There are many ways lawmakers can support our young men and women who serve in the U.S. military. Making it legal for them to drink alcohol at a younger age is not one of them.
Yet Wisconsin is one of a handful of state's considering lowering the drinking age for military personnel only. A bill would lower the drinking age to 19 for military personnel only, keeping it at 21 for everyone else.
Missouri is considering a law to allow everyone 18 and older to drink. Legislation in Kentucky and South Carolina would pertain only to military personnel. South Dakota is considering a measure that would allow all 19- and 20-year-olds to buy low-alcohol beer.
The rationale behind the legislation is old and simple-minded. If someone is adult enough to be handed a gun and sent into battle overseas, he or she ought to be able to enjoy a beer or two, the logic goes.
"If you can take a shot on the battlefield, you ought to be able to take a shot of beer legally," South Carolina state Rep. Fletcher Smith told the USA Today.
That sounds nice and appeals to the patriot in us all, but on average a member of the military is no more or less able than any other teen to drink alcohol responsibly and safely. In all walks of life - be it military service, college or joining the workforce - some people younger than 21 go through a maturation process and others do not.
If state lawmakers believe 19-year-old military members should be allowed to drink legally, they also must believe that all 19-year-olds can. That would be a hard case to make to the people of Wisconsin. Nationally, a 2007 Gallup Poll found that 77 percent oppose lowering the drinking age to 18. In this case, the majority is right.
The drinking age was increased nationally to 21 more than two decades ago for good reasons. One of them was to make the roads safer from drunken drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says the age 21 limit has cut traffic fatalities involving drivers ages 18-20 by 13 percent. That is another reason to leave the drinking age in Wisconsin unchanged.
There's a final reason that lowering the drinking age is not a good idea. It would cost the state federal highway funds. When the national drinking age was set at 21 in 1984, Congress voted to penalize states that set the drinking age below 21 by taking away 10 percent of their road funds. With the quality of Wisconsin's roads, and state budget for that matter, deteriorating, the state can't afford to lose that funding.
We understand that the drinking age proposal is meant to honor and thank our troops for their service. It's just not a very logical way to go about it.
Yet Wisconsin is one of a handful of state's considering lowering the drinking age for military personnel only. A bill would lower the drinking age to 19 for military personnel only, keeping it at 21 for everyone else.
Missouri is considering a law to allow everyone 18 and older to drink. Legislation in Kentucky and South Carolina would pertain only to military personnel. South Dakota is considering a measure that would allow all 19- and 20-year-olds to buy low-alcohol beer.
The rationale behind the legislation is old and simple-minded. If someone is adult enough to be handed a gun and sent into battle overseas, he or she ought to be able to enjoy a beer or two, the logic goes.
"If you can take a shot on the battlefield, you ought to be able to take a shot of beer legally," South Carolina state Rep. Fletcher Smith told the USA Today.
That sounds nice and appeals to the patriot in us all, but on average a member of the military is no more or less able than any other teen to drink alcohol responsibly and safely. In all walks of life - be it military service, college or joining the workforce - some people younger than 21 go through a maturation process and others do not.
If state lawmakers believe 19-year-old military members should be allowed to drink legally, they also must believe that all 19-year-olds can. That would be a hard case to make to the people of Wisconsin. Nationally, a 2007 Gallup Poll found that 77 percent oppose lowering the drinking age to 18. In this case, the majority is right.
The drinking age was increased nationally to 21 more than two decades ago for good reasons. One of them was to make the roads safer from drunken drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says the age 21 limit has cut traffic fatalities involving drivers ages 18-20 by 13 percent. That is another reason to leave the drinking age in Wisconsin unchanged.
There's a final reason that lowering the drinking age is not a good idea. It would cost the state federal highway funds. When the national drinking age was set at 21 in 1984, Congress voted to penalize states that set the drinking age below 21 by taking away 10 percent of their road funds. With the quality of Wisconsin's roads, and state budget for that matter, deteriorating, the state can't afford to lose that funding.
We understand that the drinking age proposal is meant to honor and thank our troops for their service. It's just not a very logical way to go about it.
