Maintaining the current drinking age

More than 100 college and university presidents have called for lowering the federal drinking age from 21 to 18, arguing that the move would reduce binge drinking. It’s an idea that seems backed more by wishful thinking than hard data.
    There are good health and safety reasons for the 21 law. When the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971, many states also lowered the drinking age from 21 to 18.
    But the negative effects were felt immediately.
    Proponents say legal drinking would remove some of the allure of alcohol and reckless, “goal-oriented” drinking (drinking to get smashed). But they don’t offer much research to support that assertion.
    On the other hand, numerous peer-reviewed studies support the effectiveness of 21 laws in reducing teen alcohol-related fatalities.
    The 21 law has reduced fatal crashes for drivers 18 to 20 years old by 13 percent, saving some 900 lives annually, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — and that’s just traffic fatalities.
    The most persuasive argument for lowering the age is one of fairness: If 18-year-olds are adult enough to fight and die for their country, why aren’t they old enough to buy a beer?
    But this question of fairness is separate from the problem of binge drinking and how to address it. And universities wouldn’t seem to have much of an educational stake in pushing a campaign to make drinking laws “fair.”
    Binge drinking and alcohol abuse are serious problems on campuses and must be addressed. But university leaders could perhaps more appropriately do so by working together on educational responsible-drinking campaigns.
    If the presidents’ core issue is safety and health, then the data speaks for itself.
    The 21 law saves lives.