# Lower the Drinking Age on Base to 18?



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2015)

A North Dakota state representative wants to lower the drinking age for members of the military to 18, both on post and (in a planned amendment) off post.  Good idea or not?

http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/ne...uld-allow-underage-service-members-drink-base


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 2, 2015)

Nope. That would be a fucking disaster. And it isn't like they can't get the liqour now.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2015)

Don't we have enough alcohol related incidents already?


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 2, 2015)

I don't recommend it and voted no but I believe the logic behind it is essentially to say they're going to drink anyway, this allows it to be done in a controlled environment with no need to drive afterwards.  Ft. Huachuca tried it several years ago.  It did indeed cut down on DUIs but SIRs on post skyrocketed especially in the SHARP arena.


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2015)

I understand the logic, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. Good initiative, poor judgement.


----------



## LibraryLady (Feb 2, 2015)

I'm from the era of open bases and drinking ages in states that were less than 21. I see nothing good coming from this. If it passes than civilians will whine about military special privileges until they get it. Our society is not like some others in the world with less than 21 drinking ages, it will be disastrous.

LL


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 2, 2015)

I don’t see the problem.  If you can serve your country, you should be able to have a drink and vote.  Just ensure there's proper regulations and enforce them accordingly.  And put out more mandatory education on addiction, substance abuse, ect.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2015)

RackMaster said:


> I don’t see the problem.  If you can serve your country, you should be able to have a drink and vote.  Just ensure there's proper regulations and enforce them accordingly.  And put out more mandatory education on addiction, substance abuse, ect.


More PowerPoint presentations will not make Soldiers (Sailors, Airmen and Marines) responsible.
I am not keen on letting the under 21 crowd into the military in the first place.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 2, 2015)

Age and alcohol matter to some degree. More important is the culture, and how alcohol use is viewed, taught, and practiced. In many European countrys, alcohol use becomes a part of life. Here in the States, we use a modified prohibition of alcohol usage. Pick the age, 18, 21, or numbers in between; what ever the age it becomes a challenge for the under aged. When I grew up, it was 18, but the "cool" guys were always able to come up with a suply by diect or indirect means; it never stopped the access to alcohol. If you think the age of 21 prevents the use of alcohol anywhere:-"; you know where I am headed. My vote is for 18 on base, and teach responsible use. Holding out for 21, only promotes a challenge, that in itself is irresponsible usage at the first sip. My $.02; cheers everyone.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2015)

RackMaster said:


> I don’t see the problem.  If you can serve your country, you should be able to have a drink and vote.  Just ensure there's proper regulations and enforce them accordingly.  And put out more mandatory education on addiction, substance abuse, ect.



Makes sense to me. The legal age is 18 where I'm from anyway.
At least this way it would be legal and the troops would be in bars etc... where they can be policed/looked after better, rather than hiding in a hotel etc...

That's not to say there wouldn't be problems with it. 
I think making people wait until they are 21 to drink, makes them frustrated and then they tend to go a little crazy when they are finally legal.
I first noticed that during my highschool years, when the "good" kids who didn't drink like the rest of us, went to university, they went crazy with alcohol, drinking themselves stupid with rapid binge drinking.
I see the same immature attitude to alcohol in youngsters here.
I appreciate that I was allowed into bars when I was young, I was surrounded by adults who would and did give you a tune up if you stepped out of line.


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2015)

To digress a bit but on topic, our post-9/11 society has place service members on a pedestal. I'm all for respecting our service but I think we've gone too far. I believe this causes problems when one of us does something wrong, he/ she becomes the vet with PTSD. A rape occurs and how could we do this? People won't always like us, people will always hate us, people will always misunderstand us, but I think we've gone a bit too far in our adulation of those in uniform.

Joe of all ages, but usually those in their 20's or late teens, tends to be the largest demographic for making bad decisions. Curiously, this is the bulk of our junior enlisted and NCO's, but now we'd lower the drinking age to 18? those of you were are/ were at Bragg can't tighten my shot group here, but how often did the post see a DUI-related fatality? Not even a wreck with major injuries or a generic DUI stop, but a death? Now we'd add 18 year olds to that mix? 

I understand the sentiment that if they are old enough to die for their country then they are old enough for a drink; I used to think the same thing. Now that I'm older and can look back with some 20/20 or 20/30 hindsight, lowering the drinking age is a bad, bad idea. Motorcycle fatalities aren't curbed through Powerpoint or a weekend safety brief. Reflective belts have done what for us exactly? Rape is still a problem, but we have classes on that and advocates and everything else. We also have a myriad of other topics which fall under "people being people" so why would we add gas to the fire? Hell, every year my company "trains" us through CBT's and email reminders on how to act in a foreign country. Don't stand out, take different routes to/ from work, plan your actions, etc. I know of DOZENS who don't follow those steps here in Afghanistan. People are weak, soft, complacent, and that story will play out until the end of time.

We need to balance rights and privileges against bad ideas or against our own failings as human beings. Unfettered access to alcohol at 18 is a bad, bad idea.


----------



## Crusader74 (Feb 2, 2015)

Without even looking at the results thus far, I voted NO. Our drinking culture has changed somewhat to what it was only 15 years ago when at lunch time you could go into a mess and order a pint. It's more of a taboo now to drink excessively as was once a norm.   We deal with a multitude of incidents all arising from alcohol or intoxicants as they're referred to now both home and overseas.. I can off the top of my head mention two serious incidents both arising from over indulgence or abusing alcohol and both will face a military Judge in the coming weeks.


----------



## Evans (Feb 2, 2015)

I think that would be a terrible idea. We already see tons of ADAPT referrals coming in for underage drinking, and it's never the only charge. It's usually followed by a DUI, DWI, Drunk and Disorderly, etc. Lowering the age wouldn't cause the other issues to just magically go away, we would probably see a rise if the age was decreased. Those who go crazy on their 21st birthday because they "earned it" or they "waited their time" only shows how immature they are. Either way, no matter what the age limit is, stupid people will always do stupid things based on stupid decisions. Dumb people+Alcohol=ADAPT referral, it's just science....


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2015)

I despise most of GO1, but understand the alcohol restrictions.  It's not a new problem, and in this environment a career killer.
18-21 year olds whack themselves on a daily basis, adding alcohol just increases the carnage.
FWIW- In TX a minor can drink in a restaurant if the parents/guardian buy for them. 
 My 8 year old has a small glass that we fill with wine/beer on occasion in the hope that he doesn't binge drink once he hit college.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 2, 2015)

I say yes.  I grew up where the legal age was 18, so I really don't see it as a problem.  

I also believe that if you're willing to pick up a rifle and charge that hill then you should be able to drink a beer.


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> My 8 year old has a small glass that we fill with wine/beer on occasion in the hope that he doesn't binge drink once he hit college.


 
We allowed our daughter a half a glass of wine once or twice a year since since she was about 14. Over time we upped that to a full glass. She's 19 and if she goes to a party and thinks she'll drink, she'll tell us and stay the night. Both (yes, that many times) she was home at 9AM. No hangover, doesn't smell like a distillery, perfectly sober. I'd like to think that we took the cool and forbidden aspects out of drinking and raised a responsible adult.

I'm also realistic and know you and I are in the minority where parenting is concerned.


----------



## CDG (Feb 2, 2015)

policemedic said:


> I say yes.  I grew up where the legal age was 18, so I really don't see it as a problem.
> 
> I also believe that if you're willing to pick up a rifle and charge that hill then you should be able to drink a beer.



This is a false equivalency though.  It's certainly the go-to argument, and one I used to subscribe to, but does it really make sense?  For starters, and this has been mentioned here before, it's a relatively small percentage of the military that has a mission of "pick up a rifle and charge that hill" or something similar.  The 18 year-old personnel clerk provides a valuable function, but they aren't charging hills or picking up rifles.  So the argument premise of every person constantly risking their life, thereby deserving booze whenever they want, is false.  Secondly, I don't believe the logic of "if you do X, you deserve Y" is applicable here.  They're completely unrelated and it has the potential to raise recruitment for the wrong reasons.  How do you think it plays out if the only place you can legally drink under 21 is in the military?  It probably wouldn't be an epidemic, but there would certainly be kids joining up thinking they'll get their drink on for 4 years and separate when they're legal in the civilian world.  I believe it would lead to a MASSIVE increase in alcohol-related incidents, from sexual assault to fatalities.  18 year-old Joe does not need to be able to booze it up at will.  Other cultures do it differently and good for them.  I think we probably should take a page out of that book.  We don't though, and we're probably never going to, so it is what it is.  Bad idea, IMHO.

Edited to fix minor grammatical errors.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2015)

Alcohol used to be an issued item, not too long ago...


