|
OK - I'm going to take the unpopular side on this.
You're all comparing apples and oranges and assuming a connection where there is none.
Being a soldier involves being in good physical shape and obeying orders. Men reach their physical peak around age 18 or 19, so that's a great age to recruit soldiers. Any older than that and they're also likely to be less apt to blindly follow orders without a damned good explanation.
Being a responsible drinker involves - well, responsibility - and maturity. Not all people mature emotionally as fast as they do physically (and yes - some actually mature faster, but c'mon . . . )
There are a lot of things that happen around the same time - drive at 16, armed service at 18, vote at 18, drink and gamble at 21. That doesn't mean they should all happen at <u>exactly</u> the same time.
For those who argue that being in the armed services should be a factor in all age requirements, would you then also extend that logic to include raising the driving age to 18? Didn't think so.
There are a lot of people alive over the past 15 years because either they couldn't drink between the ages of 18-20; or didn't have to share a road with them.
Sure - when you get right down to it, people who abuse alcohol are going to do it no matter what age they start drinking. But at least the law now saves them for 3 more years.
__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.
|