done by the younger population of the armed forces. Meanwhile they can decide whether or combat is right for themselves as they grow older.

In the U.S. military the only job you can get that will 99% guarantee that you won't deploy is recruiter. I say 99% because there is always that possibility you get removed from recruiting due to misconduct (misconduct not bad enough to get kicked out but bad enough to be considered unfit to recruit) or a lack of production and sent back to your original job that does deploy. That, and a few years ago they sent a few recruiters to Afghanistan for 30 days to train Afghans on how to recruit for the ANA.

If you are referring to people who are not combat arms they still deploy, they just go over there in a support role and can still find themselves in a position to face combat. Fact of the matter is the military by its nature puts you in a position to face combat and if you are not prepared for that you should stay a civilian. If one considers allowing people under 21 deploy to combat zones morally questionable that isn't the same as questioning if it is practical. Troops train together so they can fight together.

You don't have to believe me but if you still think your plan would work I could post several paragraphs worth of material as well as links to unclassified military manuals showing you why it wouldn't work in detail but that isn't what the thread is about.

#99 Posted by redstorm72 (4593 posts) -

The drinking age here in Quebec is 18, and we haven't devolved into drunken anarchy. It seems entirely pointless to tack on an extra three years to the drinking age when almost every teenager is going to drink regardless. Really, what does a drinking age of 21 change? Absolutely nothing. When you are an adult, you are an adult. I don't understand why you would hold back alcohol. If we can trust an 18 year old's judgment in regard to the next president of the United States, to drive a vehicle, and to fight/die/kill for their country, then I think we can trust them with a beer.

#100 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58133 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@SolidSnake35 said:

@thegerg said:

"Yes, what I meant was, what hppens to an adult at 21?"

They reach the age at which they can legally buy and use alcohol in the US. I guess the belief behind it is that these older young adults are more responsible than 18-20 year olds.

"And the military thing is relevant insofar as you can't join the military until you're an adult."

Not here in the US.

Not responsible enough to drink a beer, but responsible enough to handle an assault rifle?

This question makes no sense.

It does, but I shall clarify for you. At 18, you are thought responsible enough to weird an assault rifle. You are not, however, to be trusted with alcohol. Now that, to me, is absurd. There are morons of all ages. Making some wait three more years is futile. You may think otherwise, but I've yet to see a substantial argument... even an attempt... to justify two thresholds here. Why do you think someone of 18 years is mature enough to join he army but not handle a beer? And don't tell me "because joining the army isn't drinking a beer". I think we know they're not the same thing. We wouldn't be discussing the topic had we not accepted the distinction.