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2015)

pardus said:


> Alcohol used to be an issued item, not too long ago...


 
So were cigarettes. Just because we used to do something doesn't mean it was right.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 2, 2015)

I'd like to be on board with it, but too many of the troops that this would be directly affecting haven't been raised to be responsible for keeping a houseplant alive, much less responsibly consume alcohol in a civilized manner.  For every one family that's either raised their child(ren) abroad or comprised of at least one parent whose cultural background included responsible consumption from an early age, you're going to have several more families that are headed by the "cool friend-parents" that bought their kids the kegs of beer when Buffy and Biff decided to host the spring fling for their high school frat/sorority (that's actually a thing here).  Looking at the caliber of privates that came in throughout the years after I enlisted, the amount of common sense they possess has visibly decreased, and a large part of that comes from piss poor parenting.

If there were some kind of effective education about how to drink responsibly that came at the same time as BRM, that would be terrific.  Get it into their minds that if they are going to drink until they pass out, do it where they are going to spend the night.  Not at the bar, not in the corner booth at the restaurant, but at home or his own barracks.  Reinforce the designated driver/sober wing man concept, as well.  Basically, the military would wind up doing one more thing that the parents should have done, but didn't.  The good news is that while enlistee common sense might be in the cellar, there are some who learn and turn themselves around quickly.  Those are the ones who wouldn't be a pox upon the military with a drinking age of 18.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 2, 2015)

I voted a qualified "yes"...   with the first ARI forcing a reissue of the service member's ID, at their cost,  which tags them as ineleigible to drink.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 2, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> We allowed our daughter a half a glass of wine once or twice a year since since she was about 14. Over time we upped that to a full glass. She's 19 and if she goes to a party and thinks she'll drink, she'll tell us and stay the night. Both (yes, that many times) she was home at 9AM. No hangover, doesn't smell like a distillery, perfectly sober. I'd like to think that we took the cool and forbidden aspects out of drinking and raised a responsible adult.
> 
> I'm also realistic and know you and I are in the minority where parenting is concerned.



This^^^^^^^is the approach. We mentor the young troops, and our kids on so many levels, and with mentoring, we have outcomes we can live with. We bring young troops in, give them weapons and an awful lot of training. What would happen if we just tossed the the weapons and that was it? My thought is that whatever age we introduce ETOH, we do so with mentoring. Proper use with all the pros and cons. Doing it this way will improve outcomes with the newbies, probably with some of the mentors too. Can ya see where I am headed with this? We do not approach first time drinking with very much though, do we? There is an answer to the drinking age, what ever that age is, and the answer is mentoring, just like @Free did.


----------



## CDG (Feb 2, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> This^^^^^^^is the approach. We mentor the young troops, and our kids on so many levels, and with mentoring, we have outcomes we can live with. We bring young troops in, give them weapons and an awful lot of training. What would happen if we just tossed the the weapons and that was it? My thought is that whatever age we introduce ETOH, we do so with mentoring. Proper use with all the pros and cons. Doing it this way will improve outcomes with the newbies, probably with some of the mentors too. Can ya see where I am headed with this? We do not approach first time drinking with very much though, do we? There is an answer to the drinking age, what ever that age is, and the answer is mentoring, just like @Free did.



I respectfully disagree, Doc.  We train young troops on weapons, and then they are only allowed to use those weapons under very regulated conditions, (I'm only referring to garrison, not combat).  We don't let them have unfettered access to weapons on weekends, nights, or any other time they're off work.  How much time, effort, and money do we really want the military to have put into alcohol mentoring programs and tools?  There is already a laundry list to accomplish every year.  Fiscal responsibility, SHARP/SAPR, Information Awareness/Assurance, etc.  There are weekend safety briefings, leave safety briefings, TDY safety briefings, etc. I just don't see this issue being worth it considering all the issues it brings along.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 2, 2015)

For all of you against lowering the drinking age back down to 18 (where it was when I reached adulthood), why keep it 21?  Where is the statistical research that says 21 is any more logical an age to allow drinking than 18?  AFAIK, there isn't any; it's just a number plucked at random.  If not allowing 18-21 YO servicemen to drink saves lives, why not make the drinking age 25?  Wouldn't that save MORE lives?  Hell, I know tons of 35 YOs that can't make a smart decision to save their lives; why not make the drinking age 36?  Hell, why not ban drinking altogether?  Nationwide.  We'll have to pass an ammendment to the Constitution, but I'm sure it'll work.  Hell, guns are dangerous too; why not ban guns for anyone under 21?  Why not ban guns altogether?  They're dangerous.

And adding more safety briefs?  Seriously?  What, are we all generals and sergeants major?  We know they don't work; they just make the Marines want to drink more.

When I was stationed in Camp Pendleton in the late 80s, 18-21 YO Marines were allowed to buy beer at the e-clubs on base.  It didn't keep us from going to Tiajuana completely, but it was a lot easier to do our drinking at the club than it was to go to TJ every weekend.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2015)

It's not exactly the same, but I was musing while reading some posts, what if we replaced the word alcohol with the word guns?  



CDG said:


> I respectfully disagree, Doc.  We train young troops on weapons, and then they are only allowed to use those weapons under very regulated conditions, (I'm only referring to garrison, not combat).  *We don't let them have unfettered access to weapons on weekends, nights, or any other time they're off work.*  How much time, effort, and money do we really want the military to have put into alcohol mentoring programs and tools?  There is already a laundry list to accomplish every year.  Fiscal responsibility, SHARP/SAPR, Information Awareness/Assurance, etc.  There are weekend safety briefings, leave safety briefings, TDY safety briefings, etc. I just don't see this issue being worth it considering all the issues it brings along.



Actually if they have their own weapons, they do.


----------



## CDG (Feb 2, 2015)

pardus said:


> Actually if they have their own weapons, they do.



True, just like plenty of underage troops find access to alcohol.  It doesn't mean we should open the floodgates on it.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2015)

CDG said:


> True, just like plenty of underage troops find access to alcohol.  It doesn't mean we should open the floodgates on it.



As I said in my first post. Which is better, having the troops drinking legally on post in a monitored environment, or in a hotel room, too afraid to call an ambulance if someone goes down due to the legal issues? 

Just like the don't ask, don't tell issue where people were loosing their minds over the issue. It's happening already, let's regulate it.

How reasonable is it to push teamwork into people 24/7/365, then tell the youngest members of the team that they can't participate in the great team building activity known as drinking?


----------



## CDG (Feb 2, 2015)

pardus said:


> As I said in my first post. Which is better, having the troops drinking legally on post in a monitored environment, or in a hotel room, too afraid to call an ambulance if someone goes down due to the legal issues?
> 
> Just like the don't ask, don't tell issue where people were loosing their minds over the issue. It's happening already, let's regulate it.
> 
> How reasonable is it to push teamwork into people 24/7/365, then tell the youngest members of the team that they can't participate in the great team building activity known as drinking?



I think the on-base environment would only be marginally effective.  You'd have plenty of issues to deal with.  How do you regulate it fully?  Are they being escorted back to their barracks rooms to ensure nothing happens once they leave?  Who's being put on drunk 18 year-old duty?  How much extra staffing does the on-base club need to deal with the added drunk issues that inevitably arise? Are you hiring civilians, or are NCOs being voluntold every weekend?   Yes, the 21 and over crowd has plenty of their own issues.  If anything, that's an argument for not adding a new set of drinkers to the mix. 

 How many cases of troops going down in hotel rooms because they didn't call an ambulance have there been?

This is not the same as DADT.  This has a far different set of issues associated with it.

The teamwork argument is pretty thin I think.  Hardly a reason to take on the issue of trying to regulate what you're proposing.  I just don't see the juice being worth the squeeze on this issue.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2015)

CDG said:


> I think the on-base environment would only be marginally effective.  You'd have plenty of issues to deal with.  How do you regulate it fully?  Are they being escorted back to their barracks rooms to ensure nothing happens once they leave?  Who's being put on drunk 18 year-old duty?  How much extra staffing does the on-base club need to deal with the added drunk issues that inevitably arise? Are you hiring civilians, or are NCOs being voluntold every weekend?   Yes, the 21 and over crowd has plenty of their own issues.  If anything, that's an argument for not adding a new set of drinkers to the mix.
> 
> How many cases of troops going down in hotel rooms because they didn't call an ambulance have there been?
> 
> ...



