In today’s WSJ, InstaPundit’s Glenn Reynolds comments on the continuing drinking age debate:
The “old enough to fight, old enough to drink” argument has force. In fact, 18-year-olds in America are old enough to do pretty much everything except drink. Along with joining the military, 18-year-olds can vote, marry, sign contracts, and even take on a crippling lifetime burden of student loan debt in pursuit of an education that may never land them a job. Yet we face the absurd phenomenon of colleges encouraging students to go into six-figure debt—which can’t be discharged in bankruptcy—but forbidding them to drink on campus because they’re deemed insufficiently mature to appreciate the risks.
Defenders of the status quo claim that highway deaths have fallen since the drinking age was raised to 21 from 18, but those claims obscure the fact that this decline merely continued a trend that was already present before the drinking age changed—and one that involved every age group, not merely those 18-21. Research by economist Jeffrey A. Miron and lawyer Elina Tetelbaum indicates that a drinking age of 21 doesn’t save lives but does promote binge drinking and contempt for the law.
Flashback: Sigma Nu reports on the drinking age debate in the winter 2010 issue of The Delta: http://sigmanu.pursuant3.com/2009/11/nov09-8a/?keepThis=true
What do you think? Should Congress lower the drinking age? Leave your thoughts in the comments section.