… but not to be served. Given that 18 to 21 year old young adults are most likely to join the military, it seems strange to locate an Army National Guard recruiting station directly next to a liquor store.  But in the not too distant past, sights similar to this were common.
It was the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 that required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act.  An argument that has regained strength since 9/11 is that 18-year-olds who volunteer to fight and die for their country have proven that they are mature enough to drink.
As recently as June of last year, several states were considering lowering the legal drinking age from 21 to 18. Legislation had been introduced in Kentucky, Wisconsin and South Carolina to lower the drinking age for military personnel only. In Missouri, a planned ballot initiative would have lowered the age to 18 for everyone. South Dakota was debating allowing 19- and 20-year-olds to buy low-alcohol beer. Minnesota was considering allowing people ages 18 to 20 to buy alcohol in restaurants and bars not in stores until they are 21.
With changes to the alcohol law (such as Sunday carry-out sales) under consideration here in Indiana, should reducing the legal age also be discussed?
Hi Paul, It’s a valid argument that if an 18-year soldier can go into harms way, he should be able to purchase alcohol or legally drink. It’s a difficult one as well. I’d be in favor of lowering the age to 18 for those in the armed forces, but that’s the only concession I’d be willing to vote on.
We’ve learned much about the effects of alcohol on teenage brains – even into late teens. I think a valid point can be made for delaying those affects, as much as a law can do it, until 21. However, to ask a young person to serve in Afghanistan for instance, then return home unable to buy a beer, is unfair at best.
Great post!
What about the effects of alcohol on teenage brains in other countries that don’t have 21 as the minimum?
Given that entire swaths of Europe aren’t producing swarms of brain-damaged young adults, I’ve got to question just how much of an effect there is.
And then I have to wonder how those effects compare to the larger damage of not gradually introducing alcohol into people’s lives and not making such a “forbidden fruit” of it.
And I’ve seen too many adults who were given alcohol at a young age and are now alcoholics – parent’s didn’t make a “forbidden fruit” of it with them and yet the drinks had such a profound affect on them that they constantly chased that feeling. Alcohol changes the physiology of the brain over time. It’s dangerous to mix that with a still-forming young mind. How do I know this? Part of it stems from my training to get my alcohol and drug counselor certification and the other part came from sitting with client after client who shared the same life experiences with me. That coupled with the research tells me there’s something to it.
As far as making a ‘forbidden fruit’ of something, that’s not what causes problems. What causes problems are the effects of the alcohol or drugs on an individual – it’s not an exact science because not everyone has the same reaction. But, that said, there is a danger in teenagers drinking period. The difference for me between a regular teenager and one that’s been in the military is that hopefully the military teen has a bit better understanding of life and the discipline to handle it.
Stephen,
Surely it wasn’t uber-conservative and small government champion Ronald Reagan who signed this? No, surely not.
This law, like nearly all alcohol-related laws, is a complete farce. To state that adults cannot buy alcohol because it might impair their brain is ridiculous. There are millions of things in this country that will impair one’s brain – watching MTV all day is probably more damaging than most of them.
In a free society people need to be free to make their own decisions – even if they are poor ones. That was one of the many principles this country was founded upon and you nor the federal government should have the moral authority (setting aside the legal Constitutional issues) to tell people what they can do to their own bodies.
Why not tell people they can’t be too fat? Surely obesity is a larger health risk than consuming alcohol. Or what about telling people they can’t watch TV for more than X hours/day? This would inevitably lead to more activity, physical and mental, that would benefit society.
Well hell, Jeff, let’s just revoke all the laws and let everyone do their own thing and be done with it, because with all these laws, we’re really not a free society, are we? Think of the money the City would save on the public safety side of things…
Laws keep most people from doing whatever they want – good and bad. All those silly serial killers – we shouldn’t have laws to stop them if they enjoy it and make the choice to do it even though it’s a poor decision for the people they kill. But hey, serial killers need their freedom too!
This is not about ‘moral authority’ and my belief does not come out of it – it’s about science and what’s been proven about the effects of alcohol. Someone doesn’t knock back and not become impaired. And when I talk about this, I’m not talking about that temporary impairment, I’m talking about permanent brain damage that is a hell of a lot more severe than overwatching television could ever possibly be. Besides, the chances of someone being in an accident caused by someone watching too much MTV are a hell of a lot smaller than one caused by someone who’s been drinking all night.