This is just like DADT, you are making the argument about extra staff, extra duty etc... Just like people were saying extra barracks, extra toilets, rampant rape etc...
It's not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. 
If an 18 yr old gets stupid they will face the appropriate punishment, end of story.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 2, 2015)

0699 said:


> For all of you against lowering the drinking age back down to 18 (where it was when I reached adulthood), why keep it 21?  Where is the statistical research that says 21 is any more logical an age to allow drinking than 18?  AFAIK, there isn't any; it's just a number plucked at random.  If not allowing 18-21 YO servicemen to drink saves lives, why not make the drinking age 25?  Wouldn't that save MORE lives?  Hell, I know tons of 35 YOs that can't make a smart decision to save their lives; why not make the drinking age 36?  Hell, why not ban drinking altogether?  Nationwide.  We'll have to pass an ammendment to the Constitution, but I'm sure it'll work.  Hell, guns are dangerous too; why not ban guns for anyone under 21?  Why not ban guns altogether?  They're dangerous.



I went to school up in Ontario where the drinking age was 19 and that made a lot more sense to me...


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 2, 2015)

I don't think it should be different if you are in the service. Either make it 18 for everyone or no one. If 18 year old SM's are responsible enough to drink, then so are 18 year old college kids or people joining the workforce.

People calling for evidence, what evidence shows that SM's are more responsible  than the rest of people their age? If I see some of that I will change my mind.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 2, 2015)

pardus said:


> It's not exactly the same, but I was musing while reading some posts, what if we replaced the word alcohol with the word guns?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if they have their own weapons, they do.



Indeed, and they can be equally dangerous. We do a pretty crappy job in this country with the transition into alcohol use. We're not talking formal training, or checklists, that misses the point all together. How often do we take "the kid" along and get him plastered? We really don't know how to transition into drinking, and that is why age is not the issue. I see it as not so much a when issue as a how issue. To be quite frank about it, I'm not so sure I really know how, any better than anyone else.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 2, 2015)

I don't think the question is really about whether the drinking age should be 18 vice 21 - the legislation in question doesn't change the drinking age for the populace as a whole, just a specific population at a specific location.  To me the drinking age as a matter of public policy is an arbitrary determination (like voting age) our legislature determines.  I'm all for a national debate and shift in the drinking age, but that's not what's happening here.

To me, this is a question of military and post policy.  Is the targeting of a population of Soldiers ages 18-21 allowing them to drink on post a good idea?  In my opinion there's only a few justifications:
1. Military members are different from the rest of society thus deserve to drink legally before the rest of their peers.
2. There are significant gains in safety or other areas by making drinking more controlled (confined to on-post) for young servicemembers.


----------



## CDG (Feb 2, 2015)

pardus said:


> This is just like DADT, you are making the argument about extra staff, extra duty etc... Just like people were saying extra barracks, extra toilets, rampant rape etc...
> It's not as big of a deal as you make it out to be.
> If an 18 yr old gets stupid they will face the appropriate punishment, end of story.



It is not just like DADT.  The arguments relating to the extra staff and duty associated with the repeal of DADT were made from a place of emotion and morality. There was never a viable reason to need extra anything relating to homosexuals in the military. There is a decided difference in lowering the drinking age and attempting to do so in an on base environment.  Alcohol affects judgment and lowers inhibition.  By default, if you have x percent of certain events when alcohol is involved, and you add more people into the pool, then that number represented by x will increase.  If the argument is to implement it on base with regulation, then that regulation requires extra things that were not needed before.  

I'm not making it out to be a big deal.  I'm arguing an alternative POV.  I wouldn't be ranting and raving if this idea was implemented.  I just don't think it's a good idea.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 2, 2015)

Good point


Il Duce said:


> I don't think the question is really about whether the drinking age should be 18 vice 21 - the legislation in question doesn't change the drinking age for the populace as a whole, just a specific population at a specific location.  To me the drinking age as a matter of public policy is an arbitrary determination (like voting age) our legislature determines.  I'm all for a national debate and shift in the drinking age, but that's not what's happening here.
> 
> To me, this is a question of military and post policy.  Is the targeting of a population of Soldiers ages 18-21 allowing them to drink on post a good idea?  In my opinion there's only a few justifications:
> 1. Military members are different from the rest of society thus deserve to drink legally before the rest of their peers.
> 2. There are significant gains in safety or other areas by making drinking more controlled (confined to on-post) for young servicemembers.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 2, 2015)

I voted no.  It would be a disaster, and widen the civilian-military divide even further.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 2, 2015)

If the drinking for under 21 is restricted to on post, what's the problem?  Is there not unit or barrack duty pers?  What about RP's or if shit really goes wrong, the MP's? I'm not saying stupid shit won't happen.  If it does, that's what punishment is for and if they keep it up; kick them the fuck out.  It's up to the more senior members to set a good example and mentor the junior dipshits.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 2, 2015)

RackMaster said:


> If the drinking for under 21 is restricted to on post, what's the problem?  Is there not unit or barrack duty pers?  What about RP's or if shit really goes wrong, the MP's? I'm not saying stupid shit won't happen.  If it does, that's what punishment is for and if they keep it up; kick them the fuck out.  It's up to the more senior members to set a good example and mentor the junior dipshits.



There is already an inordinate amount of time spent on Soldiers _of all ages_ doing dumb stuff.  No need to add more fuel to the fire.  Removing Soldiers from service is part of the job but it is emotionally exhausting, especially when quality NCOs are spending nights, weekends, and free time trying to coach, teach, mentor, and counsel their guys through trouble.  It's never easy.  It's never just one issue, it usually snowballs into a avalanche of poor decisions and unintended consequences.  We've been able to turn a couple guys lives around with quick, swift, aggressive intervention, but until it's pins and needles until they are on the right side of the line.  They are important parts of the team and I won't support giving them a free pass to ruin.  There are enough of those already.  Besides, changing it solely for military folks just makes it "us vs. them."


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 2, 2015)

I voted yes for not particular reason. It is outdated to say the least.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 2, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> There is already an inordinate amount of time spent on Soldiers _of all ages_ doing dumb stuff.



This is the point.  If they are drunken assholes at 18, they'll be drunken assholes at 21.  Dumb shit is dumb shit but if they break a law, they don’t deserve a break.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 2, 2015)

RackMaster said:


> This is the point.  If they are drunken assholes at 18, they'll be drunken assholes at 21.  Dumb shit is dumb shit but if they break a law, they don’t deserve a break.



Guys grow up @RackMaster.  Guys can change, and sometimes do. 

Moreover, I don't want them to learn how to be drunken a-holes at an earlier age.  This isn't about the self-selected pre-determined lost causes.  For me, its about the guys on the fence, the good guys who just need some time to save a little money, get some good training and mentorship, grow up a little bit, and ease into their 21st year responsibly.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2015)

RackMaster said:


> *If the drinking for under 21 is restricted to on post, *what's the problem?  Is there not unit or barrack duty pers?  What about RP's or if shit really goes wrong, the MP's? I'm not saying stupid shit won't happen.  If it does, that's what punishment is for and if they keep it up; kick them the fuck out.  It's up to the more senior members to set a good example and mentor the junior dipshits.



Agreed, I think too that it should only be for on post facilities. The CoC should be involved in this and by CoC I primarily mean Squad Leader/Team Leader/PL SGT. 
I'm all about mentoring new/young guys. Mentoring the new guys is a meaningful way that I have to instill in these guys the right way to do their job/be a soldier/make sound decisions, and apart from the desire to go to war, doing so is something that keeps me motivated.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 2, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> There is already an inordinate amount of time spent on Soldiers _of all ages_ doing dumb stuff.  No need to add more fuel to the fire.  Removing Soldiers from service is part of the job but it is emotionally exhausting, especially when quality NCOs are spending nights, weekends, and free time trying to coach, teach, mentor, and counsel their guys through trouble.  It's never easy.  It's never just one issue, it usually snowballs into a avalanche of poor decisions and unintended consequences.  We've been able to turn a couple guys lives around with quick, swift, aggressive intervention, but until it's pins and needles until they are on the right side of the line.  They are important parts of the team and I won't support giving them a free pass to ruin.  There are enough of those already.  *Besides, changing it solely for military folks just makes it "us vs. them."*



This is what I keep getting hung up on.  Where the drinking age should be set is a separate discussion (as @Il Duce aptly pointed out), and it's somewhat difficult to separate, but what I'm not getting is why military should get a pass on this issue when the rest of the population doesn't.  Referencing post #33 again, I can't come up with any justification other than the two listed, and I think they're pretty thin... IMO, either the age should move for all or it should move for none.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 2, 2015)

@RackMaster I think the issues are significant.

1. If we're saying Soldiers should be eligible to drink before citizens I think we're sending a terrible message to the military and civilian world.  Of all the privileges and  rights you could honor service with early alcohol consumption seems like it should be very low on the list.  The message elevates the importance of alcohol consumption - something society already struggles with.  Further, the rates of alcohol problems - especially when mixed with prescription drugs - amongst service members are significant.

