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

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

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.

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

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

Why should I? Nothing you say is going to change my mind on the issue. I don't really give a **** 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:-\

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.

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).

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

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

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

I'm not affected since I'm almost 22

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.