[dekeguy]

I know its been said many times before but this issue is sort of personal to me so please bear with me. It seems to me to be absurd that one can vote, enter into valid contracts, and serve in the Armed Forces at age 18 but one cannot drink until the age of 21. The outfit I commanded when I was forward deployed on active duty had a substantial percentage of under 21s serving with courage, honor, and professionalism. It seems to me that if one shoulders the responsibilities of citizenship then it naturally follows that with responsibilities come rights and priveleges. How do I tell a soldier I have just recommended for a combat decoration that he can't have a beer. How do I tell a soldier I have just rated highly in his EER annual appraisal for skill, dedication, maturity, and professionalism that he is not allowed to have a glass of wine with his steak. Well, actually, its part of my job to do so, but in following the law I don't have to like it or approve of it.
Are there risks attendant to lowering the drinking age? Of course there are, but who ever said that life was risk free? And speaking of risks, there are no draftees in today's Army, everyone is a volunteer. So if a soldier is willing to take the voluntary risk of laying his life on the line then this absurdity is unsupportable when one considers the principles upon which this Country was founded. I do not say that the drinking age should be lowered only for those who serve in the Armed Forces, but as all qualified men and women are eligible to serve, and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, at 18 then it seems that all men and women should be seen as intrinsically entitled. Not as a favor or privelege but as of right as fully participating citizens enfranchasized to vote, contract, and all other aspects of participating citizenship.