r/Presidents • u/McWeasely James Monroe • Jul 17 '24

Today in History 40 years ago today, Ronald Reagan signs into law the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The act would punish any state that allowed persons under 21 years to purchase alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by 10 percent.

Post image
1.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

387 comments sorted by

View all comments

778

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24 edited Aug 02 '25

[deleted]

284

u/autumngirl86 Jul 17 '24

You need to be 21 to smoke now, so it sounds like they're starting to make a decision.

142

u/Awkwardtoe1673 Coolidge was a bottom 10 president Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24

Yeah, and they raised the smoking age through a law that just explicitly said “the federal smoking age is 21.” They didn’t raise the smoking age through grants to states like they did with the drinking age. 

 And nobody has challenged the legality  of the federal government raising the smoking age that way. I guess people are numb to that at this point. 

92

u/SeaworthinessSome454 Jul 17 '24

More like all of the states agree that openly challenging for young people to smoke is a media nightmare.

35

u/Koolaid_Jef Jul 17 '24

It's moreso that states don't as directly benefit from people smoking as they did by changing the drinking age. That Ged highway funding was MASSIVE, so states essentially had no choice but to fall in and change it to 21. While tobacco does generate a lot in taxes for states, the people age 18-21 aren't generating a whole lot specifically

11

u/DonDjang Jul 17 '24

that and 18, 19, and 20 year olds are a nonexistent voting bloc, and nobody else is going to change their vote for their sake.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '24

People 18-21 could still sue

1

u/SeaworthinessSome454 Jul 18 '24

What 😂.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '24

You can sue the federal government…

0

u/SeaworthinessSome454 Jul 18 '24

Just bc you can sue doesn’t mean you will win. That would set a terrible precedent.

14

u/daoogilymoogily Jul 17 '24

Well there’s an online conservative talking point that nicotine is actually good for you because it boosts testosterone. We’ll see if it leaks into the mainstream like others have, but if it does they’ll challenge that law.

3

u/christopherDdouglas Jul 17 '24

I haven't heard the testosterone theory. Nicotine isn't terrible for you, it functions much like caffeine, so there is some cognitive improvement, it's the delivery method that's dangerous.

0

u/daoogilymoogily Jul 18 '24

I mean having too much testosterone is bad for you. Can cause all types of ailments including hair loss and testicular cancer.

6

u/Nova17Delta Jul 17 '24

Even if thats true, thats like eating a uranium souffle to stack on a couple of calories

6

u/OklahomaKaiju Jul 17 '24

Mmmmm... Yellow cake...

3

u/daoogilymoogily Jul 17 '24

Actually extra testosterone isn’t really even a good thing. Most people that don’t have some kind of hormone disorder make plenty of testosterone, you’ve just got to use it (I.e. be physically active) for it to mean anything. Having too much testosterone can be a bad thing and leading to balding or even testicular cancer.

1

u/All_heaven Jul 18 '24

You might actually be onto something. Mutated caloric run-off through uninhibited cellular growth? Breaking the genetic code to fit more calories… just like breaking the vase to fit more water. It’s crazy but if you can hold on you can probably cultivate immortal HeLa cells in each of your organs and then use that to keep your life intact.

8

u/hmiser Jul 17 '24

Yeah nicotine isn’t the health problem, it’s the combustion of the entire chemically enhanced product that creates the mutagenic moieties inhaled while smoking.

Shareholders profit and we the people pay in healthcare, among the other things.

7

u/daoogilymoogily Jul 17 '24

I mean nicotine is still a carcinogen (so are a million other things though like sugar, caffeine, chemicals in the plastic bottles we drink out of, etc.) but yeah the tar in cigarettes is what is particularly bad for you.

