Steven Pare, Chairman of the Rhode Island chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Drivin has written an editorial which supports keeping the legal drinking age at 21.  Pare cites several studies which herald the virtues of keeping the drinking age artificially high.  Unfortunately, Mr. Pare glosses over some of the contradictions in the law.

     In the United States, individuals are legally considered adults at the age of 18.  At this age, individuals are deemed responsible enough to make their own decisions, enter into contracts, run for political office, and serve in the military.  As a society, we deem them responsible enough to buy a house, become mayor, or use military equipment costing millions of dollars, but not responsible enough to legally have a beer. 

     Mr. Pare also uses some dubious citations.  Since I haven't read the research he cited first hand, I won't doubt the quality of the methods, but what I will doubt are the relevance of the findings.  The studies show that a lower drinking age resulted in more traffic fatalities among those under 21 during the 1970's and 1980's.  As you probably know, drunk driving didn't have the stigma or have the attention then that it does now.  That's a point that can't be ignored.

     I also find it strange that one must wait until they are 21 years old to consume alcohol, but can begin driving when they are just 16.  Isn't driving a serious endeavor where the operator of a motor vehicle has the life of his or her passengers and others to worry about?  Why aren't there calls to increase the minimum driving age to 18?  I personally have far more reservations about 16 year olds driving than 18 year olds having a beer, which they pretty much already do whenever they want.


http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pare14_11-14-08_MOBSLQ8_v15.3e2db78.html