That is an odd double standard - I'm 17 - I turned 18 in bootcamp - here I am, 17 years old, old enough to go to some exotic foreign land, meet exotic foreign people, and shoot them. But I cant have a beer.

When I was stationed in New York, I'd just flash my military I.D. - there wasnt a waitstaffer or bartender in the city who wouldnt serve me. When I was transfered up to Boston, I tried buying a glass of wine with dinner - I was 20 by this point - and declined. Didnt matter that it was a federal ID, used by an active member of the US military and it was a measly little glass of vino - zero tollerance in Boston. All of it.

Maybe things have changed since then - no one was off in foreign parts dying - the Soviets were still around so werent nobody doing nothing. I donno if a military ID can get you a beer in Boston now. I'm doubtful.

"Kids who had lived under parental and federal prohibition didn't know how to enjoy alcohol responsibly"

They also burn chairs after sports games.

Was that their parent's fault for not letting them burn chairs?

No.

They are stupid college kids. Whatever rules their parents gave them did not lead to their decadence. It only prevented said decadence from being around to screw up their highschool career.

If the problem is the combination of alcohol and teen driving. My solution is to lower the drinking age to 18 or 16. And increase the driving age to 21.

This would have the collateral benefit of reducing the carnage associated with teens driving sober.

There would be other social benefits also, this is left as an exercise to the reader.

xian

As an Australian teenager who is legally allowed to drink (I'm 18) I think the US is criminalising an age group who is going to drink whatever happenes. The fact that you can't go out underage causes more underage drinking because people are bored. when drinking is criminalised it means people are less reluctant to get help out of fear of punishment.

Nobody I know drink drives because there is a very high chance they'll get caught, as well on teenage provisional licenses the blood alcohol limit here is zero

Um.

When you turn 18 you aren't shipped off immediately to "exotic" lands. Normally, you spend quite a long time TRAINING for it.

If you want to spend 2 years training to learn how to drink, say so. Then you can make an argument about military and drinking.

Furthermore, booze is the last thing a soldier needs.

In four of the five US services you might be right - but the fifth - the US Coast Guard you have to wait for your rating school. Depending on its popularity the waiting list can be as long as five years (for MST school - Marine Science Technician), unlike the larger services where raiting school comes right after bootcamp.

Either way, you arent going to be 21 by the time you've completed all your training. I was 19 by the time I was a petty officer - and while it never was an issue, technically, at 19, I had the authority of a Federal Marshal within Coast Guard jurisdiction (Act of Congress 1799).

I know the non-rates (E1-E3 Seaman Recruit to Seaman) on the boarding teams were under 21, and not many of the petty officers were much beyond 19, 20. From the perspective of a 38 year old, the J.Os (junior officers) which were with the boarding parties were kids - undergrads with authority.

And these same sort of people, today, are boarding vessels armed - shotguns, M-16s, 9mm pistols. These same sorts of people are right now in Iraq doing security sweeps at port facilities as members of Tactical Law Enforcement Teams, are right now maintaining the security of oil rigs, and assisting naval personell in boardings in the Gulf.

In other words, old enough to kill, but not old enough to drink.

Oh, and booze is the first thing a sailor needs. Thats what you do at a liberty port, preferably at a strip club.

What do you think we did when the liberty pipe was made? Go play golf?

<link>

"They also burn chairs after sports games."

You're right, they're just kids. Adults burn cars and riot.

Absolutely. It has never made sense since these laws were passed to allow people (in general - there are exceptions in some states to the following) in the U.S. to enter the military, vote, get married, etc. at age 18 but not drink legally. Many states actually were AGAINST doing so until the Fed Govt used subsidized Highway Funding as a club to force them to do so (I think WI was the longest hold out). MADD and other groups are also over focused on the deaths of middle/high-income, soon-going-to-college (or already in college) teens who have minimal responsibilities, ready cash and access to cars as well. I don't guess the average 18-19 year old Army recruit heading to Iraq has unlimited cash or unlimited access to a vehicle. If an 18 year old is "responsible" enough to die for his/her country, vote, and marry, why is that same person not "responsible" enough to have a drink when they choose? Or are these laws just designed to protect the "chosen few" kids in the 18-22 range who have been both so neglected from a parental involvement standpoint and yet so coddled from a responsibility/monetary standpoint all their lives that they have no idea how to conduct themselves responsibly?

If MADD wants to make a better case, they'd best moderate using images of almost exclusively white, middle/upper and upper class kids as the perps/victims. Those kids need better parenting, not higher drinking ages.

Saletan:

I haven’t thought it through very far. But temperamentally, I’m for more freedom and more responsibility. So my instinct would be to lower the age while severely punishing impaired driving. And when I say impaired, I don’t mean just booze. I mean cell phones, sleep deprivation, and sex acts while the car is moving.

Have any of you seen a study that compares the degree of driving impairment caused by various blood-alcohol levels with the degree of driving impairment caused by talking on a cell phone (even with speakerphone or headphone)? I’d like to see the data. I’ll throw in $1,000 if the study includes a third group of subjects who were getting blow jobs at the wheel, plus my life savings if the participants were randomly assigned.

I haven’t thought responsibility through very far. So my instinct would be to randomly throw my life savings at the wheel of blow jobs to see the sex acts caused by booze.

2 points:

1. When I was back in college (and yes I DID have to walk in 2 feet of snow, I was in school in upstate NY), we had a keg-o-rator in our fraternity basement, and ready access to alcohol did NOT decrease binge drinking, it just made it easier.

2. Increasing penalties for drunk driving will NOT decrease drunk driving. I have worked in the criminal justice system for 14 years and deterrence as a reason for penalties in sentencing is our dirty little secret - it doesn't work. One thing nearly all criminals have in common is (if they have any sort of conscious thought before committing the crime at all) they don't believe they will get caught, so any penalty they may face generally doesn't play into their reasoning when they are about to commit a crime, especially when the criminal-to-be is drunk. If people though rationally about driving drunk, no one would ever do it ("uh, I can get in a 2 ton death-mobile and risk killing myself and others or take a cab, now where are the car keys?") (oh, and this is why the death penalty is also ridiculous - if someone is rational enough to consider possible punishment before they kill someone, they are rational enough to simply not kill that person) This doesn't mean we shouldn't punish people who do bad things, just that we shouldn't make the argument that increasing a penalty will necessarily result in the decrease of a crime.

errol