Of course, the neo-temperance crowd as well as the ageists (is there really any other kind these days?) would counter that this only proves that Americans can't handle their alcohol, so therefore lowering the drinking age to 18 would be even worse. But what they are tacitly admitting by saying this specious argument is that Americans are inferior to Europeans--do they really want to concede that? Didn't think so. And by that same logic, they might as well call for bringing back Prohibition for all ages, as that would be the ultimate logical conclusion of that utterly patronizing and paternalistic argument.
Besides, we know now that, while all policy measures have their hard limits, the most time-tested, efficient, effective, and cost-effective one of all is to simply raise the price of alcohol, generally via taxation. Wayland Ellis has pointed that out several times, and it is the one thing that he and the polar-opposite Philip N. Cook can agree upon. The late Mark Kleiman also made a similar argument years ago. Alcohol taxes and prices have been lagging behind inflation for decades in the USA, so therefore the lowest-hanging fruit to make headway against America's growing drinking problem is to raise such taxes. In fact, if set high enough, practically no other alcohol regulations or restrictions are needed at all.
Another promising idea, would be similar to what parts of the Northern Territory of Australia, as well as parts of Western Australia, currently have: something called the Banned Drinker Register (BDR). It is exactly what it sounds like, and targets actual problem drinkers individually only, with no collateral damage to non-problem drinkers. This can also be paired with something like South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program for those convicted of drunk driving, drunk violence, drunk vandalism, or repeated disorderly conduct violations. In addition, problem drinkers can also have themselves voluntarily added to the blacklist for a fixed period of time, much like problem gamblers are currently allowed to do. (Call it "86 Me" or something like that.) Mark Kleiman would certainly have approved of that as well. And aside from the downside of ID checking of all buyers that would be required to enforce the BDR (not radically different from the status quo), it is actually the most libertarian policy that there is. Libertarian purists, of course, would probably only support the South Dakota style 24/7 program and the voluntary blacklist, and that would be fine with Twenty-One Debunked either way.
And of course, let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