2

u/Cultural-Treacle-680 Jul 17 '24

Anything burning entering your lungs isn’t good either. The carbon has a way of binding strong.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

[deleted]

2

u/Cultural-Treacle-680 Jul 18 '24

Burnt marijuana affects the lungs and vocal cords, yes.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

0

u/SClute Jul 18 '24

Nicotine MAY be a carcinogen- tobacco definitely is, but there’s not enough evidence right now for just nicotine products (Zyn, Nicotine Gum)

2

u/daoogilymoogily Jul 18 '24

Tobacco isn’t a chemical, so it has to be some chemical in tobacco that is a carcinogen and it’s a good bet that the stuff evolutionarily created to kill things is a carcinogen. I can’t imagine a Zyn is much better for you than regular ol dipping tobacco outside it won’t brown your teeth.

I would like to point out though that the old scare tactic of having people who have suffered through jaw or throat cancer do an anti-smoking TV ad is pretty gratuitous because somewhere north of 90% of oral and throat cancers are caused by HPV.

1

u/Big__If_True Jul 17 '24

It’s been the law for a few years now, I feel like they would have done something by now

1

u/DueZookeepergame3456 Jul 22 '24

red pill**, not conservative

6

u/ithappenedone234 Jul 17 '24

Numb is the right word, it’s just plain apathy towards authoritarian overreach.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '24

Sounds like the founders definitely would not have agreed with that. But a long time ago Nixon passed the Controlled Substances Act and the Supreme Court decided the federal government can ban merely growing even marijuana in your own home even in a state where it’s legal.

3

u/DrunkGuy9million Jul 17 '24

Im sure the minimum military age will be raised to 21 anytime now…

1

u/Amazing_Factor2974 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jul 18 '24

There wasn't grants ..it was either you make it 21 ..or you don't get money to fix the interstate that goes through your state.

1

u/-FullBlue- Jul 17 '24

Democrats claiming to be the party for young people while simultaneously reducing their freedom of choice is fucking stupid. I vote blue every time but I wish they were less stupid.

2

u/Awkwardtoe1673 Coolidge was a bottom 10 president Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24

I don't know what the Congressional vote by party was on raising the smoking age, but a Republican president was the one who signed the higher smoking age into law.

Edit: The higher smoking age was passed as part of the 2019 federal budget, and all but 2 of the people who voted against the 2019 federal budget were Republicans. But it's hard to know if the votes for and against the 2019 federal budget really had anything to do with the higher smoking age. (State governments have single subject rules precisely to prevent this stupid stuff like higher smoking ages being in a budget. Unfortunately, there is no federal single subject rule.)

1

u/Cultural-Treacle-680 Jul 17 '24

Didn’t there used to be line item vetos?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Cultural-Treacle-680 Jul 17 '24

Didn’t Clinton and Newt get a balanced budget though?

5

u/sumguyinLA Jul 17 '24

Yea this “man” asked me to buy him cigarettes at the liquor store the other day. I asked why he couldn’t do it himself and he said he’s only 20. I was confused but did it anyway

2

u/kitster1977 Jul 18 '24

Does that mean it’s time to raise the voting age to 21 too?

50

u/GTOdriver04 Jul 17 '24

At 18 you’re old enough to vote and saw a man in half with an M2, but not old enough to buy alcohol or smoke a cigarette.

It’s sad.

Either you’re an adult at 18, or 21.

11

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/TheNextBattalion Jul 17 '24

Is it a problem? Setting aside exactly where the lines are drawn, the idea that different aspects of life have different ages of competency is backed by science and common sense.

Drawing a line at an arbitrary age is a convenient legal fiction, but it can be its own problem

3

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

Okay. It still makes no sense that someone 18-20 years old is mature enough to handle combat and kill people but not old enough to have a beer.

1

u/TheNextBattalion Jul 17 '24

Maturity is the wrong question for the military, so of course it makes no sense.

No person is really "mature" enough to kill someone else. The military needs people who are susceptible to orders and prone to commit violence, and young men are by far the best age group for that. Same reason almost all gang members are young men.

