Christine: Why not do what a lot of package stores do, then, at least in my state. If you don’t look 35, you get carded. How’s that for a compromise?

That’s fine, Michael, but fake IDs are easy to create or obtain. My point is that younger teenagers can much more easily pass for 18 than pass for 21 (there are more distinct physical changes that occur during those few years.)

I agree that enforcement is important, of course. But if the choice is between a drinking age of 21 and 18, both combined with strong enforcement policies, I think it’s clear that a drinking age of 21 would result in less drunk driving deaths.

Of course, there is a limit to my logic. A drinking age of 50, for example, combined with strong enforcement, would also reduce the number of drunk driving deaths. But clearly that is unrealistic. However, it is perfectly reasonable just to leave the age as it is. The burden of proof is on those who want to change the law to argue that changing it will not result in more drunk driving deaths, and I remain unconvinced.

Merely raising the age does nothing if you don’t have the laws/enforcement and the education. Look at the article Ed Morrissey cited. Officially, the age of consumption in Ireland is 18 (in public), but it doesn’t seem like Ireland has very strong enforcement of its laws. Hence their current issues with underage drinking.

I think if you keep the laws and enforcement strong (and require that all bars card those looking under 35), and couple it with a continued program in education, that it’s going to help, no matter what the age is.

Research has shown that the drinking age of 21 has decreased drunk driving deaths by 11% (http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20080702/age-21-drinking-laws-cut-traffic-deaths I couldn’t find the original source on-line) after controlling for original factors. The research of course could be wrong, but this also conforms with common sense, in my opinion. Why would be make a policy change that will predictably result in more drunk driving deaths?

So, since the 11% of people who did not die due to the drinking age being 21 cannot be identified, the next best people to speak for them would be the 89% who have lost loved ones to drunk driving.

Christine: Why not do what a lot of package stores do, then, at least in my state. If you don’t look 35, you get carded. How’s that for a compromise?

I’ve seen too much of the bad effects of alcohol abuse, and in my ideal world I would prefer that alcohol (or, more specifically, the desire the drink it) just ceased to exist (yes, I know you can drink and not be an alcoholic, but I think even seeing people mildly buzzed is unappealing at best, but that’s just my judgmental side talking). But, of course, we’re already tried to enforce that politically and that didn’t turn out so well. But still, I would at least prefer not to make it even easier to get it.

Besides that, I’m wary of doing anything that the tavern league would support. In my state, they argued against a measure to increase punishment for drunk drivers (on the third offense), arguing that it would decrease their revenue. Give me a break. I used to respect the fact that they had the right to run their businesses (and have defended their opposition to smoking bans, for example), but opposing tougher punishment for repeat drunk drivers makes clear that they do not have the best interest in society in mind, and should not be taken seriously.

But, here’s a compromise for you. Regardless of your opinion on the issue, let’s decide to ask every person that has lost a love one due to someone else’s drunk driving if we should lower the drinking age, and then do what they say. We might not all agree with their opinion, but hopefully we can all agree that their opinions should be considered of much higher weight than our own.

Having the age set at 21 reduces some of that because it’s pretty easy for a lot of 15 year olds to pass for 18, but not for 21.

Now if you legalized marijuana, THAT would help the economy. Simply the revenue from the taxation of the crop (currently the biggest cash crop in California, that pays zero taxes) and the decreased cost of fighting the long since lost “War on Drugs” would be a huge boon. But no, we’ll continue the ridiculous hypocrisy that says that a joint is an evil life-destroying drug while taking vodka shots it just good healthy fun.

Personally I think they could relax up what happens in private and let that be a personal responsibility issue. And I also think it’s a bit tweaked that a kid can vote, pay taxes, serve in the military – but not have a drink in public.

But in the end, I waited till I was 21, that law no longer affects me so I do not particularly care much.