2. If the rules are intended to make the lives of Soldiers better or safer we have concrete examples where it has been tried - and it did not work.  I was at Ft. Huachuca for the MI Captain's Career Course in 2007 and they were trying it out - it was a disaster.  The idea was Soldiers were going to drink anyway, why not give them a controlled environment within walking distance of their barracks thus cutting down on DUIs, unwillingness to report serious incidents for fear of getting in trouble for underage drinking, and the victimization of Soldiers by predators in the surrounding area.  The results were a significant increase in binge drinking - after all, the post commander has essentially endorsed alcohol as the best means of having fun for young Soldiers.  With the underage drinking allowances you now had a flood of underage civilians flowing onto post as 'guests' in order to partake in the festivities.  Soldiers were able to hook up with a lot more high-schoolers with the new policy - and the post got to deal with all the consequences of that to include statutory rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc.  Article 15s went through the roof as Soldiers could now drink as much as they wanted - alongside their cadre - then walk over to the barracks and get into it.

Drinking, like many other drugs, is a personal right and responsibility.  Whenever it becomes a significant part of the identity or social structure of an organization it becomes a problem.  Army policy, in my opinion, should be similar to every other off-duty activity.  Have fun as far as the law and your own morals dictate but you are always a Soldier and always a leader - so the Army Values and your responsibilities never cease, no matter what you put into your body.


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 2, 2015)

I agree with the double standard, the age limit should be the same across the country. But that's for your governments to sort out.  We deal with it up here, age limits differ in each province and soldiers have to abide by local law.  Frankly, it's a societal problem and it's not getting better.  Until all that changes, you might as well lock Joe up in the barracks until his enlistment is up.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2015)

Il Duce said:


> @RackMaster I think the issues are significant.
> 
> 1. If we're saying Soldiers should be eligible to drink before citizens I think we're sending a terrible message to the military and civilian world.  Of all the privileges and  rights you could honor service with early alcohol consumption seems like it should be very low on the list.  The message elevates the importance of alcohol consumption - something society already struggles with.  Further, the rates of alcohol problems - especially when mixed with prescription drugs - amongst service members are significant.
> 
> ...



Point 2 is interesting. That shows the culture in the corps or unit or base is lacking discipline and maturity. Furthermore, it shows that the NCOs and Officers are weak and unworthy of leadership roles. In that respect I'd say the alcohol policy was a success in showing that there are serious issues in the base/unit/corps that need sorting out.

I don't discount the idea that this is unworkable, but what it shows to me is that there are serious problems in the system, those need to be sorted out. Alcohol isn't the problem, it's just highlighting that problem. I like it for that, then again, I think the Military system is fucked up anyway and needs a kick in the ass.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 3, 2015)

When I got to Rota, Spain in 2003 we were one of the few Marine Corps units that could legally drink overseas under the age of 21. There were fewer libo incidents when younger Marines got to drink legally. The novelty wore off rather quickly and there was nothing to hide. One big advantage we had though was nobody was allowed a car except NCO's and of course the contract marriage Marines. This cut out a lot of risk for DUI's. 

How many officers got shit drunk while in college underage? Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones in my opinion. Yes, there are rules to follow, but that is a simple fix.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 3, 2015)

Would seem a simple solution if it were lowered. Make the expectations clear and enforce those expectations to the letter. If you don't perform to standard you get punished. If you can't follow simple rules...?


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 3, 2015)

SpitfireV said:


> Would seem a simple solution if it were lowered. Make the expectations clear and enforce those expectations to the letter. If you don't perform to standard you get punished. If you can't follow simple rules...?



We already have that.  It's called waiting until your 21, just like the current rule states.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 3, 2015)

Here's an article in support of lowering the drinking age, I think most of the main arguments are covered in our thread.

Personally I think lowering the drinking age is a bad idea and is totally unnecessary.  
http://www.havokjournal.com/culture/drinking-age-us-military-age-maturity/


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 3, 2015)

I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 nationwide.  While I would definitely agree that there would be an initial increase in incidents, I think they would end up planing out as the nostalgia wears off.  I feel that too often, we as a society attempt to deal with problems with a blanket rule for everyone.  Much like group punishment, it's ineffective.  At 18 years old, you're deemed an adult.  You can be married, purchase a house, you can have the responsibilities of children, but we don't allow them to have a beer?  

I'd be curious to see if lowering the drinking age, would have a positive effect on society, in regards to people maturing at an earlier age.  Right now it's normal to see people party all throughout their early 20's, and not begin to really think about life until their late 20's.  I wonder if lowering the legal drinking age would let people get through that party phase at an earlier age?  I know me personally, I drank underage while in the military.  I did quite a bit of partying before I was 21 (perks of being stationed oversees).  By the time I was actually 21, I could've cared less about going out and getting extremely drunk.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 3, 2015)

I am against it as a whole....  simple fact, privates are stupid and will do stupid shit.  Throw alcohol in and it just gets worse, even in Batt.  I drank underage, outside the barracks it was maybe once a month with all other days off being the squad/team DD. In the barracks it was variable but I was a barracks rat so the extent of it ran into crazy gaming sessions either tabletop, PC, or console, playing in the platoon or company throw-together bands with my bass guitar, or seeing if I could rattle another company's barracks ceiling tiles with my bass amp cranked all the way up  (my 700 watt bass guitar amp through the Peavey 410 cabinet *was* more than enough.... only thing that happened was I got a playlist from all the tabs that wanted to hear something since I shut down before CQ or Staff Duty would have flipped their shit)... rather mundane, even as the platoon "Keeper of the Tap".

having said that, I also think that there should be some official, or even unofficial latitude given to LTC+ with regards to being able to do unit libo or whatever.  I had a glorious time after coming back from a multi-field rotation and the CSM had bought 6 kegs per company or some shit and also rallied up some BBQ if I recall correctly.  I think that there was some COC limitations thrown in so there was someone sober to answer for anything that might have happened, but we basically ate BBQ, drank up what was provided and got some more in a coordinated supply run with empty rucksacks to the class 6, and just had a good unit time.  Nobody got arrested, UCMJ'ed, or even injured since we were all together.

Doing shit as a unit like that builds comraderie amongst the unit as well as gives a release valve that otherwise would have been an uncontrolled detonation upon return from a month away from home to wherever home station was.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 3, 2015)

fox1371 said:


> I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 nationwide.  While I would definitely agree that there would be an initial increase in incidents, I think they would end up planing out as the nostalgia wears off.  I feel that too often, we as a society attempt to deal with problems with a blanket rule for everyone.  Much like group punishment, it's ineffective.  At 18 years old, you're deemed an adult.  You can be married, purchase a house, you can have the responsibilities of children, but we don't allow them to have a beer?
> 
> I'd be curious to see if lowering the drinking age, would have a positive effect on society, in regards to people maturing at an earlier age.  Right now it's normal to see people party all throughout their early 20's, and not begin to really think about life until their late 20's.  I wonder if lowering the legal drinking age would let people get through that party phase at an earlier age?  I know me personally, I drank underage while in the military.  I did quite a bit of partying before I was 21 (perks of being stationed oversees).  By the time I was actually 21, I could've cared less about going out and getting extremely drunk.



Why was the drinking age raised from 18 to 21?


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 3, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Why was the drinking age raised from 18 to 21?


I'm going to assume you're attempting to prove a point with your question...

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, was passed under Reagan in an effort to reduce drunk driving fatalities.  The consequences for driving intoxicated pre 1980's are much different than the consequences now.  IMO this plays a major role.  Of course there are issues with people breaking laws when the laws aren't strictly enforced.  If murder was considered a misdemeanor, I'm sure we'd have an epidemic...But instead of merely enforcing the laws in place as well as escalating the punishment for committing said crime, we also implemented an all encompassing rule for anyone under 21.  A few people fucked it up for everyone.  That's the American way...let's not concentrate on the few that cause the problems.  Let's put everyone in the same boat with them instead.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 3, 2015)

Hell, why not just go back to the days of the prohibition?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 3, 2015)

fox1371 said:


> I'm going to assume you're attempting to prove a point with your question...
> 
> The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, was passed under Reagan in an effort to reduce drunk driving fatalities.  The consequences for driving intoxicated pre 1980's are much different than the consequences now.  IMO this plays a major role.  Of course there are issues with people breaking laws when the laws aren't strictly enforced.  If murder was considered a misdemeanor, I'm sure we'd have an epidemic...But instead of merely enforcing the laws in place as well as escalating the punishment for committing said crime, we also implemented an all encompassing rule for anyone under 21.  A few people fucked it up for everyone.  That's the American way...let's not concentrate on the few that cause the problems.  Let's put everyone in the same boat with them instead.


