17 yo can’t be deployed to a warzone:

> The US has signed an international agreement barring child soldiers. What that means in practicality is only that you are non-deployable until you turn 18. (you must be 18 to actually fight).

> If you graduate High school early yes, you can join at 17 with parental consent, you can ship, train, you can join a unit and be active duty, you are just FLAGGED as non-deployable until your 18th birthday, when the flag is lifted.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-you-join-the-US-mili...

Good catch. The point still stands, sadly.

I believe 18 year olds are allowed to drink on Army bases.

Only as long as said base isn't in the US.

And the installation commander can keep it at 21. It’s not an inalienable right of younger than 21 service members.

The counterargument to this is that there is evidence young people are neurologically not full adults at 18 years of age, and alcohol impedes neurological development.

I have no doubt war also has neurological effects, but they don't seem to be age specific.

It is challenging, if not impossible, to otherwise defend it. If someone has the possibility to choose (or be forced) to harm themselves and shorten their life in war, then why shouldn't a choice apply to alcohol?

But the prohibition doesn’t stop teens from drinking, just makes it a crime.

The argument in response is that it is legitimate for the government to legislate to promote the health of its citizens, as we are seeing with lockdown laws in COVID-19. That people break lockdown laws is not a reason not to have lockdown laws. So the argument involves a bit more analysis than simply accepting that 'prohibition doesn’t stop teens from drinking'.

So, this just invites the same perennial arguments frequently made in relation to drug decriminilisation.

On my part, had the drinking age been 21 where I live, I wouldn't have started drinking until I was 21.

Tell that to the 73.6%[0] of Americans who are overweight or obese, but that the government doesn't care too much about it, in fact they subsidize it[1] via the farm bill & friends. Being overweight or obese will shorten your life [2]. Also the US gov doesn't care, as it's own dietary reccomendations differ from accepted nutritional guidelines e.g. Harvard nutrition plate[3].

IMO the government should not be in the business of policing one's health, or advocating for the people's health, as the USDA and associated agencies are demonstrably corrupted.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm [1] https://www.usda.gov/farmbill [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12513041/#:~:text=Conclusion.... [3] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-...

Most of this isn't accurate despite the links, which is kinda odd to see. To tick off some stuff:

1. The government does care about overweight/obesity; it comes up a lot in discussing issues with the healthcare system (https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html). A lack of regulation isn't the same thing as not caring -- for example, there's no regulation requiring Americans to get vaccinated, either.

2. Farm subsidies seem unlikely to be a problem.. it's not like access to food makes people obese -- in fact, the opposite seems to be true (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5781054/). Usually affordable-food helps folks eat better rather than more.

3. The US government's dietary recommendations not being a copy/paste of another set of recommendations isn't a meaningful observation... why would you think otherwise? For example, are you under the impression that someone following the US's nutritional guidelines would be worse off for it? (In case you're not American: the problem isn't the guidelines, but rather that most Americans don't follow them.)

4. The US government's call to regulate teen-drinking was based on a historical uptick in drunk-driving accidents when the drinking-ages were relaxed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimu...). This is, the argument wasn't based on a teen's personal health but rather people were crashing cars on public roads, which is definitely a reasonable concern for a government to have.

> had the drinking age been 21 where I live, I wouldn't have started drinking until I was 21.

You really don't know then. As someone who lives where it is 21, I'm qualified to tell you that you're very likely wrong.

Before the "Source? Study?" parrots show up, you're darn right this is anecdotal. The "real data" is going to be from kids who aren't telling the truth.

Old enough to be drafted isn't old enough to drink. If that's not completely fucked, I don't know what is.

Old enough for the draft, old enough for a draught!

The last time anyone was drafted in the US the drinking laws in most states allowed 18 year olds to drink. So what is your point? I guess the government agrees with you: no one under 21 is allowed to drink and no one under 21 is being drafted.

And in the US, 14 year-olds can be tried as adults. I wonder whether that is ever applied to charges of underage drinking?