Underage Alcohol Drinking in Military - Essay Example

Underage Alcohol Drinking in Military Introduction Imagine of a military that promotes or tolerates the youth under the age of twenty-one years engaging in the drinking of the alcohol! It is unfathomable to have the youth that drinks alcohol in the military. The debate on whether to allow the youth to possess and consume alcohol raises serious arguments and counterarguments. The proponents of the underage alcohol drinking argue that the youth is responsible to have access and consume alcohol. The supporters emphasize that the fact that the youth are in the military implies they are mature, and can handle different issues responsibly. In contrast, the opponents point out that the law prohibits any person under the age of twenty-one years from drinking alcohol. Whether a person is in military or non-military engagement should not possess and use alcohol. Notably, the people who oppose the underage drinking contend equal application of the law is paramount, and youth in the military are not above the state and local legislation. In the light of the different opinions, it is significant to explore the underage drinking and its effects on the youth in the military. The military should not allow the underage possession and consumption of the alcohol in order to promote discipline and efficient execution of duties. The law prohibits the persons under the age of twenty-one from possessing and consuming alcohol. Specifically, Article XXI of the US Constitution states clearly that any person under the age of twenty-one years should not drink (Arnold-Burger 1). Whether in the military or not, the application of the state and local laws is in an equal measure. The opponents of the underage alcohol use in the military are right to articulate the US and local laws that restrict the youth from liquor. Every person is equal in matters that center on the law. The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act that requires all the states to restrict underage from purchasing or possessing alcohol publicly should ensure the military does not permit the youth to consume liquor (Saunders and Rey 95). In this respect, the minimum age of the laws applies to all the state installations including the military. The assertion underpins the point that it will be against the law to allow the underage in the military to engage in the alcohol drinking. In the past, the military has attempted to abide by the law, especially in the US-Mexican border where Mexico allows underage drinking. The same spirit should continue and make the United States a nation that abides by the legislation. It is noteworthy that everybody complies with the laws, and the military should be in the forefront in ensuring nobody contravenes the state and local legislation. In sum, the military should respect the law and prohibit the youth under the age of twenty-one years from drinking alcohol. The move to allow the underage drinking will jeopardize the efforts of the military to deal with the perennial drinking problem. Arguably, the consumption of the alcohol is a persistent challenge that has plagued the military for decades. Genevieve and Carol argue that the drinking problem in the military is attributable to boredom, loneliness, stress, and lack of the recreational activities (253). Due to the rampant drinking of alcohol in the military, the efforts to restore the responsible use of liquor are underway. Hence, allowing the youth to possess and consume alcohol will have negative implications for the worthy task. What is more important is to focus on the ways of ensuring that the military controls the drinking behavior of its personnel in order to execute the duties responsibly and expeditiously. A plausible reason does not exist to underscore the significance of allowing the underage to drink alcohol. If the permission to drink could augment the efforts of the military to curb the alcohol consumption, it could be a better endeavor. However, allowing the youth to consume alcohol will aggravate the situation. Therefore, it is meaningless to permit the underage drinking of alcohol in the military when stakeholders are exploring the ways of minimizing the alcohol consumption behavior. Permitting the youth to engage in alcohol drinking will affect the execution of various duties in the military. Voas, Johnson, and Lange contend that promoting the underage drinking can affect their ability to perform tasks expeditiously (646). The assertion underscores the significance of disallowing the youth to engage in the habit of drinking alcohol in the military. It is noteworthy that the military plays an essential role in maintaining the security of the nation. Specifically, the US army has the mandate to defend the nation, serve the Americans, fulfill national military responsibilities, and protect important national interests. Moreover, the army should be in the forefront in providing the essential logistics, as well as, the support that facilitates other national services to attain their missions. The above-mentioned duties require the military to be sober and in the right frame of