“I’m Old Enough to Fight a War but I Can’t Drink?”
In the year 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the “Selective Training and Service Act.” This created the first United States draft, where citizens ages 26-35 must sign up to potentially be “drafted” into the military. The World War II draft came when the army was in dire need for more soldiers. Since the end of the war, the draft has rarely been used with the excepts being the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Since then the draft has laid dormant with the United State army being composed of volunteers. However, once a male citizen turns 18 years old he must sign up for the draft, despite this dormancy. This comes as a reserve in case another war were to break out and the military need more troops. That means a male can be sent off to war as early a 18 years of age. Yet he cannot drink? This is the classic “I’m Old Enough to Fight a War but I Can’t Drink?” argument.
The Draft Age and the Drinking Age were not always different. When the Vietnam War was going on both were set at 18. It was actually lowered 18 with the thought being, if a man if allowed to fight in the name on the United State, why should he not be allowed to enjoy an alcoholic beverage. This all changed when the National Minimum Drinking Age bill passed making the drinking age a Federal Law and setting it firmly at 21. However, many feel it is unfair that someone can die for their country but they can’t go out and order a beer. David Alan Smith of the Chicago Tribute said, “My 21st birthday is not until Oct. 31, 1993. As long as I`m too young to drink, I also refuse to die for my country. And, yes, I did register on my 18th birthday as required by law”(Chicago Tribute).
While the drinking age for the Vietnam War may have been the 18, same as the draft age, that was also over 40 years ago. Since the 1970’s cell phones have seen dramatic changes. The world sits in the palm of your hand and an average car’s performance has more than doubled. Essentially the world has become slightly more dangerous with the amount of distractions and with faster cars. One major concern about a lowered drinking age is car fatalities especially while being under the influence. Texting and Driving is an issue that has come to the foreground recently, which continues to claim lives. Many argue that if the drinking age was reduced not only is there the texting and driving risk but also reaction speed is impaired. US News projects that by the end of 2005, the change in drinking age (from 1984) had saved around 25,000 American lives in prevention of potential automobile related accident. Also according to Nationwide Insurance poll, 72% of adults think that, “lowering the drinking age would make alcohol more accessible to kids.”
National Drinking Age can be a double-edged sword. Keeping it at 21 has proven and can prove to be safer, especially in terms of driving. Many people believe that a higher drinking age makes obtaining alcohol for minors much more difficult and therefore much less likely to drink and drive. This already in a world where minors are constantly distracted by cell phones and other devices. However, it still does seem strange that a person can go fight and potentially give their life defending the homeland of his or her country, yet he or she could not legally consume an alcoholic beverage. Maybe the draft age should increase, however that is a whole different topic. While a raised drinking age may keep the roads slightly safer, it can seem inconsistent to have minors able to fight in wars.
I haven’t really thought about this before… While it does seem inconsistent, I’ll be honest, I think the quote by David Alan Smith above is a little hardcore, hahaha. Refusing to fight because he can’t drink?? Well maybe it is just to make a point that there is an inconsistency here… anyway, it is interesting to see how there are arguments, with support, on each side (considering and relating to texting and driving faster cars, accessibility, all versus previously stated arguments like in your last blog, etc.). Nice blog.
One of the interesting things I learned in social psych was the best way to get someone to do something would to be to put a big sign that says “DON’T DO _______” up. For example: “DON’T VANDALIZE THIS WALL”. What happened? People vandalized it. However, when they put up a sign that said “Please Don’t Vandalize This Wall” there was a lot less vandalism on it. I think the same follows for drinking. Americans are told “no” over and over again when it comes to alcohol which conflicts with our independent upbringing. This causes more people to drink than they would if the drinking age was lower. I think that the drinking age was brought back up to 21 after MADD was created and started campaigning- they have good points but they fail to realize that kids will drink whether or not there is a law. They will find a way to get it whether it is an older brother, friends, or family member. I think instead of having the drinking age so high, there needs to be more instruction in schools on the safety of alcohol that is mandated nationally. There are movies I was shown in school that will prevent me from EVER driving drunk. Ever. So although I see the point to having the drinking age at 21, I don’t think that it is the correct solution to the problem that we are facing- it is just making it worse.
This is definitely an interesting topic that is inevitably brought up in the discussion of the legal drinking age. I feel like this argument has somewhat been laid to rest since we have not used the draft in a while; however, I would be very intrigued by how it would reappear if we ever do use the draft again. One thing that I think is important to consider is that eighteen year olds in the military have older leaders to watch over them, but eighteen year olds drinking probably don’t. The current drinking age definitely saves a lot of lives every year, so I think raising the enlistment age is a fair solution that would put the issue to rest for good, and I’ve actually always wondered why the draft age was never changed after World War II.