Posted on 04/16/2009 2:05:18 PM PDT by zaphod3000
For the past 20 years, the U.S. has maintained a Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 (MLDA21), with little public debate about the wisdom of this policy. Recently, however, more than 100 college and university presidents signed the Amethyst Initiative, a public statement calling for "an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21-year-old drinking age."
SNIP
Our research compares traffic fatality rates in states before and after they changed their MLDA from 18 to 21. In contrast to all earlier work, however, we examined separately the impact in states that adopted an MLDA21 on their own and those that were coerced by the FUDAA.
The results are striking. Virtually all the life-saving impact of the MLDA21 comes from the few early-adopting states, not from the larger number that resulted from federal pressure. Further, any life-saving effect in those states that first raised the drinking age was only temporary, occurring largely in the first year or two after switching to the MLDA21.
Our results thus challenge both the value of the MLDA21 and the value of coercive federalism. While we find limited evidence that the MLDA21 saves lives when states adopted it of their own volition, we find no evidence it saves lives when the federal government compels this policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
More nannyism isn’t going to solve a problem of maturity. Why do people drink? Boredom, self-medication, poor self-image, etc. The same reasons people participate in all kinds of negative behaviors.
Teens are much more capable than we give them credit for and we infantilize them until they turn 18. At which point they remain immature well into their thirties.
They’ve never had the chance to grow up, which should and used to occur from 10 and on and in most communities even younger. It is not unusual to see two or three year olds holding razor sharp knives without parental supervision.
Can you imagine a yuppie household trusting their children to this degree. Lower standards just lead to lower standards. No one fears the flame like the fool who’s badly burned.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2231028/posts
Check this out, some kook in New York wants to make it so that a nineteen year old combat veteran couldn’t come home on leave and go deer hunting without an “adult” to accompany him.
I have a different take on the drinking age.
Today’s music sucks.
When the drinking age was 18, there were road houses that sold beer and wines. They needed bands. A band could make a small living within a 150 mile radius. Playing in front of people is a better teacher than sitting alone in your bedroom.
These road houses were where the musicians honed their craft. They were the minor leagues of the music business.
But they can’t make a profit without the 18-21 year old drinkers.
Lower the drinking, and there will be good music again.
I drank, I mean I’ll drink to that. Good theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.