The age was raised (another Lautenberg Bill) because DUI's (per the stats I can find) were increasing about 3 times the rate of new drivers (I can't find stats earlier than 2001).  Raising the age to 21 appears to have reduced DUI arrests by .5M, significant when you factor the lowered limit from .1 to .08 in many locations.  
Interestingly enough, there are no prohibitions against "underage" drinking, rather the Feds will withhold highway funds if the age isn't 21, and that was the driving force behind the age increase.
You are partially correct when you say penalties are tougher, but the repeat offenders don't care (like most behavior laws).


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 3, 2015)

Not trying to hijack or derail the thread but I think @Ranger Psych brings up an intersting point about the authority of leaders to modify rules.  In my view one of the primary tasks of a commander is to manage risk.  The commander is the ultimate decider - and one responsible - for the risks his/her unit accepts through policy and operations. 

I wonder if lawmakers would be better served concentrating on what ordinances/laws they are willing to allow commanders discretion on rather than attempting to dictate the particular policy themselves (in this case alcohol consumption).  I wonder if it would be a valuable tool for any unit if a commander at some level could authorize/restrict drugs/alcohol, licensing, and accreditation.  We already do a great deal on the restrictive side through post policies but have little to no authority on the loosening of restrictions.


----------



## pardus (Feb 3, 2015)

Il Duce said:


> Not trying to hijack or derail the thread but I think @Ranger Psych brings up an intersting point about the authority of leaders to modify rules.  In my view one of the primary tasks of a commander is to manage risk.  The commander is the ultimate decider - and one responsible - for the risks his/her unit accepts through policy and operations.
> 
> I wonder if lawmakers would be better served concentrating on what ordinances/laws they are willing to allow commanders discretion on rather than attempting to dictate the particular policy themselves (in this case alcohol consumption).  I wonder if it would be a valuable tool for any unit if a commander at some level could authorize/restrict drugs/alcohol, licensing, and accreditation.  We already do a great deal on the restrictive side through post policies but have little to no authority on the loosening of restrictions.



Very interesting idea, however that would require giving power to the CO/BC/etc... to override civilian law as they see fit.
That is a huge deal, and one I would think would be highly unlikely.
What would be easier would be to lower the age to 18, and from there the commander/s would have discretion to restrict or not as they see fit. 

e.g. 1st BN's alcohol policy shall be as follows, SM's aged 18-21 shall be allowed up to 6 beers or 3 harder drinks per day, on Friday and Saturday only after the duty day. 
These drinks are to be brought and consumed on post at recognized bars/restaurants/class 6 or in barracks (drinking in barracks must be under the proper supervision of an NCO).
Breaches of said policy will result in disciplinary action including UCMJ proceedings being initiated against violators. A minimum punishment of 4 weekend passes being revoked, with the offender on work details during this time shall be strictly enforced.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 3, 2015)

pardus said:


> Very interesting idea, however that would require giving power to the CO/BC/etc... to override civilian law as they see fit.
> That is a huge deal, and one I would think would be highly unlikely.
> What would be easier would be to lower the age to 18, and from there the commander/s would have discretion to restrict or not as they see fit.
> 
> ...


Does this not happen already?  I recall being on base for Marine Corps Mess Nights/Balls and the drinking age being lowered to 18 for the event.


----------



## pardus (Feb 3, 2015)

fox1371 said:


> Does this not happen already?  I recall being on base for Marine Corps Mess Nights/Balls and the drinking age being lowered to 18 for the event.



I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised at all. My question is though, is it legal to do so?


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 3, 2015)

pardus said:


> I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised at all. My question is though, is it legal to do so?



I don't think military officers would have the legal authority to do so. I believe they have to follow the law (federal?)


----------



## pardus (Feb 3, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't think military officers would have the legal authority to do so. I believe they have to follow the law (federal?)



That is my understanding, though I'm not 100% sure.
Therefore if a commander gives authorization to do so (and good on him for for doing it), and something goes wrong, his career is over for giving an illegal authorization. That's a tragedy.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 3, 2015)

pardus said:


> I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised at all. My question is though, is it legal to do so?


My guess is that it would depend on the State laws?  I'm not sure.  It's definitely happened in the past though.  I've personally experienced it haha.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 3, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> ...I am not keen on letting the under 21 crowd into the military in the first place.


 
Well, there goes half the Marine Corps...

I've got mixed feeling about this. I sure enjoyed being able to have a few beers at the E Club or NCO Club when I was a young Devil Pup. Especially after a forced march or extended training op. Best goddam beer I ever had was at Ft Sherman after coming out of that jungle and I was an E4 at the time, still shy of 21.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 3, 2015)

Looking at the number of idiot 20-somethings and 30-somethings these days, the argument that 18-20 year olds need that time to grow up is moot, because nowadays they won't.


----------



## Wench (Feb 3, 2015)

I will only speak to personal experience/observations...when stationed at Ft. Huachuca back in 1993 for a course, 18 y/o's were allowed to drink on post in order to deter shenanigans across the border.  The 18-20 y/o's there had a far bigger propensity to act like flaming idiots than newly-minted 21 y/o's elsewhere.  Chalk it up to whatever, but personally I can't support a drinking age of 18 because I do believe those few years can make a difference in maturity and decision-making.


----------



## pardus (Feb 4, 2015)

Wench said:


> I will only speak to personal experience/observations...when stationed at Ft. Huachuca back in 1993 for a course, 18 y/o's were allowed to drink on post in order to deter shenanigans across the border.  The 18-20 y/o's there had a far bigger propensity to act like flaming idiots than newly-minted 21 y/o's elsewhere.  Chalk it up to whatever, but personally I can't support a drinking age of 18 because I do believe those few years can make a difference in maturity and decision-making.



And acting like assholes on post is worse than drinking unregulated in a shithole, violent country like Mexico?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 4, 2015)

pardus said:


> And acting like assholes on post is worse than drinking unregulated in a shithole, violent country like Mexico?



Less likely to end up dead.


----------



## Wench (Feb 4, 2015)

pardus said:


> And acting like assholes on post is worse than drinking unregulated in a shithole, violent country like Mexico?



That wasn't really my point, or even what I said.  They'll act like assholes either place, moreso than a 21 y/o would.  The original question was if the drinking age should be lowered to 18 in general.  I merely provided background for my experience with the matter.  Lowering the drinking age isn't the answer; why not restrict them from traveling to Mexico? Why not lay down the law that if they act like assholes in Mexico, there will be hell to pay under the UCMJ upon eventual return?


----------



## RetPara (Feb 4, 2015)

If your old enough to die for you country, you should be able to walk in and have a damn beer.   It's an old sentiment....   we used to be able to drink beer on post no matter what age we were.   CONUS or not.


----------



## Chris16 (Feb 4, 2015)

In regards to the United States, I think the immaturity issue that corresponds to alcohol use among most underage people is a cultural aspect. When teenagers are not allowed to drink legally, and the people who raise teenagers, place restrictions on their actions in order to mitigate them consuming alcohol, they are going to want to drink; especially when many teenagers are exposed to alcohol use amongst the media, and hearing people going to college binge drinking every weekend. Teenagers are going to want to consume alcohol since it's the "cool" thing to do, and when they've never been exposed to it before, usually by those who raise them, they tend to think drinking is a "big deal, and they don't know their limits, which is when bad shit can happen.


----------



## pardus (Feb 4, 2015)

Wench said:


> That wasn't really my point, or even what I said.  They'll act like assholes either place, moreso than a 21 y/o would.  The original question was if the drinking age should be lowered to 18 in general.  I merely provided background for my experience with the matter.  Lowering the drinking age isn't the answer; why not restrict them from traveling to Mexico? Why not lay down the law that if they act like assholes in Mexico, there will be hell to pay under the UCMJ upon eventual return?



Shut your mouth when you're talking to me! 

I gotcha, I was just making the same point I had made earlier in the thread.
I don't want to drink around 18 yr old retards either, but I think Military 18 yr olds deserve it. 

Unless things have changed, they are banned from visiting the border states (and some others) of Mexico, and need clearance to go to the other states.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 4, 2015)

RetPara said:


> If your old enough to die for you country, you should be able to walk in and have a damn beer.   It's an old sentiment....   we used to be able to drink beer on post no matter what age we were.   CONUS or not.


Agreed.  I'll gladly introduce anyone here to one of my Marines who lost both legs at the age of 18.  Then go ahead and look him in the eye and tell him he's not able to have a beer...


----------



## parallel (Feb 4, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Nope. That would be a fucking disaster. And it isn't like they can't get the liqour now.


It wasn't a "disaster" when it was that way when I joined. Why would it be any different now?


----------



## pardus (Feb 5, 2015)

This...



fox1371 said:


> Agreed.  I'll gladly introduce anyone here to one of my Marines who lost both legs at the age of 18.  Then go ahead and look him in the eye and tell him he's not able to have a beer...


