Legislators at odds on military, alcoholOpinions differ on lower drinking age By Yvonne Wenger (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, February 8, 2008
Opinions differ on lower drinking age On the WebRead more Statehouse news. COLUMBIA — Like many before her and many since, Sgt. Theresa Seng wondered why she was old enough to serve her country in Iraq as a 20-year-old Marine but not legally able to drink alcohol. Seng, now 26, said she supports a controversial bill by state Rep. Fletcher Smith to lower the drinking age for military personnel to 18. "I thought it was ludicrous that at 20 I had to come to terms with the fact that I could die tomorrow but not have a beer or a glass of wine," Seng said, adding that like most things in the military, drinking responsibly is a matter of discipline. Smith, a Greenville Democrat, said he's heard from hundreds of supporters across the country since his legislation was thrust into the national spotlight. Many South Carolina lawmakers say they support the bill in concept, but they are worried about the nearly $30 million in federal highway funds that would be jeopardized if the state alters its drinking age. Smith said he is researching the possibility of federal exceptions that would protect the highway money while continuing to fight for the bill. "They're trained with millions of dollars of equipment; their adulthood is accelerated," Smith said. "If we can trust them with Humvees and driving over IEDs and all sorts of things, we can trust them with a beer." The Army and Navy allow soldiers and sailors to follow local drinking laws wherever they are stationed, although drinking is never encouraged and some policies, such as the Army's in Iraq and Afghanistan, prohibit drinking regardless of age. The Marine Corps and the Air Force make no exceptions to the minimum U.S. drinking age. The bill would allow military members with a valid military ID to be served alcohol in South Carolina. Gov. Mark Sanford sees an important states' rights principle in the debate. "There are responsible and irresponsible people at all ages," Sanford press secretary Joel Sawyer said. "To us, the bill highlights the problem of Congress using federal dollars to blackmail states into adopting policies." At risk is 10 percent of the annual federal highway funds the state receives, which is expected to be about $300 million this year. The governor supports Smith's bill and would fight for the state to keep its highway money if the bill becomes law, Sawyer said. Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, said the bill is worth researching, but he acknowledged that losing millions of highway dollars would be detrimental. Rep. Jim Harrison, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which would need to approve the bill before it goes to the floor for a vote, said he doesn't think Smith will be able to find federal exceptions. But, Harrison said, even if the highway money weren't a problem, he would hesitate to support the bill. "I spent 30 years in the military — just because you're old enough to fight, and you're highly trained and under close supervision, drinking is something totally different," said Harrison, R-Columbia. "Is it the right thing to do? That's a very high hurdle to get over, too." "My sensibilities tell me they ought to be able to drink a beer if they can go to war," said Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston. "But I think you've got to think about the best interest of the state as a whole. Unfortunately, it is not a stand-alone issue." The bill was discussed briefly Thursday in a House subcommittee but debate was adjourned until Tuesday when military personnel are expected to testify. Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@ postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
|
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 17 comment(s)
|
Posted by proud2bme on February 8, 2008 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The drinking age should either be 21 or 18, not both.
An 18yr. old can fight for his/her country, get a loan, vote, get married and even buy a gun but cannot buy alcohol. Sounds screwed up to me! The age difference, maturity and experience from 18 to 21 is what?
What happened to "states' rights"? Apparently, there is no such thing anymore!
Posted by Hey_U_Guys on February 8, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I really don't believe that these soldiers should be extended the right to drink alcohol at an earlier age. Why should they need to be able to drink at the age of 18? I don't think anything about their situation warrants a change in the alcohol law. If you change it for them, you need to change it for everyone. No playing "favorites".
"I thought it was ludicrous that at 20 I had to come to terms with the fact that I could die tomorrow but not have a beer or a glass of wine,"
Give me a break. Is alcohol THAT important to people? Underage individuals have ways of obtaining alcohol. You think these soldiers aren't already drinking? There are tons of places that will serve a person, just for having a military id or wearing a uniform. They don't check the age. It's quite ridiculous. There are more important things going on in this country that need our attention. Can we NOT focus on 18 year old soldiers being able to consume alcohol, LEGALLY?!?!?!
Posted by 5thGenerationLocal on February 8, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I spent many years in the military and watched a lot of people make mistakes, big mistakes, while and after drinking. I watched young 18/19 year olds on overseas assignments, where drinking is legal if you can walk, return back to the States full blown alcoholics. This is not a good idea. The drinking age should remain where it is. Even at 21, military DUI rates are up.
Posted by waterbug on February 8, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
why not raise the age requirement to be in the military?!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by My_50Cents_Worth on February 8, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HYG/5thGenerationLocal:
I think we may have had some of the same experience overseas ie in Germany where a keg of beer is cheaper than a bottle of Coke...And one person must have a keg to his/her self.
I have really mixed feelings about the issue. Having been stationed in areas where the ops-tempo is extremely high thus raising stress levels, I have seen more issues with DUIs [and from mainly underage drinkers] in the past 4 years than I have seen in all of my time being affiliated with the military. The percentage of those who would drink responsibly and those who would not, I would venture to say is about 50/50.
