If you can go to war at 18, you should be able to drink at 18

Home Forums Rants If you can go to war at 18, you should be able to drink at 18

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 54 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1330978
    Joseph
    Participant

    If you can enlist or be drafted into the military at 18 to kill or die for your country, you should be legally permitted to drink alcohol at 18.

    #1331004

    The minimum age to purchase alcohol in the USA is 21. Many states have exceptions for religious reasons and in the present of parents.

    #1331014
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Joseph,

    Why?

    #1331016
    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    Sounding old, again…………
    Back in the Viet Nam war era…the chant of young men subject to the draft was: “Old enough to die, old enough to vote.
    So Congress passed and the states ratified a constitutional amendment lowering the voting age to 18. Then the cry went out: ‘Old enough to die, old enough to vote, old enough to drink’

    Many states such as Connecticut lowered the drinking age to 18. NY was already 18.
    In a short period of time the number of automobile fatalities caused by teen-aged drunk drivers skyrocketed and there were calls to raise the drinking age. The draft and Viet Nam war had ended.
    Only states can set drinking age, no national law would be constitutional, so Congress used the power of the budget. If a state did not raise its legal drinking age to 21, the federal government would withhold Federal highways funds from that state. Thus an almost universal 21 drinking age in the US.

    #1331024
    Joseph
    Participant

    Avram, CTL:

    1. Why 21? Why not 25 or 18 or 15?

    2. If a person is considered responsible enough to be issued a lethal weapon with orders to kill enemies and be prepared to die himself, why isn’t he considered able to drink in moderation responsibly, such as a 21 year old adult is permitted?

    #1331030

    CTL: I thought it was the purchasing age that was tied to the federal funds, not the drinking age. National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158)

    (a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance.—
    (1)In general.—
    (A)Fiscal years before 2012.—
    The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), and 104(b)(4) [1] of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.

    (B)Fiscal year 2012 and thereafter.—
    For fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount to be withheld under this section shall be an amount equal to 8 percent of the amount apportioned to the noncompliant State, as described in subparagraph (A), under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 104(b).

    #1331031
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    If you can blow your nose at age 3, you should be able to pilot a commercial aircraft.

    #1331041
    akuperma
    Participant

    Armies, especially if they couldn’t conscript people, often relied on strong drink to get enllistments (the recruiter paid for some drinks at the pub, and you woke up in the morning to find out you had enlisted). So far, the US relies on patriotism and perhaps economic self-interest to recruit soldiers.

    #1331042
    mentsch1
    Participant

    daas
    I believe Joseph’s deductive reasoning is more logical
    but, point of fact
    actually there are no restrictions on a 3 year old piloting a plane

    #1331048
    DovidBT
    Participant

    ” If a person is considered responsible enough to be issued a lethal weapon with orders to kill enemies and be prepared to die himself, why isn’t he considered able to drink in moderation responsibly, such as a 21 year old adult is permitted?”

    But a military recruit goes through several weeks of intense training, during which he is supervised 24 hours a day. Even in combat, soldiers at the lower ranks are always supervised by NCO’s or officers.

    Drinking alcohol, on the other hand, can be done without any training or supervision.

    #1331051
    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    @lowerourtuition

    I tend to interchange purchase and drinking age as the same. Many states have specific drinking age exceptions for parents proving certain alcohol to their own children in their own homes.

    #1331088
    mentsch1
    Participant

    DovidBT
    If you read any military books
    you will see that there is no supervision 24/7
    our armed forces have a proud tradition of drinking
    Many, Many, SEALs, special forces, Marines etc spent their nights after training getting drunk. Many get in trouble, arrested etc.

    #1331125
    DovidBT
    Participant

    mentsch1:

    I speak from personal experience. During the initial training, recruits’ activities are highly restricted. There might be enough free time to go to the base PX for a beer, but not enough time to get in trouble. And recruits certainly don’t get to carry around loaded weapons unsupervised.

    Besides you’re mixing the analogy. My point was that military recruits are not simply handed a weapon and given free rein to use it as they wish, unlike alcohol.

