re: #307 JC1

I’m not denying the data that barring alcohol sales to a sub group of people will lower drunk driving accidents. I’m asking if that’s the criteria, why stop at 21? A 45 year old drunk behind the wheel is as dangerous as a 20 year old.

If lives saved is the only metric we’re considering, then why not mandate a 45 mph speed limit on the highways, 20 mph in neighborhoods, and enforce them in a draconic fashion?

Clearly we make rules knowing that they will cost X lives per year, and as a society we’re okay with those (65+mph speed limits, etc).

I’ve listed some of the reasons I’m against the 21 drinking age in post 223.

If we want to lower drunk driving deaths, we should lower the BAC limit to .02%, like much of the civilized world.

Thousands of lives have been saved by increasing the drinking age to 21. Lives have also been saved by enforcing the laws to all ages.

I’m also happy not sending kids to war so that argument doesn’t work with me.

Lowering the drinking age is never going to happen. If it’s the hill you want to die on, enjoy.