----------



## Six-Two (Feb 5, 2015)

Having split my formative years between California and Spain (where the drinking age was 16, if it was enforced at all), I can safely say that the novelty wore off damn quick after a couple hangovers in High School. I got a lot of the partying elements out of my system by the time I came back at 17, so while my friends were wigging out about access to booze, I was pretty much over it. That said, the idea of me at 18 and a bunch of other 18 year olds full of testosterone with access to ordnance may've been a terrifying situation. Giving an American teenager the responsibility of being a soldier and a substance that takes responsibility away at the same time just seems like a recipe for disaster.


----------



## pardus (Feb 5, 2015)

Six-Two said:


> Having split my formative years between California and Spain (where the drinking age was 16, if it was enforced at all), I can safely say that the novelty wore off damn quick after a couple hangovers in High School. I got a lot of the partying elements out of my system by the time I came back at 17, so while my friends were wigging out about access to booze, I was pretty much over it. That said, the idea of me at 18 and a bunch of other 18 year olds full of testosterone with access to ordnance may've been a terrifying situation. Giving an American teenager the responsibility of being a soldier and a substance that takes responsibility away at the same time just seems like a recipe for disaster.



Do you seriously think we give loaded weapons to people who are drinking?  Are you high or what?


----------



## Six-Two (Feb 5, 2015)

pardus said:


> Do you seriously think we give loaded weapons to people who are drinking?  Are you high or what?


No, sorry - that was presumptuous, and was poorly phrased. I guess what I meant to say was 18-year-olds are hormonal, insecure, brash, and still developing; adding booze doesn't seem necessary. And it's not like booze just leaves your system right away. Doesn't seem out of the question that somebody could still be drunk and have access to firearms. Even if that isn't the case, I don't think "Joining the army means you can get fucked up earlier" is the right message to send. That said, I'm all for the European/Australian approach to drinking, which in my experiences means being exposed to it earlier, getting it out of your system, and feeling quite comfortable passing it up later on if you've got shit to do instead of counting down to 21 like a cork waiting to be popped.


----------



## digrar (Feb 5, 2015)

All we've done is made the drinking related fuckwittery more prominent in entertainment districts. Underage drinking is also prevalent, so I doubt an increase in our drinking age would help matters, although it might make clubs and pubs slightly more bearable over the weekends.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 5, 2015)

parallel said:


> It wasn't a "disaster" when it was that way when I joined. Why would it be any different now?



I don't know when you were in, but the service is different now even than when I joined. Privates have an epic amount of freedom.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 5, 2015)

...and crotch rockets. :wall:


----------



## Wench (Feb 5, 2015)

pardus said:


> Shut your mouth when you're talking to me!
> 
> I gotcha, I was just making the same point I had made earlier in the thread.
> I don't want to drink around 18 yr old retards either, but I think Military 18 yr olds deserve it.
> ...



I like the sound you make when you shut your mouth! 

I just think 18 y/o military are just as dumb and make just as piss-poor decisions as 18 y/o civilians when alcohol is involved; I guess it's a matter of saving them from themselves more than a "you earned the right" for me.  In fact, I'd much rather save them to fight another day than a damn 18 y/o frat boy.


----------



## Brill (Feb 5, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know when you were in, but the service is different now even than when I joined. Privates have an epic amount of freedom.



And $$$$$ to boot!


----------



## parallel (Feb 5, 2015)

I just don't agree with the whole "save us from ourselves" justification for meddling in the lives of people in general, much less meddling in the lives of those who are asked to give their lives for us all including the idiots of all ages who don't have the decision making skills my 8 year old possesses. We had plenty of freedom when I was in... without all of the politically correct bullshit that today's service members have to deal with.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 6, 2015)

Wench said:


> ...I guess it's a matter of saving them from themselves more than a "you earned the right" for me...



I understand what you're trying to say Wench.  However I couldn't disagree with you more.  This mentality is what has brought our society from a society of independence, to a society that begs to be ruled.  No longer is it a time where responsibility is placed on the individuals, but instead it's placed on the Government etc to protect us from our own decisions.


----------



## pardus (Feb 6, 2015)

Yup.

Again I will bring up the specter of the 2nd Amendment in this discussion. 

What is freedom? Can you carry a gun? Can you die for your country? Can you drink alcohol? All? Some? None?

To me it's a PC argument, "ohes noes, people will be stupid, get hurt and hurt others!" Yeah, well sorry folks, freedom and Darwin are life partners, retards hurt themselves/others everyday with cars/guns/sticks/fists etc... and none of those fucks signed their life away  for their country.
Like I said before, the chain of command needs to stop being lazy incompetent cunts, and fully engage with their troops. 
WTF is so hard about that? 
As a leader you have two jobs, complete the mission, look after your guys. You sacrifice all for that, that's what a leader does!



fox1371 said:


> I understand what you're trying to say Wench.  However I couldn't disagree with you more.  This mentality is what has brought our society from a society of independence, to a society that begs to be ruled.  No longer is it a time where responsibility is placed on the individuals, but instead it's placed on the Government etc to protect us from our own decisions.


----------



## Wench (Feb 6, 2015)

The 2nd Amendment doesn't even begin to apply in any way, shape, or form.

And it's not a matter of taking away some level of responsibility; this is a law that is already in place and has been in place for decades.  I'm arguing against an exception to it, not saying remove a personal responsibility that these kids have.  They've never had it.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 6, 2015)

Wench said:


> The 2nd Amendment doesn't even begin to apply in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> And it's not a matter of taking away some level of responsibility; this is a law that is already in place and has been in place for decades.  I'm arguing against an exception to it, not saying remove a personal responsibility that these kids have.  They've never had it.


I beg to differ.  The current law may have been present for decades, but the previous laws were in place for centuries.  These kids have never had a personal responsibility?  Am I reading this statement correctly?


----------



## pardus (Feb 6, 2015)

Wench said:


> The 2nd Amendment doesn't even begin to apply in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> And it's not a matter of taking away some level of responsibility;* this is a law that is already in place and has been in place for decades.  I'm arguing against an exception to it, not saying remove a personal responsibility that these kids have.  They've never had it*.




I heard exactly the same argument made to me for the loss of a 2nd Amendment right in my country of birth, for people who came to age after the restrictions were passed. "We never had it so it doesn't matter!"

I had it and lost it. Fuck any cunt that want's to take my rights away again! 

The law for drinking here used to be 18 years old. Explain that to me. 

"God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 50's, do you understand the resemblance?


----------



## Wench (Feb 6, 2015)

No you aren't reading it correctly.  These kids have never been allowed to drink at 18.  All this talk of personal responsibility, but this is one that these kids will never is experience is what I am saying.  I'm not arguing for taking something away they already have--juse don't make an exception and give them something (drinking at 18) they would never be able to do anyway.


----------



## Wench (Feb 6, 2015)

Are you guys making the argument for all 18 y/o's, or just military?  Because your arguments are pretty broad, and statistics have borne out that raising the drinking age was a pretty smart thing to do.  Don't hear much (really none) uproar about moving it back for a reason.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 6, 2015)

Wench said:


> Are you guys making the argument for all 18 y/o's, or just military?  Because your arguments are pretty broad, and statistics have borne out that raising the drinking age was a pretty smart thing to do.  Don't hear much (really none) uproar about moving it back for a reason.


I'm an advocate of lowering the age to 18 for everyone.  Although, I would say that those serving in the military should get preference.  One thing that I don't think we can be 100% clear on is what the statistics support.  Is it the change in the drinking age that has shown a decrease in alcohol related fatalities?  Or is it that the punishment for violating those laws, as well as the public outlook on those charges has changed?  Having a DWI on your record 10 years ago, didn't have the same impact as it does now.  The statistics also didn't display a positive change until about 5 years after the law went into effect.


----------



## Wench (Feb 6, 2015)

I'm not sure where the misconception came from that the age was 18 for some extended period...it wasn't widely lowered to that until the mid-70s, and there were quite a few states that kept it at 21.  In any case, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  In my experience, I've seen nothing to recommend lowering it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 6, 2015)

If we are talking lowering it for everyone, I would be more on board. That isn't what the bill suggests or what the original question was about though.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 6, 2015)

I think another issue is how useful dictating post policies is from the legislature. 

I would not want my local state representatives voting on PT times/routes, uniform policy, staff duty hours, opening/closing ranges, or frankly the gamut of command decisions best left to the officers and NCOs who run those units and that post.


----------



## pardus (Feb 6, 2015)

Wench said:


> No you aren't reading it correctly.  These kids have never been allowed to drink at 18.  All this talk of personal responsibility, but this is one that these kids will never is experience is what I am saying.  I'm not arguing for taking something away they already have--juse don't make an exception and give them something (drinking at 18) they would never be able to do anyway.