    #1331137
    monseyshechita
    Participant

    Simple answer: If you are a soldier in war, you should be allowed to buy. No reason some 18 year old antiwar protester shnook should be allowed to buy. End of story

    #1331138
    Joseph
    Participant

    Perhaps you should advocate driving licenses shouldn’t be issued to anyone under age 21. An 18 year old driving a car with free reign to drive where they wish with an over 2 ton vehicle driving at 65 mph unsupervised is something you support?

    18-20 year olds drivers cause prortionally more deaths than 21-23 year old drivers as well as proportiomally more deaths than 18-20 year old drinkers (even before it became illegal.)

    #1331153
    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    It’s an arbitrary cutoff point, like the voting age. There’s a drive in the UK to lower the voting age to 16, and in the Scottish independence the voting age was indeed 16. for obvious reasons, this is led by the left-leaning parties. It makes sense to just pick an age that denotes adulthood and stick to it. In the UK, you become an adult at 18, and can therefore do everything, from drinking to soldiering to voting. 17 for driving and 16 for marriage, supervised drinking and smoking, and joining the army, but not fighting. Basically, in my opinion there should be an age where you’re not subject to age limitation. In today’s juvenile world, where adolescence basically continues into the twenties, then 21 probably makes more sense than 18. But random age distinctions based on ad hoc reasoning is a little weird.

    Either you’re an adult or not.

    #1331150
    yungerman123
    Participant

    dont get me started- i’ve been listening to my father tell the same story for 30 years how when he came home from his tour in vietnam, he was on leave in his navy uniform and they wouldnt serve him as he was underage!

    #1331149
    DovidBT
    Participant

    Joseph:

    I’m pretty sure that training and tests are required before you get to drive cars and trucks.

    But if the minimum age for driving were raised to 35, I would have no objection. That wouldn’t be feasible for the military, though.

    #1331159
    Joseph
    Participant

    DovidBT: I take you’d support legalizing drinking for 18 year olds if they take an alcohol course about usage, responsibility, etc., and passed a test on it, correct?

    #1331168
    DovidBT
    Participant

    No. I support raising the drinking age to 35, with an exemption for religious practice.

    #1331174
    Joseph
    Participant

    Aren’t you being hypocritical by supporting 18 year olds killing and dying for their country while opposing 18 year olds trained and tested for drinking from drinking?

    #1331188
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    daas
    I believe Joseph’s deductive reasoning is more logical

    I think the correlation between blowing your nose and piloting a commercial aircraft is as strong as the one between going to war and drinking (i.e. there is none; they’re both separate things and should be judged on their own).

    but, point of fact
    actually there are no restrictions on a 3 year old piloting a plane

    This is not true. To pilot a commercial aircraft in the U.S., you have to be 23 (besides training and experience requirements).

    #1331187
    Realisticguy
    Participant

    this is such a profound thought…im curious did you think of it yourself or did you hear the 10,000 people before you who said the same thing? I also take it your not that old otherwise you wouldn’t even ask this question.

    #1331191
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Aren’t you being hypocritical by supporting 18 year olds killing and dying for their country while opposing 18 year olds trained and tested for drinking from drinking?

    Just as hypocritical as saying you need to be 23 to pilot a commercial aircraft but can blow your nose at 3.

    #1331200
    Joseph
    Participant

    Daas: Try explaining in your own words, your own thoughts, why a 21 year old should be allowed to drink and a 20 year old not. And why the drinking age should be set at 21 rather than at another age.

    #1331203
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant
    #1331204
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Daas; Try explaining in your own words, your own thoughts, why a 21 year old should be allowed to drink and a 20 year old not. And why the drinking age should be set at 21 rather than at another age.

    I didn’t express an opinion of what the drinking age should or shouldn’t be.

    I’m just saying the analogy to being in the military is inane.

    #1331206
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    You tell me, in your own words, why it should be 18 rather than a different age. Don’t tell me because they can go to the military, because the reasoning behind military age is not relevant to drinking age.