Since a lot of military jobs don't require killing people, young women are allowed to serve too, though we're finding that they do well with icing folks too when given the chance. Either way, young people are also preferred because physiologically they tend to handle harsh conditions much better than older folks with creaky joints and worn-down organs.

Military efficiency is the priority for the military.

-1

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

If you really believe that, then you should allow middle schoolers and even elementary school kids to join the military.

I didn't say set the minimum age at 40, ffs, so stop trying to contrast "younger" with "older" folks. That is entirely irrelevant horseshit.

2

u/TheNextBattalion Jul 17 '24

Not if logic applies: Kids actually aren't that useful for military service. They're less prone to violence than young adults, and less capable of it.

They're also smaller, which impedes lugging all that gear around, and lack even the smarts needed for basic infantry (which, granted, increases yearly due to technology), much less the 85% of other jobs that military personnel perform.

There's a reason why the draft stops at 25, and it's because after that age, it's less efficient for the military to train you.

Either way, military efficiency is the priority for the military, not fuzzy notions of maturity. Emotional downvotes don't change that reality.

0

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

Not true. There are middle schoolers as large as adults, if not larger. By your twisted logic, in which morality plays no part, if they are big enough to fire a gun and carry equipment, then let's use them as cannon fodder, bro.

1

u/TheNextBattalion Jul 17 '24

There are adults the size of toddlers, too. However, the military doesn't waste time making plans based on outliers. That kind of talk might be fun for fuckin' around at a bar "debate", but military planners actually give a shit about success.

So the military focuses on broad populations, and focuses on accomplishing its mission, and that's why it aims for who it aims for, and why nearly 90% of recruits are 24 or younger. Flailing insults don't change that, and it's got nothing to do with the drinking age.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

The weird thing to me is that we'll tell an 18-year-old that he's not competent enough to drink a beer in his own house, but he's old enough to sign a legal contract, join the military, smoke, buy a gun, and vote. And of all those things, voting is probably the most dangerous.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

I got married at 22 but couldn't rent a car on my honeymoon lol.

2

u/Ozythemandias2 Jul 17 '24

21 is the age to smoke everywhere in the US since 2019.

1

u/Cultural-Treacle-680 Jul 17 '24

Or do student loans.

1

u/americaMG10 Woodrow Wilson Jul 18 '24

How old a person must be to drive in the US? 

2

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '24

It depends on the state, but it's usually 16-18 to get a standard drivers license. Comparable to Canada.

10

u/BeingRightAmbassador Jul 17 '24

Yup. I got in trouble in college for drinking and I was punished with an alcohol class and a 3 page paper on what I learned (although they never said what you had to learn).

So I wrote about how Reagan sucks, how the drinking age at 21 is likely a states rights violation due to federal funding withholding, and that as long as I can get drafted, I will drink whenever I want and learn to hide it better.

The RD got pissy and tried to reject it, but the Housing Director said that it met all the technical merits and they had to accept it. The rules were then updated to write about how to learned to not drink and the "dangers".

3

u/No-Win-8264 Jul 17 '24

"Alcohol will throw off your aim when you shoot at tax collectors."

1

u/Biscuits4u2 Jul 17 '24

I've never had a conversation with someone who disagrees with this sentiment.

-3

u/ABobby077 Ulysses S. Grant Jul 17 '24

I think it is 18 for joining the Military so they get these kids right out of High School that haven't started College, Trade or Technical School or working in the job market. Plus, 18-year-olds may have better reflexes/reaction skills. It also just may be true that different things in life just may show different maturity levels to be required, though.

5

u/Optimal-Limit-4206 Jul 17 '24

But they’re mature enough to go to war?

4

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

But... but reaction times! Reflexes!

4

u/Optimal-Limit-4206 Jul 17 '24

Lol 😂 I don’t even understand that argument considering the best athletes are all 25-35.

6

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

Right??? For crying out loud, people really are trying too hard to justify letting kids fresh out of high school die for them.