mind. My argument is no one who has indulged in alcohol can execute the duties swiftly and expeditiously. The implication is that allowing the youth to possess and consume alcohol will affect their capacities to respond to the demanding responsibilities of the military. Consequently, the failure of the youth to play their roles well will endanger the security of the entire nation. The brains of the youth are not mature enough to regulate their drinking behavior, and allowing them to consume alcohol might affect their health. The health implications of indulging in alcohol are dire. Notably, the irresponsible use of the alcohol can result in impaired brain development and injuries. Studies indicate that drinking a lot of alcohol tends to affect the brain development of the people under the age of the twenty-five years (Saunders and Rey 82). It is worth noting that the youth’s brains are still developing. The implication is that allowing the immature youth to consume alcohol will incapacitate the normal brain development and endanger the lives of the minors. Similarly, injuries stemming from irresponsible drinking are rampant among the youth who consume alcohol. My point is the United States wants to see a military that is healthy to respond to any security alert. Injured military personnel cannot counter any acts of insecurity. Therefore, it is advisable to disallow the alcohol consumption among the military personnel under the age of twenty-one years in order to save the lives of the youth from the detrimental health and physical effects of liquor indulgence. The proponents of the underage drinking argue that the youth are old enough to consume alcohol. In fact, the fact that the youth are in the military implies they have reached maturity levels, which warrant them the freedom to do what their older counterparts do. Tighman indicates that lawmakers, especially in Georgia have attempted to change the laws, which cap the drinking age. The amendment of the current laws will ensure the youth can possess and drink alcohol in the military (Tighman). It is true that people in the age of the twenty-one years appear physically mature. The proponents are right to quote the age factor in advocating for the lifting of the drinking age limit. However, the proponents should realize that the youth makes a voluntary choice to join the military. Joining the military does not imply that the youth are mature in the brains. My point is that the physical maturity does not always result in brain maturity. In fact, studies have pointed out that the people under the age of twenty-five years do not have the brain capacity that can make conscious decisions. Arnold-Burger argues that allowing such young military personnel to drink alcohol will have detrimental impacts on their brain development (1). Therefore, it is important for the proponents to examine the issue of drinking from a multi-faced approach. The proponents cite the ability of the youth to manage their affairs while in the military. Tighman contends that the youth in the military can marry and manage their finances. The supporters are right that the youth in the military exhibit a high level of management of the fundamental affairs. For instance, the youth can respond when called to duty, and execute their roles with a lot of skills. However, the proponents should recognize that the youth execute and manage their affairs when they are free of any alcohol indulgence. The chances of changing their behavior are high when the laws permit them to drink. The application of the law should be equal, and a clear reason exists to underscore why the lawmakers prohibited the people under the age of twenty-one years from drinking. It is always important to examine the alcohol consumption from a long-term perspective as opposed to the short-term angle. Conclusion In conclusion, the military should not allow the underage to drink alcohol. The drinking of the alcohol in the military has detrimental effects on the execution of the duties and the health of the youth. In effect, the military should continue to comply with the US and local laws that prohibit the people under the age of twenty-one years from drinking. The American people deserve a disciplined military that can respond to any alert within the shortest time possible. Works Cited Arnold-Burger, Karen. “Maintaining the legal drinking age of 21 curbs underage alcohol abuse.” Alcohol Abuse: Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 5 May 2015. Genevieve, Ames and Carol, Cunradi. “Alcohol use and preventing alcohol-related problems among young adults in the military.” Alcohol Research and Health 28.4 (2005): 252-257. Print. Saunders, John and Rey, Joseph. Young People and Alcohol: Impact, Policy, Prevention, Treatment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print. Tighman, Andrew. “Lawmaker: Allow alcohol for troops under 21”. ArmyTimes, 4 Mar. 2011. Print. Voas, Robert, Johnson, Michael, and Lange, John. “Permission to cross the border: Effective policy reduces high-risk drinking by Marines.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63.6 (2002): 645-648. Print. Read More