Lower the Drinking Age on Base to 18?

[x SF med]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Good point

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]

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

 

[RackMaster]

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]

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]

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 It is outdated to say the least.

 

[RackMaster]

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.