If you’re old enough to die for your country, you’re old enough to drink.
The assertion that if you’re old enough to die for your country, you’re old enough to drink alcohol is a hardy
perennial. It comes up year after year with new life and new interest, but rarely with new facts. Buried within this
assertion are at least three implications – all of them dead wrong. Let’s take each implication in turn:
IMPLICATION #1: The nation owes its youngest veterans the right to
drink alcohol. The thinking goes that young people should be
rewarded with alcohol for their service to keeping their nation free and
for enduring the risks of combat – including the possible ultimate
sacrifice of death or permanent disability. There are so many things
wrong with this implication it’s hard to know where to begin.
For one, there are the inconsistencies. Proponents draw the line at 18
years of age when the minimum age of military service is 17 (with
parental consent). Presumably the sacrifices, service and risks
endured by 17-year-olds on the battlefield are somehow different than
those of 18 year olds. Moreover, a minority of those aged 18 to 21 are serving in the military. But these
advocates draw a broad brush from a small segment voluntarily serving their nation to the entire population who
do not, but might, serve. Finally, you wonder how intellectually honest these advocates are when they hold up
the potential for death or lifelong injuries against the loss of youthful experiences. What a tragedy, they imply,
that a young person might die in combat without ever tasting alcohol. One wonders why alcohol is the only or
main experience singled out. Presumably, dying a virgin is less tragic than dying sober. Since, we don’t see calls
for a 17-year-old drinking age, drinking only for those in uniform versus the entire underage population or for
government sponsored prostitution, then clearly the program here has less to do with rewarding military service
than for pushing an alcohol agenda.
For another there are the problems with this kind of “reward.” There is no doubt that a free society has
obligations to those who guarantee that freedom. For the risks endured and the services rendered, we owe our
troops the best healthcare, a terrific wage, access to a great education, opportunities to realize the American
Dream (home ownership, careers, etc.) and so much more. In fact, these benefits directly correlate to service
sacrifices – ensuring that our nation’s most precious resources are not directly disadvantaged simply because
they chose to serve. In short, what society owes to those who serve with honor is a leg up, not a step down.
Providing them with alcohol does the exact opposite. The science of youth and alcohol, on the developing brain
and alcohol, on combat and alcohol, etc. is very clear. Our troops have risked enough on the battlefield, we
should not add to those risks by lowering the drinking age in the name of their service.
back to top
IMPICATION #2: If 18-year-olds can fight our battles, then they
can also handle alcohol. In other words, physical ability is a proxy for
broader chemical, biological and societal issues.
There’s something very seductive in the idea of using physical
abilities to guide decisions on minimum age standards. Using this
model you might conclude that anyone who can follow orders, act
independently in the chaos of battle, endure the physical rigors and
mental stresses of combat, master complex weapon systems and
fluid battle conditions and strategies is certainly someone who can
handle their liquor. The problem of course is that physical ability
alone is too simplistic a measure for wider societal standards. For example, you have the physical ability to make
choices earlier than the minimum age to cast a vote. You have the physical ability to reproduce earlier than the
legal age to get married. You have the physical ability to turn wheels and push pedals long before the minimum
driving age. You have the physical ability to pull a trigger well in advance of the youngest age to serve in the
military. And in each of these cases, there were times in our own country and examples in other countries where
minimum ages were either based on these physical abilities, where there were no or few minimum standards or
where larger societal conditions forced the lower standard. We certainly have seen situations of very young
people operating heavy machinery and vehicles, being conscripted into military service and getting married. The
call to lower the voting age to 18 was in part based on an implied fairness to having some voice in choosing the
Commander in Chief and those who declare the very wars you were obligated to fight. If society needed a large
supply of labor to feed itself and mortality rates were high, you might argue for lower marrying ages. If society
faced complete destruction from a determined foe, you might argue for lower military ages. If you either let
young people operate machinery or the family’s farm will go to rot, then you might argue for lowering driving
ages. And so on, and so on. But in every case, societal conditions improved and we as a nation determined that
other factors outweighed mere physical abilities. In some cases, those other factors were based on the longer
term benefits of society. For example, what benefits society more: young marriages and pregnancies or waiting
for more maturity – calling for younger soldiers or giving young people a chance to finish their high school
education – putting more young people behind wheels or gaining more experience?
A variant of this argument is that if you have the ability to wield lethal force, then you also have the ability to
responsibly handle alcohol. But we all know this is faulty reasoning. If this were true, then you could also argue
to lower the drinking age to the driving age. After all, with so many vehicular deaths in this country, there’s no
argument that drivers wield lethal force.
Since we know of no broad societal imperative (where our very existence as a nation is in jeopardy) that
demands a lower drinking age, then when it comes to alcohol and youth, the main issues are chemistry and
biology versus the physical ability to drink, to serve in the military or to wield lethal force. The science here is
very clear. The chemistry and biology of alcohol involves at least three areas – the liver, the blood stream and
the brain. There is no scientific evidence that the ability of the liver to process alcohol, of the bloodstream to
carry alcohol, of the blood-brain barrier to filter alcohol or of the effects of alcohol on the brain are different for
18-year-olds who wear a military uniform versus those who don’t. There’s no argument that military service is a
transformative experience for our nation’s youth – often leading to better fitness, increased focus and purpose,
higher maturity and so on. Military service, however, does not transform your liver, blood or brain’s development.
The chemistry and biology show without question that our brains are still developing until our early 20s –
influencing personality, learning, decision making, memory and more. Just as clear are alcohol’s adverse
impacts on the maturing brain. So, the question becomes what benefits society more: giving younger people
legal access to alcohol or, giving younger people the chance to fully develop and mature their brains?
back to top
IMPLICATION #3: Rarely, if ever, do you hear the “if you’re old
enough to fight” argument coming from those who serve. In other
words, those who point to military service in their push to lower the
drinking age believe they are smarter than the people who actually
lead real troops.
While a vocal minority of civilians try to hijack military service in their
bid to gain greater access to alcohol, military leaders are doing just
the opposite. In the past several years, military leadership has seen
the clear and dangerous effects of alcohol on morale, readiness,
combat effectiveness and more. They know from firsthand experience
that alcohol hinders the physical and mental preparation and sustained readiness for future combat. It absolutely
has no place in actual combat operations, and it works against the ability of leaders, families and healthcare
providers to support those recovering from post-combat injuries and stress. Every service is focusing more and
more attention on alcohol education, responsible drinking campaigns, providing alternatives to alcohol and
more. And they are achieving tremendous successes in reducing underage drinking, DUIs, sexual assaults,
domestic violence and more where alcohol is the leading contributor. Far from touting military service as a
reason to drink younger, civilian leaders should turn to the military for methods, examples and role models on
how to achieve significant results within the current age standards.
Once again, it’s a new season and we’re starting to see that hearty perennial peek its head out. Having a debate
about the best alcohol age is one thing. Dragging military service into the argument is another. Using their
sacrifice as an excuse to drink younger is an insult that dishonors their bravery. True patriots wanting to repay a
debt of gratitude to our soldiers can better spend their energies on raising our troops’ conditions versus lifting a
glass – on increasing benefits versus lowering drinking ages.
back to top
Source: Ret. Col. Evan Hoapili