I'm reading it correctly, you aren't getting my point. I understand these people don't have it, I'm saying it was something their predecessors had and was taken away. The fact that you have never experienced a "right" or privilege that your forebears did, is no reason to justify you not having it. Understand? 



Wench said:


> Are you guys making the argument for all 18 y/o's, or just military?  Because your arguments are pretty broad, and statistics have borne out that raising the drinking age was a pretty smart thing to do.  Don't hear much (really none) uproar about moving it back for a reason.



I'm only talking about about military, and only on post.

To be clear to all here, this is an academic discussion to me. I support the proposition, but wouldn't go out of my way to have it enacted.



Wench said:


> I'm not sure where the misconception came from that the age was 18 for some extended period...it wasn't widely lowered to that until the mid-70s, and there were quite a few states that kept it at 21.  In any case, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  In my experience, I've seen nothing to recommend lowering it.



That I didn't know, thanks for that.


----------



## Wench (Feb 6, 2015)

Re: reading it correctly--that was in answer to fox1371, who asked above if he was reading my post correctly.  I was on my phone and didn't bother with the reply function.  

You're still a wanker .


----------



## pardus (Feb 6, 2015)

Wench said:


> Re: reading it correctly--that was in answer to fox1371, who asked above if he was reading my post correctly.  I was on my phone and didn't bother with the reply function.
> 
> You're still a wanker .



Up yours with a big thing that goes up things!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 11, 2015)

Another perspective.  http://www.havokjournal.com/nation/dont-lower-drinking-age-members-military/

An excerpt:


> ...there’s probably a reason why this suggestion is coming from someone who isn’t in uniform, chiefly being that  most military leaders on active duty—including me—not only don’t think it’s unnecessary, they also think it’s a terrible idea.  There is also a reason Maragas is the sole sponsor of the bill—most people probably realize that there are far more important veterans’ issues to address than this one.


----------



## JBS (Feb 11, 2015)

Should totally be allowed to drink at 18 if you serve.

I think it's total bullshit that we can send a young man to die in Afghanistan (or any other shithole), be responsible for (in some cases) millions of dollars in technology, man a turret capable of destroying etire apartment buildings (along with fire discipline in populated areas), and depending on the maturity level, even lead a fire team or squad of our sons into battle, but we can't trust him with a case of beer.

Say what you want about they're not mature, etc.   If that's the case why would you put a rifle in his hand and tell him to put a round in the enemy after dragging him 4,000 miles from his family?   He's too immature to drink, but not too immature for you to ask him to be accountable for the lives of our men, friendlies in the area, as well as the equipment and vehicles?  

I'm just every bit as conscious of the general dangers of drinking, but it comes with the territory.

If your NCO's are worth two f**cks, the junior enlisted woud drink safely, and carry on to live and fight another day without incident.

EDITED TO ADD:

I didn't read the last couple of pages of posts, so my comments are in no way directed at any other individual poster, only my feelings on the issues for this topic.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 12, 2015)

I was a proponent on this thread of keeping it focused on the specifics of the proposal (posts in ND vs a 'the drinking age should be lowered in the US' discussion).

But, was listening to a podcast this morning (here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...diction-prone-and-should-protect-their-brains ) I thought was instructive towards some of the overall drinking age discussion.

It's an interview with Dr. Frances Jensen who wrote a book called 'The Teenage Brain.'  In it she lays out issues of cognitive development.  I haven't read the book but the interview was fascinating in terms of the physiological neural aspects of learning, memory, and addiction.  Worth the listen and probably the read if those topics interest you.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 12, 2015)

Drinking age is already 18 for military stationed overseas.. so I don't see what the issue is.  It's even lower for dependents in some of these countries.  Germany's drinking age for beer and wine is 16 yo.

Is Germany experiencing whatever is being described as a disaster by some on here for their teenage drinking habits?

Cultural differences aside, how are other countries dealing with it?


----------



## pardus (Feb 12, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Drinking age is already 18 for military stationed overseas.. so I don't see what the issue is.  It's even lower for dependents in some of these countries.  Germany's drinking age for beer and wine is 16 yo.
> 
> Is Germany experiencing whatever is being described as a disaster by some on here for their teenage drinking habits?
> 
> Cultural differences aside, *how are other countries dealing with it?*



Laws. e.g. do stupid shit when you are drunk, you will be punished appropriately. Big boys rules.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 12, 2015)

pardus said:


> Laws. e.g. do stupid shit when you are drunk, you will be punished appropriately. Big boys rules.


Or likely in your case to just slip through the cracks?


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 12, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> *Drinking age is already 18 for military stationed overseas..* so I don't see what the issue is.  It's even lower for dependents in some of these countries.  Germany's drinking age for beer and wine is 16 yo.


Not necessarily true.  I know that in Okinawa the drinking age is 20, since that is the host nations law.  

But yes, magically service members are able to handle drinking under the age of 21 while oversees (with various degrees of stupidity).   I've never seen anything problematic though.  Most incidents that I saw, all involved more senior personnel.  If somebody did something stupid, they were properly punished for it.


----------



## RetPara (Feb 18, 2015)

fox1371 said:


> Most incidents that I saw, all involved more senior personnel.  If somebody did something stupid, they were properly punished for it.


You never went drinking with me when I was 18 in Japan, Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, or the Philippines.....


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 18, 2015)

RetPara said:


> You never went drinking with me when I was 18 in Japan, Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, or the Philippines.....


I would've gladly!


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 19, 2015)

24 hr R&R in Pattaya Beach. Bar bouncing till the bus back to the airfield.... Won 2k Baht though at a bar with a kickboxing ring and challenge though...  No signs saying I had to kickbox :-"


----------



## compforce (Feb 19, 2015)

1986 when I joined ...old enough to fight, old enough to drink.  17 and bar crawling...
1987...  19 to drink if military, I got assigned to Korea...old enough to see over the bar, old enough to drink...18/19 bar crawling in a foreign country including a 4 day pass + 48 hour pass when I reupped...6 day thunder run from  Itaewon to Bong Il Chon
1989...21 to drink if military...  Went back to Campbell and hung out at a bar where they knew me from before...  showed them my ID on my 21st birthday and we all laughed about it
21 1/2 - charged with DUI (didn't stick, dismissed from court)

My point is that there isn't enough behavioral difference between 17/18 and 21 to make it matter what the drinking age is.  Soldiers will always drink, they will always get in fights and they will always do stupid shit.  It's about individual responsibility and maturity, not age.  The biggest difference is that if you lower the drinking age, the younger soldiers will lose some of the mystique around it because it's no longer doing something that is forbidden.  They won't have to hide what they are doing any longer.

<Begin rant>
This is all more PC bullshit.  The warrior class is a different breed.  Work hard, play hard has always been the motto for those that voluntarily put themselves in harm's way.  The closer to the enemy the harder the play.  Work hard, don't play is a recipe for disaster.  If you have the major stressor of military service, which is only worsened by deployment and combat deployment, you have to have some release.  It's different for everyone.  If you make all of the forms of release verboten, then you end up with strung out, stressed killers with no productive way to burn it off.  For me relieving stress was getting out of the barracks, hanging out in a bar with friends, having a few (or more than a few drinks) and getting stupid while trying to get lucky with some of the local ladies.  The next day I'd feel like hell, but I was good for a long time after.  There's just not a good way for the military to replace that form of release.  I'd have probably lost it along the way if I hadn't been able to burn stress that way.  I always knew no matter what kind of crap was going on or how bad the suck was that there was a good time with friends waiting at the end of it.  So yes, I say lower the drinking age.  A lot of really good troops that are exactly the kind of people we need are getting drummed out of the service or having their careers ruined for alcohol related incidents, and non-alcohol related incidents that come from being bored, that shouldn't even be an issue.    It used to be that no one made E6 without at least one Article 15 resulting in loss of a stripe.  Now an Article 15 ends a career and more than a few of them are directly related to the drinking age.

Yes, the services need the soldiers that play by the rules but they also need the steely eyed killer that parties hard when not engaging the enemy.
<end rant>


----------



## CDG (Feb 19, 2015)

compforce said:


> The warrior class is a different breed.


 
How much of the military would you honestly put into this category?


----------



## compforce (Feb 19, 2015)

CDG said:


> How much of the military would you honestly put into this category?



Combat Arms, SOF and those special cases of CSS are who *should* be in this class at a minimum.  In today's Army, it's probably about half of that at best.