    #1331208
    Joseph
    Participant

    Does anyone else who supports a 21 age minimum for drinking also oppose raising the minimum age to drive a car to 21?

    #1331237
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    They’re two different things. Why do they have to have the same minimum age?

    #1331246
    Joseph
    Participant

    Daas: Does it make more sense to have a different age for everything? One age for joining the military, another age for voting, another age for drinking, another age for getting married, another age for piloting an aircraft, another age for being legally liable for crimes, another age for becoming a legal adult, etc?

    #1331253
    WinnieThePooh
    Participant

    The military probably prefers the younger recruits – they are more likely to be molded and influenced by their superiors, making a better soldier who will do as he is told and take orders without question. The older and more educated, and more opinionated the recruit is, the harder it will be to train him. So it’s not about trusting him with a weapon, it’s about the ability to turn him into a non-thinking, follow-orders soldier.

    #1331241
    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    DaasYochid: In my view, it’s a libertarian issue. If somebody is an adult, then further age restrictions should not be applied. I have no problem with the age at which one legally becomes an adult being 21. I do have a problem with somebody being an adult in all respects except one narrow respect. If you’re an adult, you’re supposed to be fully responsible for your actions and their consequences. If we’re saying that’s not possible until the arbitrary cutoff age of 21, then that should be the age for everything. If not, not. The law shouldn’t differentiate.

    #1331286
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    The point of age restrictions is safety, and the reason we don’t make insanely high age restrictions is because we balance utility against it.

    Whatever the proper balance is for a particular endeavor, it shouldn’t be affected by the fact that a different endeavor has a different age at which the balance is struck.

    If you’re so concerned about the lomdus of being m’chalek between a child and an adult, let the age of adulthood be 21, but we’ll let 17 year old kids drive, and 18 year old kids go to the army, but don’t compromise on safety or utility for some relatively arbitrary number (arbitrary because it’s not the best number for a particular law, but chosen because it’s appropriate for a different one).

    #1331289
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Daas: Does it make more sense to have a different age for everything? One age for joining the military, another age for voting, another age for drinking, another age for getting married, another age for piloting an aircraft, another age for being legally liable for crimes, another age for becoming a legal adult, etc?

    If the proper age for each is different, yes. Perhaps some overlap, so the same age might apply to more than one.

    #1331290
    Chortkov
    Participant

    NeutiquamErro: Why do you say that? The laws banning underage participants in any activity isn’t because they don’t have rights as children, but because it is deemed dangerous and they are not considered capable of looking after themselves in this area.

    If it could be proven (which is irrelevant to your point, I think) that humans aged 20+ were capable of driving responsibly but were not able to drink responsibly until they were 22, why would you be against a law tailor for maximum safety? To prohibit this 21 year old from driving would be ridiculous, because he is capable, but to allow drinking would be irresponsible and damaging.

    Are you against laws that protect people when they are adults? Do you feel all drugs should be legalized to adults, because they are capable of making their own decisions?

    I don’t know why you look at ‘adult’ as a boolean attribute. It is entirely relative.

    #1331295
    Joseph
    Participant

    I think the voting age is much too young and should be raised to 21.

    I think, given the deadly accident rate of young drivers, a driving license should also require attainment of 21 years of age.

    #1331297
    Avi K
    Participant

    Yekke, criminalizing drugs has worked as well as Prohibition. Recently the Israeli Anti-Drug Agency recommended following the Portuguese system where substance abuse is treated as a public health problem. However, one really must ask how far the nanny state can go. What about Blomberg banning large cokes in NYC. Those in the US who support federalism should also oppose laws that punish states for not setting the age Nanny Sam wants. As for the army, halachically it should be 20-60 although one rav suggested that 18 is a horaat shaah.

    #1331334
    akuperma
    Participant

    In the 19th century, boys were recruited in their early teens, and sometimes younger. That is still the case in many countries (even if the United Nations set a minimum age for combat as 18).

    Even in the US, the minimum driving age varies considerably. In rural areas, it is often much younger than 18, especially for driving farm vehicles. Insurance companies, based on driving records, charge tremendous amounts extra for younger drivers suggesting some evidence based reasons for a higher driving age.

