A short while ago, I read an editorial article asserting the state of Utah was "unfair" due to the nature of its liquor laws and the government's prudish refusal to consider legislation to extend drinking privileges to 18 year old soldiers and sailors.

  The author noted that many military commanders overseas permit both the sale and consumption of alcohol by their enlisted personnel. He also pulled out all of the old canards and slogans of the 1960s and 1970s, used by activists to extend federal voting rights to 18 year olds, as support to bolster his arguments to the state’s legislature for changing state laws.

   I submitted my comments in opposition to the article and idea to both the author and the newspaper’s opinion page editor. I really didn’t expect either notice or response to my refutation–and I wasn’t disappointed.

   I lived through the Viet Nam war era and clearly remember the passage of the 26th Amendment in 1971 when 18 year olds got the vote. The editorial author paraphrased the mantra of that day: "If I'm old enough to fight & die, I'm old enough to vote & drink." While 18-25 is one of our largest population groups, they're also the least likely to vote...that's been true for over 30+ years now. Changing the vote age back to 21 would impact voting percentages by < 1%.

   Many states lowered their drinking age to 18 during the 70's & 80's. After the death tolls went through the roof, within just a few years, these same states universally raised drinking ages back to 21. The social experiment with a lower drinking age needlessly cost thousands of young lives.

   This last fall, 5 underage college students drank themselves to death (alcohol poisoning). Campus police report that 2/3rd of all of the reported rapes cases are related to intoxication.

   Two years ago, the AMA reported that: "Underage [teen] drinking is a big public health problem, ...underage drinking increases the chances of homicide, suicide, brain damage, pregnancy and HIV infection." Frankly, as there is absolutely no identified virtue in killing brain cells with a bottle, the mature kids, those that I'd trust with a lower drinking age, are the very ones that are the least likely to drink.

This week I read an article that the single major killer of young combat veterans is auto accidents. According to 2001-2004 military statistics, our young warriors had almost a 50% greater chance of dying in a car crash than in combat...a major factor in these deaths was drunk driving. The military CAN lower the on base/post drinking age to 18; they choose not to as a safety consideration.

   There are two very practical reasons why the military primarily recruits young people 18-25: their youthful physical prowess and their immaturity–the immature & false self-image of total invincibility, grants them the major virtue of near fearlessness in combat. A long-standing military axiom: "There are old soldiers & bold soldiers, but few old-bold soldiers."

   In short, the 18 year old drinking age was tried...the cost in young lives was a greater price than Americans were willing to pay. The 18 year old vote is a failed experiment–not changed because its self-correcting.
   If teenage soldiers were ever irked enough to use their political voice, they would be exempted from handgun restrictions overnight. Still, while state handgun prohibitions are founded upon crime/gang statistics, one state legislator made a very good argument against changing the restrictions for the teenage military: If the military that trained them doesn't trust them with an off-duty gun (possession of a firearm is highly restricted on base/post), why should we believe that they'll be significantly safer while on leave?

   There are tremendous differences in the maturity & judgement at 18, 21 and 25. Some laws & insurance premiums reflect that. The author mentioned the maturity of his son, who could be inferred to be between 19-21. I asked the author what was his assessment of the son’s maturity today, compared to when he was in 18; knowing as a father myself, the differences to be significant. As far as the virtue of the "right" of teens to marry, what is legal should not be used to imply something as being wise...in this instance, divorce statistics demonstrates exactly the opposite.

   Emotions may support an opinion for a lower drinking age for the young men and women in our armed services, but reason, facts and logic sure don't.