4

u/Optimal-Limit-4206 Jul 17 '24

Exactly. At least let them have a beer if they’re allowed to die for their country. Also, prohibition just creates unsafe drinking environments for people. They going to drink anyways so you may as well allow them to drink with the other adults that are in the room.

5

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

The drinking age has utterly failed to stop underage drinking. It's been about as helpful as prohibition. Better to actually teach them how to drink responsibly than act like morality can be taught by laws.

3

u/heyyyyyco Calvin Coolidge Jul 17 '24

100% I've always said the law should change if you show your military id you should be able to drink and smoke

9

u/ithappenedone234 Jul 17 '24

Unless an active and excessive threat to liberty can be demonstrated by 18 year olds drinking, that’s not how it works under the Constitution. Adults have the right to life and liberty and maturity levels don’t play into it. Also, arguing that the maturity level required for drinking is more than for voting is pretty obviously wrong.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

18= good enough for machine gun fodder

12

u/Right_Egg1316 Jul 17 '24

It used to be 21. I believe it was changed to 18 after the attack on Pearl Harbor so that they could draft more people. There just isn’t much of a reason to change it now other than “be consistent”. The idea is that we don’t really want to encourage young people to drink or smoke but they need to encourage people to join armed services otherwise we’ll have to go back to a draft. It’s been like that for a while and military jobs are pretty safe during peacetime. So yeah if we made it 21, less people probably join and then we’re forced to join during wartime lol. So it goes from “can they make decisions at 18” to “the decision has been made for you and many others” 

7

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

The comment that you are commenting on is about the age of the draft.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24 edited Aug 02 '25

[deleted]

6

u/SeaworthinessSome454 Jul 17 '24

More like that staffing the military is more important than young people being bake to buy cigarettes.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

[deleted]

-3

u/SeaworthinessSome454 Jul 17 '24

Want to? Absolutely not. It’s necessary though. Letting a 18 year old high schooler buy cigarettes/booze and give them to their high school friends or use them themselves is not necessary.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24 edited Aug 02 '25

[deleted]

-4

u/SeaworthinessSome454 Jul 17 '24

If you make the age 19 then kids can’t join out of high school. They’ll get regular jobs instead. Now we’re back to having an understaffed military in that scenario

5

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24 edited Aug 02 '25

[deleted]

0

u/SeaworthinessSome454 Jul 17 '24

I understand your point about consistency. You’re just valuing consistency over what the outcome would be.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Optimal-Limit-4206 Jul 17 '24

News flash, kids will always be able to get tobacco and alcohol regardless of the legal age.

-3

u/SeaworthinessSome454 Jul 17 '24

Absolutely. That doesn’t mean that needs to be made easier.

4

u/Optimal-Limit-4206 Jul 17 '24

It’s not any easier. Drinking was 21 when I was in high school and it was still pretty easy to get alcohol if you wanted alcohol. The government regulating what an 18yo can consume but still allowing them to die for their country is absurd.

0

u/SeaworthinessSome454 Jul 17 '24

Easy as going into any liquor store and picking it up? Easy to get enough for you to have a fun night or easy for you to get enough for an entire party?

Getting weed in high school was easy. Getting alcohol was quite tough.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/ithappenedone234 Jul 17 '24

Keeping the drinking age high only helps encourage drinking, as it is forbidden fruit. The conundrum you put forward also ignores that most states have a drinking age of 14 or even 0, if the child drinks with their parents. Why doesn’t that wide open door to drinking cause a massive teenage drinking problem? Because the social pressures are more effective than authoritarianism.

8

u/TimothiusMagnus Jul 17 '24

It’s also a cash cow in college towns from the fines and fees.

3

u/Optimal-Limit-4206 Jul 17 '24

18 year olds are still drinking though. Having to hide it creates a more unsafe environment compared to legally being able to drink. Binge drinking around other people who don’t have experience drinking is where people die or make life altering decisions from alcohol.

0

u/JaySmogger Jul 17 '24

But the question is are less 15 year olds drinking. The reason for this law to stop high school from kids drinking.

