THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, January 24, 1996 TAG: 9601230262
SECTION: MILITARY NEWS PAGE: A6 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: DALE EISMAN
LENGTH: Medium: 65 lines
They're trusted to drive ships, arm bombs and do dozens of other jobs that could get them killed in defense of our country.
But if you check out any convenience store near Norfolk Naval Base, there's a reasonable chance you'll find sailors aged 18-20 risking a run-in with the law because they're not trusted to drink beer.
Since the mid-1980s, when Virginia and most other states raised their drinking ages, military installations in Hampton Roads have been dry to service members under 21.
The same rule prevails at bases elsewhere in the United States, except those in and around San Diego. There, because the drinking age is 18 in nearby Mexico, the military has kept the lower age as well. The reasoning is that it's safer to let people drink on base rather than have some of them driving home - under the influence - from south of the border.
But now, partially in response to some well-publicized incidents of alcohol abuse, the Navy and Marine Corps may raise the age to 21 in Southern California as well.
Well, here's a counter-suggestion: go back to 18 as the drinking age for everyone in uniform. Challenge troops aged 18-20 to handle booze as responsibly as they handle bombs. Treat and punish those who fail, but don't limit the rights of all because of the abuses of a few.
The logic of the higher age has always been shaky. We give 18- to 20-year-olds all the other rights - and burdens - of citizenship. They can buy automobiles, houses, guns; they can marry and have kids. But they can't buy a six-pack or a jug of wine?
The case seems especially weak when applied to people in uniform, who live in a disciplined society and are entrusted to protect the rest of us. If some of them want to knock back a brew or two after a 12-hour turn at cleaning bilges or repairing boilers in our service, how can we say: ``Sorry, you're too immature.''
Congress and state legislatures raised the drinking age in reaction to stories of families broken by drunken driving. Delaying the opportunity to legally imbibe seemed a small price to pay to reduce carnage on the highways.
But has paying that price yielded any benefit? It depends on whom you ask. In the Navy last year, the rate of alcohol-related auto fatalities among sailors under 21 was down dramatically from that of 1990. That's encouraging. But those young sailors were involved in just under half of all the Navy's alcohol-linked auto deaths, essentially the same percentage as in 1990.
It's undisputed that alcohol-related fatalities are down among the population generally. But whether that's because of declines in drinking by folks of all ages, greater public understanding of the dangers of drunken driving, raising the age, safety improvements in our cars - or some combination of these - is a matter of debate.
In any case, the bottom line is that some people, of all ages, will always abuse alcohol. America tried banning the stuff once, with disastrous results. So now we limit its sale to adults, educate the public on its dangers, and punish its abusers.
Navy Secretary John H. Dalton could strike a blow for liberty, and for reason, by announcing that all his sailors are adults, and that they'll be treated as such in every way until they show they're undeserving. Most would appreciate his vote of confidence in their judgment; and they'd handle the responsibility of legal drinking in a way that would make him, and the rest of us, proud. by CNB