Old Enough to Fight. Old Enough to Drink.

A few days ago in Alaska, State Rep. Bob Lynn (R-Anchorage) presented a bill before the Alaska Legislature to lower the drinking age to 18 for young men and women who are currently serving in the military.

“It’s outrageous that a member of our military can be subjected to the horrors of war, but can’t legally have a beer or smoke a cigarette,”  said Lynn.  (The legal age for smoking in Alaska is 19)

The Federal Government, in response the the proposed legislation, has threatened to cut about $17 million in federal highway funding to Alaska should the proposed legislation pass.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the leadership of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) have voiced their opposition to the bill.

Personally, I don’t drink because I find alcohol to be more harmful to one’s health than my chosen practice of recreational relaxation.  Despite my feelings about alcohol,  I don’t see why a young man or woman who is old enough to vote in a general election, sign their lives away to the US Armed Forces and put themselves in harm’s way in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan should not be entitled to throwing down a few Buds.   While I would prefer they partake in the alternative form of “Buds” due to the fact that it’s safer (no reported deaths or overdoses compared to alcohol) and a hell of a lot lighter to transport than aluminum cans,  I do not believe that it is the Federal Government’s business to tell these people, much less any legal adult 18 years or older, what they can or cannot put into their bodies.

Whether it’s a bottle of Dos Equis,  a joint filled with Maui Wowie,  a Marlboro cigarette or a burrito filled with chicharron con carne (a literal cardiac killer),  what crime, per se,  is being committed when someone puts these things in their bodies?  Now if the said person forces someone without their consent to ingest these substances or put someone in danger as a result of their appetite for destruction and debauchery,  we’re talking about a whole new ball game.  As long as they are not harming other people or children against their wills,  I don’t see what the problem is with allowing someone who is old enough to elect a President and ride around in a Humvee in the desert looking for roadside bombs to drink alcohol. 

For all you do...this Bud's for you!

Sound simplistic?  Perhaps.  Forty years ago, the states in the were forced to comply with the raising of the drinking age to 21 nationwide with the spectre of losing Federal highway funds looming over their heads.  Before the states were allowed to set their own age regulations when it came to things like gambling and drinking.   This is an issue where I would agree with the state rights advocates.  Regulating age of consent laws,  drinking and gambling regulations should not be the responsibility of the Federal government.  Chalk one up for the War on Drugs (yes, alcohol is a drug) and Federal government coercion. 

Some would ask the tired age old paranoid question, “”what about the impending epidemic of binge drinking and alcohol related deaths?”  “Don’t you care about the children?”  Not really,  I want a nation of tween binge drinkers who cavort around town like the cast of “Jersey Shore.” 

Lower the drinking age and get a nation of Snookis? That's what the drug warriors want you to believe.

Sarcasm aside,  I am not in favor of letting people under the age of 18 years old drink and don’t believe they should.   When it comes to legal, consenting adults,  let’s get real.  Just like with any mind altering substance,  there is a marked difference between use and abuse.  Because I take a drink of wine or beer does not equate me with a binge drinker or a raging alcoholic.  If use of alcohol did equal abuse,  the treatment centers, like Betty Ford and Hazelden, across the USA would be overflowing at capacity.   Those who are going to be irresponsible with their use of alcohol were most likely going to be irresponsible regardless if their age was 18 or 88. 

The one thing I notice from the detractors who want to maintain the 21 year old nationwide limit is that there is no dialogue about changing the age of enlistment or voting age to 21.  Advocating the latter would be tantamount to political suicide.   If you are going to tell an 18 year old that he/she can vote for a President and put his/her life on the line to protect overseas oil interests while facing hostile forces in the Middle East,  why should that person be denied the opportunity to drink a Corona? 

It’s a dialogue among adults that is way overdue.