Since we have historic experience to guide us it should be a simple matter of fact whether it impacts the accident and/or death rate for the 18 to 21 year olds.

A quick Google of the issue finds that there are solid statistics showing that lowering the drinking age did lead to higher deaths and accidents for 18-21 year olds and raising it did lead to fewer deaths and accidents.

So Will's "counterintuitive" speculation is just plain factually incorrect.

So what we have here is just another example of some pundit making something up out of thin air than can be easily disproved. The question is why should anyone take this type of rank speculation seriously?

Of course, we know drinking causes death and injury to adults as well, and as we do with adults we could decide to allow 18-21 year olds to drink despite the cost.

But that does not change the point that Will is just factually incorrect.

Actually, I said that Will thought "the prospect that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 would actually lead to fewer alcohol-related deaths" was "counterintuitive." The quoted portion was a rationale for why that was so

The quoted section wasn't a rationale for that at all. The quoted section identified the problem, the counterintuitive part is the proposed solution (i.e. making the problem more widely available actually reducing it's misuse).

Here:

Problem: binge drinking (quoted part)
Solution: lower minimum wage (counterintuitive part)

You then say that the problem isn't counterintuitive, but rather obvious. Well yeah but nobody said otherwise.

Actually, I said that Will thought "the prospect that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 would actually lead to fewer alcohol-related deaths" was "counterintuitive." The quoted portion was a rationale for why that was so.

Because it would allow them to drink responsibly. If one can legally drink in the dorm room--or at the bar on the strip within walking distance of the dorm--then you're more likely to do that than to drive someplace where you can do it in secret. And being able to do it openly makes it more normal, reducing the incentive to binge drink.

That's fine, it's a resonable and cogent argument. But do you see my point how it was kind of missing from the original post and instead you misinterpreted the quoted section (claiming that it was what the author had considered counterintuitive)?

Im surprised that a dinosaur like George Will is bringing this up, given the fact that his hero, Ronald Reagan signed the law that restricted adult rights in 1984.

Not only isn’t this counterintuitive, it’s patently obvious to anyone who has ever been on a college campus or, indeed, been 18.

It's even more obvious to anyone who has ever been 21. Alcohol is far less attractive when you're 21 than it is when you're 20.

Students >16 could enter the pub. They were permitted to buy one pint of beer/night. On weekends, they could leave the school and do whatever they wanted, but coming back drunk was cause for expulsion (drugs resulted in immediate and automatic expulsion). Kids were given sherry by masters, wine was served at some meals. Basically, they were given the opportunity to learn to drink in moderation. Not all took that lesson, of course, and binge drinking remains a serious problem. But none of those kids was driving around. They walked around the nearest town or took a train into London.

When my son went to US university, he already knew how to drink. That didn't stop him from occasionally getting shitfaced, of course, because that's part of college life. But he absolutely won't get in a car if the driver has been drinking, nor will he drive.

1. Excessive alcohol consumption helps people do stupid things
2. Teenagers, by virtue of their lack of experience, do stupid things

Putting the two together, we can adequately conclude that alcohol helps already dumb teenagers do dumber things.

The issue that led to the increase in the drinking age was the carnage (at least so perceived by society) that resulted when drunk teenagers got behind the wheel. According to this 2002 report from the National Center for Statistics and Analyis, '24% of young drivers 15-20 years old who were killed in crashes were intoxicated.'

That is what scares people.

I'd suggest that instead of a total ban on teenage drinking, the teenager be given a choice:

Do you want a drinking license or a driving license?

You can be permitted to one or the other, but not both. Let the maturing young adult make the decision.

The UK and other European states can get away with lower drinking ages because far fewer of those teenagers drive. In the UK, for instance, only 40% of all people have driving licenses. A drunk 17-y/o isn't going to get behind the wheel of a car. Instead, s/he is going to be an obnoxious drunk on a bus, train, or underground car. Those aren't totally safe environments, of course, but they're a lot safer than trying to drive while incapacitated.

It would be far far better for them to learn from a 50 something professor in a social setting more conducive to moderation. The 21 rule drives underage drinking underground where professors, staff can't have much effect on it.

Because it would allow them to drink responsibly. If one can legally drink in the dorm room--or at the bar on the strip within walking distance of the dorm--then you're more likely to do that than to drive someplace where you can do it in secret. And being able to do it openly makes it more normal, reducing the incentive to binge drink.