At my last assignment we ended up bringing in a ‘task force’ to do a ‘study’ on the issues of both alcoholism and domestic violence. For many of the younger servicemen and women, the military is the equivalent of their ‘college years.’ They are living away from home, in dormitories, away from mom and dad and the responsibility of reporting to duty, risking deployment, being sent TDY, working ‘crazy’ hours when at home station and/or abroad can be overwhelming and lead to abnormal –disappointing for their NCO/SNCO/O leadership- behavior. Then there is another element who left home, married young, have more responsibilities-be it cars, kids, and other family obligations- than money…and time.
The military today, although still great, is not the military of long ago when people did what they were supposed to because they were too afraid and respectful of authority to do anything else.
Only in theory do I find lowering the drinking age the right thing to do.
Posted by WinthropEagleFan on February 8, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Either have the age dropped to 18 for everyone, or keep it at 21 for everyone. I don't really understand the rationale for only dropping the age for military personnel.
"I thought it was ludicrous that at 20 I had to come to terms with the fact that I could die tomorrow but not have a beer or a glass of wine," - While that's true, that also applies to firefighters, police, truck drivers, and alot of other jobs. Where do you draw the line? I don't oppose dropping the drinking age, I just don't see the point of only doing it for a subset of the population.
Posted by ForPnC on February 8, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let them drink! I've seen more responsible younger drinkers than older ones. What are they not experienced at? Drinking and driving?
waterbug - "why not raise the age requirement to be in the military?!"
Poor ole prez is having a hard enough time with troop levels for his wars. Don't make it harder on the retard.
Posted by rdrv22 on February 8, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
this is a great idea! not only should irresponsible adolescents be able to drink, but our roads in SC are in great repair to begin with! who needs federal money?
Posted by CHRISJIII on February 8, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a veteran I don't see anything wrong or improper in allowing 18 year old military personnel to drink. As several people have stated "If they are old enough to go to war, then they should be old enough to have a drink". I don't think that the loss of federal monies is behind a lot of the resistance. I do think that it boils down to stupidity on the parts of the knuckleheads who sit in the legislature in Columbia. Morality cannot be legislated.
Posted by Ralphy on February 8, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
join the army at 18 and we'll give you booze. brilliant recruiting strategy!
Posted by ForPnC on February 8, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's nice to read about the low opinions a lot of you have about young people. You're also letting folks know about your own drinking habits. You apparently can't have just one or two at the end of the day to relax or just socialize. Once a sip touches your lips, it's a signal to get plowed beyond belief. This must be true or you wouldn't think that's what everyone does.
Posted by Chief_SittingBull on February 8, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I spent 30 years in the military — just because you're old enough to fight, and you're highly trained and under close supervision, drinking is something totally different," said Harrison, R-Columbia. "Is it the right thing to do? That's a very high hurdle to get over, too."
My sentiments exactly, I am not sure what is truly right/best.
Posted by commonsence on February 8, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Early...it is a myth that European countries have lower rates of alcohol problems than the US. It is based on outdated research findings from decades ago. More recent studies find that most European countries match or exceed US levels in most categories of alcohol-related problems. Turkey is usually the exception and that is probably due more to cultural/religious factors than drinking laws. The increase in problems in many of these countries is why there has been a tightening up of alcohol (and drug laws) over the past ten years.
Posted by gngolfing on February 8, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an easy one. Raise the age to join military to 21.
Posted by disco on February 8, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My mother is british and my father is sicilian, so I guess I'm destined to be an alcoholic - wrong! I have to agree with Early on this one, the europeans method seems to work over ours. We make such a big deal over alcohol that it makes even more enticing for younger people to want to try/abuse it.
Also, if you are old enough to die for your country, I think you're old enough to have a damn beer!
Posted by Carolina_Politics on February 8, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To those of you poo-pooing this proposal, are you aware that the USA has the highest alcohol consumption age in the world and yet we still have one of the highest alcohol abuse rates?
Clearly age is not the problem here. In Germany you can buy beer when you are 16. Are there thousands of 16 year olds in druken stupers crashing up their cars on the Autobahn where they can drive 120MPH? In England the age is 18. Are there raging 18 year old alcoholics all over the UK?
How much money does the Federal Government and states waste yearly trying to enforce such a ridiculous restriction on ADULTS! That is correct, an 18 year old is an ADULT. Not to mention the fact that it's a major burden to people who are of age and work in an environment where they serve alcohol and can be prosecuted worse than a rapist for accidentally serving someone under 21. Hell, I am 31 years old and I still get ID'd. It's absurd. Imagine if we spent this much energy and money on our southern border.
And disco is exactly right. We make such a big deal of it here and that is part of what entices the abuse by those underage.
Sanford is right on this. It is a state's rights issue. The Tenth Amendment is very clear and Washington is abusing the Constitution with this type of black mail. Stand up for your freedom already and stop being so damn complacent.
http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com
Posted by Hey_U_Guys on February 8, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, all of the alcohol problems in this country will be magically solved if the government lowers the drinking age to pander to the babies out there crying about not being able to drink while fighting for our country. BOO HOO.