2006-10-03 12:38:27 · 18 answers · asked by BeautyMark 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Okay you all are not understanding my question... Dont you think this is Messed up? This double standard that teens are mature enough to go to war, but not mature enough to handle the effects of alcohol?
2006-10-03 12:46:57 · update #1
It's wrong, that's why. I certainly wouldn't want someone who is too young to be legally allowed alcohol bearing arms and the such... It just seems so illogical... "Too young to handle alcohol? No problem, give 'em a gun to play with and that'll keep 'em amused for the next 3 years..."
In Australia it is 18 to vote, drink and enlist. I don't know how much better this situation is, but at least it is consistent...
2006-10-03 12:49:34 · answer #1 · answered by Lucy Goosey 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think some years ago usually a person did not "come of age" until 21 ... only hen could they marry (without permission), drink, incur debts, and many other things.
Then some said, they can fight and die for their country, why can't they be considered "mature" enough to do those things. Maybe in some areas anyone of 18 and in or had served in the armed forces, was allowed to be considered "of full age"
But statistics demonstrate that alcohol is not handed responsibly by those of 18 or 19 years of age [some might make a good argument that many others do not handle it responsibly either.]
Hopefully those who enlist in the army do so with a totally sober mind. Anyone who drinks alcohol then does anything else they do it without a totally sober mind.
I think the main concern is with 18 & 19 year olds, having "drinks" then taking a car load of "friends" down the road, across the road, head-long crash into a car with a wife and family ...
Actually, I have heard it suggested that NO ONE under 75 years of age should be allowed alcoholic drinks except with the emrission of their parents.
2006-10-03 12:58:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you're asking why the laws are written that way, it's simply a matter of what Congress decided. Could they have made different decisions? Sure. But very little of what Congress does is logical.
The reason that Congress recommends (and the states comply with) a 21-yo drinking age is that accident statistics show a massive increase in the number of fatal and near-fatal vehicle accidents when 18-21 yo's are allowed to drive. So, the drinking age was set based on those statistics.
The age of enlistment is the age of majority, which is 18 in almost every state. That's the age people are considered adults for purposes of voting, contracts, etc. So, that's the age of enlistment.
One has nothing to do with the other.
2006-10-03 12:46:44 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Being as incredibly ancient as I am, I remember growing up in New York when you could enlist at 17 (with your parents' permission), drink alcohol at 18, buy cigarettes no matter what your age, BUT YOU HAD TO BE 21 TO VOTE.
We trust ya with a gun and we trust ya with a drink and we don't give a rip if you smoke but we sure as heck don't trust ya in the voting booth. At the same time they reduced the voting age to 18, they raised the drinking age to 21 (or thereabouts) so I guess they didn't want ya to go into the voting booth fuzzy headed either. Think those laws are dopey, how about restricting alcohol sales on Sunday morning, just when you needed it most? If ya hit the sacrimental wine in church, could ya get arrested?
2006-10-03 12:58:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow, after reading some answers, I didnt know they can drink on base. Thats good. I've always said that it was utterly ridiculous that a person can get sent of to war , to possibly die, and after a long hard stint at war cant even come home and unwind with a stern drink and a cigarrette.
2006-10-03 12:49:06 · answer #5 · answered by RAW29 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They probably want them to get some years of experience
out in the world on their own, before they can legally
start drinking alcohol. They also probably have a good
3-5 years driving experience by then.
2006-10-03 12:50:44 · answer #6 · answered by Mark 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it is more dangerous for an 18 year old to have an alcoholic beverage in their hand then a gun..........o wait your right it makes no sense but hey they can smoke to KILL time until their 21
2006-10-03 12:46:56 · answer #7 · answered by ¿The Question? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That totally exposes the fact that America has it's priorities screwed up. You old enough topump bullets into an iraqi soldier, but one can of Bud Light, and your in a county holding center
2006-10-03 12:46:03 · answer #8 · answered by fachizzzzle 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because after Prohibition, it was decided by stupid people, taht you had to be a certain age to drink.
Too many young people were getting killed by being stupid and drinking..so they upped the age limit.
PS: You can join the military at 17......with parental permission
2006-10-03 12:47:25 · answer #9 · answered by Lynne 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They can drink on base
But I agree with your basic premise. There should be one universal age for sufferage. Different ages for driving, drinking, consent, voting, military service, legal or contractual obligation, living without parental supervision, all make little sense.
Not to mention ages varying by state.
How about everything at 18? and nothing until then?
2006-10-03 12:42:22 · answer #10 · answered by aka DarthDad 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