‘Why not tell people they can’t be too fat?’ Haven’t you been paying attention to the news? This is right around the corner. And no, forcing people from in front of their tv’s wouldn’t inevitably lead to more activity. Those same people would find something else to do while they’re sitting in front of a blank television. If you’re lazy enough to watch television all day long, you’re lazy period.
Stephen,
“Laws keep most people from doing whatever they want – good and bad. All those silly serial killers – we shouldn’t have laws to stop them if they enjoy it and make the choice to do it even though it’s a poor decision for the people they kill. But hey, serial killers need their freedom too!”
What a ridiculous argument. Laws should be there to keep people from committing force or fraud against other people. They should not, and need not, be present to keep you from harming yourself. An adult choosing to drink alcohol does not harm you in any way. Just like somebody ingesting 5 Big Macs a day and a baker’s dozen worth of sodas doesn’t harm you in any way.
“This is not about ‘moral authority’ and my belief does not come out of it – it’s about science and what’s been proven about the effects of alcohol.”
So what? Why is it any of your business, or scientific concern, what somebody decides to do to themselves? Why stop at alcohol? Why not try to legislate away all the poor decisions people can make that will affect their lives?
“Besides, the chances of someone being in an accident caused by someone watching too much MTV are a hell of a lot smaller than one caused by someone who’s been drinking all night.”
Ah but the drinking isn’t the problem here. It’s the drinking and driving – that choice certainly puts others at risk and thus there is a rational purpose for passing legislation to prohibit that activity.
“‘Why not tell people they can’t be too fat?’ Haven’t you been paying attention to the news? This is right around the corner. And no, forcing people from in front of their tv’s wouldn’t inevitably lead to more activity. Those same people would find something else to do while they’re sitting in front of a blank television. If you’re lazy enough to watch television all day long, you’re lazy period.”
Wow. If one only read this paragraph they’d think you were in total agreement with me…
In our German sister city you an get a beer at 16, I believe. They have a culture of beer, it is not forbidden fruit, it is a part of their lives. Remember, for millenia the water was a source of disease and death, so brewing drinks was absolutely necessary. But, in Germany it is harder to get a car and to drive drunk or impaired. There goes your license. There are lessons to learn from our German cousins. We drive more here, believe that kids who can barely see over the wheel should be able to drive,
As for soldier, history tells us that 18 year olds are most fit and least reluctant to go out and kill things, especially other 18-year olds.
Thanks, Jim. Excellent perspective.
For one to say that a person is mature enough to handle alcohol just on the fact that they are military personnel, is asinine. Yes they have had strict regimented training, but I have met plenty of military personnel that are not mature.
To allow them to come back and drink because of the bad crap they have seen is just setting them up for disaster no matter the age. If you watch the show Cops, there is rarely an episode that goes by where there isn’t a vet that doesn’t get arrested for some form of intoxication.
Where does this stop? The military is voluntary. They choose to serve our country. They choose to risk their lives overseas. Some police departments minimum age to be an officer is below 21. Take GA and PA for example, I know you are required to be at least 18 yro to be an officer. Should those officers be able to drink when they are off duty? They are putting their lives on the line too.
Also, there are plenty of active military personnel that work in the recruitment offices, and never leave the country. Should they be able to drink also?
Coast Guard? Is extremely dangerous, but rarely faces a war.
Where does it stop?
Why is it that if you don’t agree with something it’s asinine or ridiculous or laughable or we resort to labeling people we disagree with? Frankly Jeff, you don’t know enough about me to label me. You might be surprised at some of my views… As for being such a proponent of a “free society” you sure don’t encourage much thinking that differs from yours.
It’s ok to disagree with others; it’s ok to discuss our differences – those are the true hallmarks of the free society your expound upon. If ya’ll want to have a friendly respectful discussion, that doesn’t involve denigrating others, then fine. There are many interesting directions this discussion could head, but frankly I’m done with the lack of respect and so is the topic.