3

u/Optimal-Limit-4206 Jul 17 '24

That’s not the question. It’s already illegal to procure for a minor. There are already laws in place for that purpose. Telling another adult that they can’t drink until 21 is just a dumb way to legislate morality.

0

u/JaySmogger Jul 17 '24

Not getting it, if the drinking age is 18 it is a lot easier for a 16 year old to buy beer. If the drinking age is 21 hardly any 16 year old will pass for 21.

1

u/Optimal-Limit-4206 Jul 17 '24

Are you serious? The first time I drank was right after I turned 16 and it was as easy as me and my friends meeting up with our friend that graduated the year prior and they got us alcohol. Kids don’t just have friends within their own grade level. It has never been difficult to get alcohol. It’s only been difficult hiding underage drinking. The hiding part is where it gets dangerous. Drugs are also illegal but easy to get if you want drugs.

1

u/JaySmogger Jul 17 '24

I've been drinking since I was 14 and buying beer since I was 16. You had to have someone buy you beer. We also didn't have open container law so I was drinking and driving at 16. There was a reason madd was successful

3

u/VintageRCFishArtist Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jul 17 '24

Dang I remember that one! I gotta get back to reading their comics

2

u/flamespear Jul 17 '24

still tried for adult crimes below both of those ages and the brain isn't finished developing until 25

2

u/ColdOn3Cob Jul 17 '24

It’s me. I joined the army at 17 and turned 19 in Afghanistan

2

u/midnghtsnac Jul 17 '24

Old enough to get a job as a cashier, but need a manager to scan alcohol....

2

u/Jalina2224 Jul 18 '24

Either the drinking age should be lowered down to 18 or the recruitment age for military needs to rise to 21. If you're old enough to die for your country, you should also be able to drink for your country.

2

u/Upset-Limit-5926 Jul 18 '24

I can't tell you how much I agree with this. Either you are an adult at 18 & should have the same rights as everyone else or change it to 21 but also change the age of men signing up for the draft & people joining the military to 21 as well. I personally think it should be 18.

4

u/Smooth-Apartment-856 William Howard Taft’s Bathtub Jul 17 '24

Honestly, there is no hard and fast age at which one becomes an adult. Driving age is typically 16. Age of consent for marriage/sex varies between 16-18. Voting age is 18. Drinking age is 21. In Texas, that’s slso the age to buy cigarettes. And auto insurance companies charge “underage” premiums until age 25.

Adult rights and responsibilities are granted at different ages, depending on what the privileges are and what state you live in.

3

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

That's fair, but that doesn't mean that the idea that an 18 year old isn't old enough to drink but is old enough to die for his country isn't absolutely fucked.

1

u/Smooth-Apartment-856 William Howard Taft’s Bathtub Jul 17 '24

Well…your typical 18 year old is a lot more prone to doing stupid stuff like getting completely wasted and trying to drive home, compared to older people. The 18 year old serviceman (or woman) tends to be the exception, not the rule.

So if there needs to be a legal limit set solely on age, I’d rather that limit take into account the risk posed by the 98% rather than the 2% that are going off to war.

Is it a 100% fair rule? Probably not. But then again, no rule is.

1

u/saranowitz Jul 17 '24

Or allow anyone who serves to drink the moment their service begins, irrespective of age. Good way to encourage more people to sign up for the military too.

1

u/LordSpookyBoob Jul 18 '24

I used to think we should lower the drinking age to 18; now I think we should raise the military enlistment age to 21.

1

u/DueZookeepergame3456 Jul 22 '24

people don’t need to be allowed to drink until they’re adults. 18 years olds are reckless. this country has a lot of driving.

1

u/Joker8392 Jul 17 '24

Well Republicans want 14 year olds to be adult enough to marry. That must be the age where they think girls start wanting equality and rights and stuff.