    Many countries have no drinking age. One should remember that the US is one of the few non-Muslim countries to ever make serious effort to ban alcoholic beverages. Given the stereotype of intoxicated college (and yeshiva) students, there appears to be justification for society’s concerns.

    Of course, Bnei Torah generally have better things to do than play soldiers, never drink in excess except maybe on Purim (and not all that much then), and only need to drive to get to yeshiva or shopping — so this thread should be irrelevant to YWN readers.

    #1331370
    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    Drugs fall into a difference category because they have a wider negative affect on society as a whole, and are therefore illegal for every citizen. I believe that drugs which only affect the user should be legal, from a purely libertarian standpoint, although I don’t think that drug exists.

    And yes, I believe the issue is a binary one. If one is to be deemed by the state and adult, then that person should no longer be bound by laws that discriminate by age. I simply believe that should be the definition of an adult. If that age is deemed to be 21, then so be it. But I don’t believe the state should be allowed to tell some of its subjects that they are not yet responsible enough for a particular activity. I’m fine with the law deciding that children over a certain age are generally mature enough to do things like drive or get married, but I’m not okay with the statutes doing the same for adults. To take this argument to its logical conclusion, if there were a scientific, peer-reviewed, double-blind study showing that people aged 40-46 are 32% more likely to be involved in an automobile accident, would there be a case from restricting the right to drive for people in that age bracket? I would argue certainly not, and ages 18-21 should be no different, unless we legally consider them children.

    #1331540
    Chortkov
    Participant

    As for the army, halachically it should be 20-60 although one rav suggested that 18 is a horaat shaah.

    Hora’at Sha’ah. Lol.

    #1331543
    Chortkov
    Participant

    If one is to be deemed by the state as adult, then that person should no longer be bound by laws that discriminate by age.

    Isn’t that a bit of an oxymoron to say that you can only discriminate against children by age?

    I simply believe that should be the definition of an adult. If that age is deemed to be 21, then so be it. But I don’t believe the state should be allowed to tell some of its subjects that they are not yet responsible enough for a particular activity.

    I can hear a case for the law not interfering in people’s personal danger zones, but that case would legalize drugs. If you agree with the state using legislation to protect it’s citizens, then why wouldn’t you understand an age where things become legal?

    To take this argument to its logical conclusion, if there were a scientific, peer-reviewed, double-blind study showing that people aged 40-46 are 32% more likely to be involved in an automobile accident, would there be a case from restricting the right to drive for people in that age bracket?

    Driving is the one thing which is logical to restrict; people more likely to cause accidents are more likely to kill others. This isn’t protecting people from themselves, this is stopping them harming the public. This is like restricting guns. The way you present it, is requiring drivers to pass some form of test to prove their driving capability wrong?

    I would argue certainly not, and ages 18-21 should be no different, unless we legally consider them children.

    How do you justify monitoring children?

    #1331576
    yehudayona
    Participant

    I agree with Joseph. We need more drunk soldiers.

    #1331570
    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    How about you lower the drinking age to 13 but ban drinking again as soon as one reaches the age of driving?

    #1331567
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Joseph
    Personally I think you should only be allowed to vote if you pay taxes
    Imagine what this country would be like if people who worked actually controlled the money and not the other way around

    and Daas
    I’m aware that you initially wrote commercial airline, which implies the need for a license which has an age restriction
    I only wrote that a 3 year old can pilot a plane, which is true. There is no age restriction on piloting with a licensed pilot sitting next to you. Which I found extremely ironic and somewhat amusing when my 10 year old nephew came home from a chol hamoed trip to the airport having just flown a cirrus. I’m told he did very well.

    #1331593
    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    But then social Darwinism will take over.

    #1332433
    Joseph
    Participant

    mentsch1, I agree that there should be a work requirement to vote. I’d add, also a literacy test.

    #1332457
    Chortkov
    Participant

    The world get confused between Human rights and human privileges.