I attribute that to the mommy mentality that pervades the military.  Big Boy Rules should be in effect much more often than they are.  Instead we coddle the soldier and make him/her feel good about herself and as a result mental toughness is reduced significantly.  I point to the rising suicide rates in combat veterans as anecdotal evidence.  There's a reason that it was always hard...  "better to bleed in training than die in combat" doesn't just apply to physical bleeding.


----------



## CDG (Feb 19, 2015)

compforce said:


> Combat Arms, SOF and those special cases of CSS are who *should* be in this class at a minimum.  In today's Army, it's probably about half of that at best.
> 
> I attribute that to the mommy mentality that pervades the military.  Big Boy Rules should be in effect much more often than they are.  Instead we coddle the soldier and make him/her feel good about herself and as a result mental toughness is reduced significantly.  I point to the rising suicide rates in combat veterans as anecdotal evidence.  There's a reason that it was always hard...  "better to bleed in training than die in combat" doesn't just apply to physical bleeding.


  That's my point.  The "everyone's a warrior who charges hills with a rifle for his country" argument kind of falls flat.  So if that's the justification, then it's not applicable to the entire military.  Guys on here relating how they drank at an early age and could handle it are abnormal cases that only seem more significant because of how relatively small this board is.  For every compforce, RetPara, RangerPsych, and fox1371, there are exponentially more that DO make poor choices and can't handle it.  Almost every single alcohol related incident I saw in the Navy when overseas were those under 21 who were allowed to drink because of whatever port we were in.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 19, 2015)

CDG said:


> For every compforce, RetPara, RangerPsych, and fox1371, there are exponentially more that DO make poor choices and can't handle it.  Almost every single alcohol related incident I saw in the Navy when overseas were those under 21 who were allowed to drink because of whatever port we were in.



Do you think that perhaps the fact that since the drinking age was 21 in the states, that maybe they went overboard since it was illegal when they went back to the U.S.?  I know I did when I was in Okinawa.  We all partied hard because when we got stateside, it was no longer legal to do so.


----------



## compforce (Feb 19, 2015)

CDG said:


> For every compforce, RetPara, RangerPsych, and fox1371, there are exponentially more that DO make poor choices and can't handle it.  Almost every single alcohol related incident I saw in the Navy when overseas were those under 21 who were allowed to drink because of whatever port we were in.



I don't disagree.  I think this is a problem with lack of accountability and personal responsibility though.  Those are both things that can and should be taught from day 1 in basic. (actually, they should be taught from an early age by the parents, but the military can't control that).  Take a look at what all of us that did make good choices have in common.  We all grew up in the "old" service, you know, back when it was hard or in units where excellence is the norm.  On the very first day of basic when I did the duffel bag drag (do they even do that any more?) we were told that we were responsible for ourselves and helping our buddy.  That was reinforced every single day throughout training.  We received both positive AND negative reinforcement and it worked.  Did we have alcohol related incidents at the unit?  Sure.  Did we have many of them?  No.  I was in back when they tried out the cohort platoon.  The concept was that the platoon stayed together from Basic throughout the military career.  It actually only happened for our first duty station, but it meant that the people in my entire platoon with the exception of the PSG and PL went through basic together.  I know that in that platoon we had 1 alcohol related incident in a year and a half together.  BTW, that was the oldest guy in the platoon. He got into a bar brawl defending a stripper that got punched by a guy from another unit.

My point is that the military is coddling the new soldiers.  They are trying to apply corporate leadership techniques to soldiers.  It doesn't work in that environment.  Go back to the days when an NCO could make it painful to make a mistake.  I'm not talking about the "meet me in the laundry room" days, just back as far as when a person could stay in the front leaning rest for hours.  Back to when flutter kicks and koalifying were something you'd see all the time.  I can tell you that the current "Article 15 for everything" environment comes from the corporate world and DOES NOT WORK IN THE MILITARY.  Putting it on paper, whether a counseling statement or a non-judicial punishment only does one of two things.  Either the soldier doesn't care OR the soldier cares very much and loses motivation because of the career consequences.  In the corporate world it works because the employee knows that the paperwork is a prelude to losing their livelihood.  In the military world it doesn't work because the soldier knows, mentally, that, yes, they will take a potential pay cut and career hit, but the reality is that paper holds very little power/influence over the soldier until it is too late to salvage them.  Very few behavioral changes can be made by a piece of paper or telling them "don't do that again".  Complete behavioral changes can be effected by small, short, but painful negative reinforcement when they do something wrong and small, short, but pleasant positive reinforcement when they do something right.


----------



## compforce (Feb 19, 2015)

CDG said:


> .  For every compforce, RetPara, RangerPsych, and fox1371, there are exponentially more that DO make poor choices and can't handle it.



One more thought.  If they aren't responsible enough to make good choices and deal with alcohol that young, are they responsible enough to carry a loaded firearm?  Or are we taking whoever we can get and then just using them as cannon fodder and hoping they point the gun in the right direction?  Maybe even getting lucky and hitting a bad guy with an AD....


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 19, 2015)

compforce said:


> <Begin rant>
> This is all more PC bullshit.  The warrior class is a different breed.  ...
> <end rant>



I disagree.  They are the SAME breed, because they come from the same pool of people.  After a period of adaptation to the lifestyle and adoption of the military's values troops might become something different, but in general members of the military are cut from the same cloth that makes up the fabric of American society.  The idea that a young enlistee or officer is somehow innately better at decision-making than his or her peers just doesn't hold up.  We can look at the most recent records of courts-martial for evidence of this.


----------



## AWP (Feb 19, 2015)

You could lower the drinking age to 18 if you had an NCO corps.


----------



## compforce (Feb 19, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> I disagree.  They are the SAME breed, because they come from the same pool of people.  After a period of adaptation to the lifestyle and adoption of the military's values troops might become something different, but in general members of the military are cut from the same cloth that makes up the fabric of American society.  The idea that a young enlistee or officer is somehow innately better at decision-making than his or her peers just doesn't hold up.  We can look at the most recent records of courts-martial for evidence of this.



Respectfully I will disagree with this.  I do partially agree that on day 1 when we enter the military we are all the same.  We all come from the same pool.  That said, take a look, and I'm focused on the enlisted side as I don't have enough experience with officers, at the differences between combat arms and support versions of basic/AIT.  I've been through both Infantry OSUT and Signal AIT.  The differences were very pronounced.  The sense of responsibility that is forced down your throat in INF training was very very noticeably absent in the 25 series course. 

Also, while I don't truly believe in the "born to kill" idea, I do believe that people will gravitate toward the jobs that fit their personality best.  There will always be shades of gray (not the book/movie!) in where their personalities lie, but I do believe that the whole purpose of basic/ait is to undo a person's experience, break their bad habits and then rebuild the Army values on that nearly blank slate.  That we no longer take a person back to that level is part of the reason that I feel like today's lower enlisted/younger NCO do not tend towards those traits that I would call a warrior.  Respectfully, I think the short version is that everyone starts their military career at the same level, but evolve and mature faster in the combat arms/SOF/certain CSS like EOD world, especially with a combat deployment.  I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, just that the rule tends to prove out, at least among enlisted troops.


----------



## compforce (Feb 19, 2015)

I said part of that badly.  When I am talking about warriors, I'm talking about people of any MOS that are the ones you'd want on the battlefield next to you.  In the old days we would have called them the "field soldiers".  They're the ones that were constantly in trouble for something in garrison, but you put a ruck on their back and rifle in their hands and they were the people that actually got the job done.  In the pareital principle, they were the 20% doing 80% of the work.


----------



## pardus (Feb 19, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> You could lower the drinking age to 18 if you had an NCO corps.



Wooah there, I don't want to see anymore crazy talk from you young man!


----------



## Muppet (Feb 22, 2015)

I am torn. I drank at 18/19 when I got to Bragg. I acted the fool, barracks retardism and by the time I turned 21, I was burned out. I feel that of you are old enough to serve you're country, you should be able to drink. I also feel that w/o people to watch your six, it sets you up for failure. Like, buddy fuckers that allow you to get retarded and do really stupid shit or junior NCO's that want to fuck you instead of having you're back when you do retarded shit cause lets face it. We all have acted like jack asses while on the juice. That's my 2 cents...

F.M.


----------



## Brill (Feb 27, 2015)

@Marauder06 , MD wants same. Odd for such a blue state.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/fnotes/bil_0003/sb0213.pdf


----------



## Lionshare (Apr 15, 2015)

Just something to consider - should the legal drinking age be a State responsibility?

After all, it was a Federal Mandate that threatened each State into raising the drinking age.


----------



## devilbones (Apr 16, 2015)

Jakedeep said:


> Just something to consider - should the legal drinking age be a State responsibility?
> 
> After all, it was a Federal Mandate that threatened each State into raising the drinking age.


Definitely.  There needs to be less fed and more power at the state level.


----------