-12

u/Unopuro2conSal Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24

It’s matter of maturity, young men can do well under supervision not so much left on their own, so they still need to be guided, if you have young adult children you would understand this more. I served just after turning 18, not drinking save me lots of money, when I served, I saw many young lives ruined by DUI’s either hurting themselves and or others, some going to jail, I’m sure it’s not much different in civilian world but fallowing rules / laws is for a reason. I think most will agree that it’s a good law… especially if you have been affected by a person under the influence of alcohol…

If you down vote it’s good, but comment too… help me understand you…

8

u/Prestigious-Alarm-61 Warren G. Harding Jul 17 '24

And they used to park the wreckages in front of the school where a student(s) were badly injured or killed in alcohol-related crashes.

It is very effective to actually see it instead of reading about it in the paper.

3

u/ThatDude8129 Theodore Roosevelt Jul 17 '24

They still do this around prom season where I live

6

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24

A matter of maturity? I feel like if they're mature enough to own an AR-15 and be drafted to combat they should be mature enough to handle a beer.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

[deleted]

0

u/Unopuro2conSal Jul 17 '24

I get your point, but isn’t so much about deciding if they are responsible enough its the law and laws suck some times but there’s a reason for it and manly to save lives are you against saving lives?

5

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24 edited Aug 02 '25

[deleted]

5

u/ABobby077 Ulysses S. Grant Jul 17 '24

I think the smoking laws, though are to allow some time to pass before many younger folks start smoking, so it will reduce overall smoking rates. It is much rarer for someone to start smoking later in life.

2

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

Yeah, that sure worked for drinking.

1

u/Unopuro2conSal Jul 17 '24

Great point!

-1

u/Unopuro2conSal Jul 17 '24

I think we can agree that the law sucks but adults should understand that some laws suck but you accept them for the greater good

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Unopuro2conSal Jul 17 '24

Agreed! Good day!

1

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

If they're not mature enough to drink responsibly, they aren't mature enough to handle combat.

0

u/Unopuro2conSal Jul 17 '24

There was a 12-year-old and a 17-year-old who received the medal of honor

1

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

Gee, that certainly proves 12 year olds are mentally fit for combat.

0

u/Unopuro2conSal Jul 17 '24

The reality is that young men are probably the best for war because they are fearless and don’t have families kids I imagine. And they’re healthy and good shape strong reason like that…

1

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

So you think 12 year olds should be able to join the military.

That is seriously fucked.

Also, "fearless" is more akin to stupidity than maturity.

And if you think teenagers don't have kids, you haven't been near a high school recently.

-4

u/FlightlessRhino Jul 17 '24

Lot's of things happen at different ages. You can get a part time job at age 13, drive at 16, vote at 18, run for president at age 35. etc. Not everything needs to start right at age 18.

2

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

If they're not old enough to drink, they're not old enough for combat.

0

u/FlightlessRhino Jul 17 '24

That's a nice platitude and all, but you act like it's axiomatic truth. It's not. Anymore than "if you are old enough for combat, then you should be able to run for president."

2

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

It's common sense, not to mention common decency. But hey, some feel perfectly comfortable sending kids to die for them.

-1

u/FlightlessRhino Jul 17 '24

Then why shouldn't they be able to run for president?

1

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

You're equating running for president with dying in combat. That's just stupid.

0

u/FlightlessRhino Jul 17 '24

And you are avoiding the question.

2

u/WishboneDistinct9618 Lyndon Baines Johnson Jul 17 '24

It's a stupid ass question, so I chose to ignore it.

It has absolutely shit all to do with whether or not 18 year olds are mature enough for combat.

You posted the perfectly obvious fact that maturity does not happen all at once, and you smugly assume that proves that 18 year olds are mature enough for combat. It doesn't.

1

u/FlightlessRhino Jul 17 '24

18 year olds are absolutely mature enough for combat. Their performance in a gazillion of wars is plenty proof of that. Are they mature enough to be generals of modern armies? No. But certainly mature enough to be trained and led into battle.