So I see that fort bliss finally caved and is now going to change the drinking age to 21. I for one I'm saddened by that. The fact that they held on for so long to the belief that if you were old enough to fight for your country then you were old enough to drink. And I believe that. They can't have it both ways. Maybe they should make it that you have to be 21 to join the army. They are saying that these people that join the armed forces are mentally prepared to go out and protect and make wise decision. And at the same time telling us that they can't. The reason that is being stated is that there have been an increase in drunk driving and fighting reports. but has any one given any thought to the fact that many of the people there are on their way to Iraq? And that they might be to young to handle that kind of intentness.
So I say that for all bases that you can either have it one way or the other, but the mixed message that your sending those young people can't be good.
3 comments:
I agree with your argument but at the same time you would hope people would just make the choice not to drink
I see where you are coming from. The logic does seem a little flawed, but one has to remember that nobody is forced to join the military. Its fully voluntary so the argument that they can't handle iraq or any other crazy place, well, they knew that was a possibility going in.
The regulation of alcohol intake is not a personal liberty argument, it is a public safety and health argument. Drinking is a privilege not a right, especially considering that we have to deal with them when their drunk. Service men voluntarily give up the constitutional rights when they enter the military anyway. The only right you get when you turn 18 is the right to vote, the same voice that everyone else has, ideally. This doesn't even take into consideration the spike in the rate of suicide in the armed services, ...18, drunk with a gun,not good.
Are you becoming a libertarian?
Post a Comment