American War Dodgers

[M.Dancer]

Welcome back Sully.

[GostHacked]

Except it is irrelevant. Not all states have the same drinking laws...so in effect if they were to follow that hair brained notion, the US could recuit in one state that allows under 21 drinking but not in others. Using this as a benchmark is arbitry and doesn't conform to the multitude of other laws which clearly show that a person is considered an adult at 18.

But not adult enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Mini...Age_Act_of_1984

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Mini...Age_Act_of_1984

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

In the United States as of 1995, minor is legally defined as a person under the age of 18, although, in the context of alcohol, people under the age of 21 may be referred to as "minors." However, not all minors are considered "juveniles" in terms of criminal responsibility. As is frequently the case in the United States, the laws vary widely by state.

Grey area. Legal to possess a gun, drive a car, get married, even treated as an adult in court, but not allowed to drink.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (Title 23 U.S.C. §158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress as a mechanism whereby all states would become thereafter required to legislate and enforce the age of 21 years as a minimum age for purchasing and publicly possessing alcoholic beverages. Under the Federal Aid Highway Act, a state not enforcing the minimum age would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.[1]

Are states violating this law by lowering the drinking age below 21? Or are the legal drinking ages higher in those states? Looks like if they don't adhear to it, they don't get money to fix the streets.

But using the state dictated drinking age as a benchmark makes as much sence as using the age of consent....neither of which are synonymous with the legal age of adulthood.

You are right, all these benckmarks should be consistant across the board. Also it looks like a Federal benchmark to me. Also looks like they are breaking Federal Law.

Age of consent laws vary as well. Some states have it as low as 13. IN another state, that is statutory rape. Kind of odd to have people this young making those big decisions, but not allowing them to drink. They can have sex, but stay away from the booze!

In Canada, the age of consent was lowered to 14 for some time... then raised to 16. Originaly it was at 18.

I guess many thought that 14 was pushing it.

[M.Dancer]

But not adult enough.

I think Suluco's answer ends this diversion.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually alcohol is relevant. Old enough to fire a gun in battle with the intent to kill, but not old enough to have a beer afterwards to calm the nerves.

Of course it's relevant, I don't see how anyone can say otherwise; and I've noticed that no one has been able to explain why young people who are not considered old enough to drink are considered old enough to make the kind of judgments war requires. I'd trust someone with a beer before I'd trust their judgment regarding taking lives. And as you pointed out, after they fire to kill, they are too young to have a beer.

If you want to treat them like an adult, give them all the rights as adults. If you don't, then you are considering them as minors still. This really should be a black and white issue. But there are many grey areas.

Again, that's the point I've been making. Until they are no longer a minor by law in any way, they should be considered a minor when it comes to signing military contracts. By the very definition of a minor, they are truly no longer a minor until after they have all adult privileges. Until they've reached adult status in all respects, as long as the law can give them a "minor in possession" charge, how can they say they are not minors when they join the military?

Ontario it is legal to drink at 19, eventhough you are considered an adult at 18. Quebec, Manitoba have the drinking age at 18... not sure about the rest of the provinces.

You can sign up for the military at 18. I did. Well, I applied, Air Force. My grades were what killed me.

You can sign up for the military at 17 in the U.S., but you need parental permission; after you turn 18 you don't.

According to Army Guy, who is Canadian military, you need parental permission in Canada until age 19, when it is legal to drink; when you are no longer considered to be a minor by the law in any respect (emphasis mine):

Here in Canada you require your parents permission up until the age of 19....

"Up until the age of 19" would mean that 18 year olds require parental permission. I think it should be the same in the U.S.-- until the law no longer recognizes young people as a minor in any respect, parental permission should be required to join the military in light of the type of contract it is.

As I said, I've asked people to explain why it's ok to say one is not responsible enough to drink but one is responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war, but so far all I've gotten in response is insults.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: Pay attention .... I'm not talking about 17 year olds .... I'm talking about young people between the ages of 18 and 21 who can join the military without parental permission but are minors when it comes to having alcohol. The government has determined that they are minors who are not responsible enough to drink a beer, but are responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war.

I agree. I have alwyas thought it odd that the drinking age was 21. You can drive a car, vote, and go to war, but not drink? A leftover from the prohibition age I'd say. The problem here is not to raise the age of recruitment to 21, it is to lower the drinking age to 18.

We already tried lowering the drinking age to 18 in the U.S., at least some states did, but some of those then concluded that 18 was too young, so they raised the age back up. After a while, the federal government decided to make the legal age 21 in every state because they felt any younger was too young, and the 18 to 21 age group was causing too many problems/deaths. So as I said, it's the government who decided that those under 21 are "minors;" that those under 21 aren't responsible enough to drink a beer.

Edited August 14, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

Of course it's relevant, I don't see how anyone can say otherwise; and I've noticed that no one has been able to explain why young people who are not considered old enough to drink are considered old enough to make the kind of judgments war requires.

Because the argument has no merits. Hmmm..lets see, 16 year olds can legally drive....driving can impart deadly consequences....if someone can make the judgement to drive....

According to Army Guy, who is Canadian military, you need parental permission in Canada until age 19, when it is legal to drink; when you are no longer considered to be a minor by the law in any respect (emphasis mine):

18 in Quebec, Alberta and Manitoba and no doubt you misunderstood AG....you need your parent signature up to 18.

You must:

Basic Eligibility. Prior to enrolment in the Canadian Forces, the following criteria must be met:

· Be a Canadian Citizen

· Be 18 years of age, or 16 with parents' permission

· Have a minimum grade 10 education at a provincial standard

· Be free of any legal obligations

http://www.dnd.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=846

As I said, I've asked people to explain why it's ok to say one is not responsible enough to drink but one is responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war, but so far all I've gotten in response is insults.

You're too sensitive by half. I'm sure you are at least average intellegence but your argument is specious and hairbrained. I have given you at least a half dozen reasons why your arbitray goal post is nonsense..you have chosen to ignore them and in thios case I think Bush Cheney answer fits the bill. It's because you think you can score a politcal point...

If the drinking age is fine....

Then states that have different drinking laws would have different recruitment laws?

If the arbitrary drinking law works, why not the age of consent?

Why not the age to drive?

Why not the age to Vote?

Why not US contract law?

Why not the minimum age to sit in congress?

So instead, for no particular good reason, you pick booze.

No be so kind and expalin why the right to get shit faced would make a better recruit than the right to drive or have sex.

[bush_cheney2004]

....No be so kind and expalin why the right to get shit faced would make a better recruit than the right to drive or have sex.

This is my piece,

This is my gun,

One is for fighting,

and one is for fun!