In response to a distinguished college’s claim that the ability to join the armed forces qualifies you to drink, I offered this rebuttal.
Since when did joining the armed forces have anything to do with drinking? Seems to me that the two are fundamentally different. The point of voluntarily joining the armed forces is irrelevant. It’s a draft that makes the dying for your country argument valid. The potential to be involuntarily pressed into service gives (or at least should give) those of fighting age a myriad of rights. If you’re old (not mature because age is the question) enough to think clearly and make good decisions under fire, you should be old enough to think clearly and make good decisions about alcohol. Anyway, I know plenty of 21+ year olds who are immature enough to get into a drunk driving accident and many 18 year olds who have enough common sense not to drink and drive. Age should be no measure of maturity.
Also, the creation a federal drinking age is an unconstitutional delegation of power to the federal government. The infamous elastic clause has no bearing here, as a drinking age is not necessary, nor proper to protect any of the other rights in the constitution. The decision therefore should be left up to individual states. Actually, this was the case, but then the federal government blackmailed the states, refusing to fund highways unless they consented with a national 21-year-old drinking age. While implicit, this act still effectively creates a national drinking age and is therefore illegal and unconstitutional.