    All humans have rights to live, and to live like mentches. So any form of racial distinction is both illogical and morally wrong. Youre right to live grants you rights to live where you want, to travel on the same buses, to visit the same parks, and to marry whomever you want.

    Your right to live does not, however, grant you the ability to make decisions you are not qualified to make. Anything which involves decision making – voting as far as I am concerned is only a minor issue; court jury service is much more problematic – should need basic qualifications to prove you sane, fairly intelligent and of the ability to make decisions.

    As far as voting is concerned, this is impossible; in a democracy, we need the voice of the people. If the people are stupid, then their voice may be equally stupid, but it is the voice of the people which counts. If you don’t like that, do away with democracy.

    When it comes to decisions in courts, where a jury can decide “guilty” or “innocent” just because the defendant looks sinister or because the alleged victim has a cute smile, no human with a conscience and a sane mind should allow half the country to decide the fate of another person with such impunity.

    #1331990
    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    Yekke2:

    Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. To my mind, the difference between being a child and an adult in legal terms is personal responsibility. The legal definition of adulthood should be the age at which the individual is in all respects deemed old enough to take full responsibility for their actions. This would extend to anything. For me, it is a fundamental dichotomy for the state to impose further age restrictions on people who have already reached adulthood. It isn’t just a label, it’s a legal concept. I’m not necessarily saying this is the case, only that it should be.

    Now, in my opinion the role of the legal system is govern the boundaries where people’s actions have consequences on others around them. If this sounds simplistic or obvious, all governments overstep their mark by imposing restrictions that it is not within the essential remit of a democratic liberal system. So therefore, even from a libertarian standpoint, taking heroin or driving drunk would be illegal, as you’re placing others at risk, not just yourself. So too would does it make sense to require a certification to drive, as otherwise you’re placing others at risk. On occasion, there is a common sense case to be made for banning things that are harmful to society as a whole, such as possessing guns, even though a hardcore libertarian would feel this is outside the remit of governance. But all of these things are equally applied across society. Telling adults of a particular age that they are not permitted to drink, whilst allowing others, is unequal. A supposed scientific basis is not enough, there needs to be an ethical and legal case.

    Drinking alcohol is a matter of responsibility. And it is wrong to tell somebody otherwise deemed fully responsible for themselves and their actions by the state, that they are not responsible enough in this narrow regard. If they feel 19 year olds truly aren’t responsible, and bring evidence from increased drink driving rates or the like, then they should be legally considered children, with commensurate voting and tax legislation.

    I justify monitoring and restricting children thus: The state is responsible for the welfare and actions of children, hence legal guardianship, and juvenile courts. They are not deemed legally equipped to take responsibility for themselves, so the state does it for them. So having different stages at which children are permitted to take responsibility for certain behaviours, such as driving, is sensible. There is a fundamental difference between a 17 year old and a 7 year old, in that a 17 year old can generally be adjudged capable enough to drive. Both are children, and are unequipped to decide for themselves, so the state decides for them. But adults should all be equal under the law, in terms of responsibility and capability. So do deem some adults less capable than others on account of their age seems nonsensical. I would object to requiring 100 year olds to hand in their driving licenses, although they should have to prove they are capable of driving safely. That’s the key distinction. If something is deemed unsafe for a 20 year old, it should be similarly restricted for 40 year olds. Either that or change the arbitrary cutoff age at which one is deemed mature.

    #1332512
    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    yekke2: So would you have some sort of system to disqualify voters deemed incapable of making an informed decision? I didn’t vote in the European referendum because, despite having an A Level in politics, and having read extensively on the subject from all sides of the debate, I simply couldn’t make my mind up. I disliked the EU on principle, but I couldn’t decide which side had a more convincing argument on the economy. So I withheld my opinion. What confuses me is that I would consider the vast majority of those who voted less ‘qualified’ than I to come to a decision, so how where they all so certain? The fact that whether a question in a referendum is posed in a positive or negative manner can lead to a decisive vote swing provides further evidence that nobody really knows anything. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. America ended up with a decision between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, for crying out loud!

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 54 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.