The drinking age was raised to 21 nation-wide by Congress in 1984 (and signed by the sainted Ronald Reagan, which goes to prove that he wasn’t infallible). The law forced compliance by the states by threatening to withhold transportation dollars from those that didn’t tow toe the line. In 1996 when I looked at the data, the evidence was sparse one way or the other, but leant enough to the pro-21 side to suggest the law, even if wrongly conceived, might be effective in saving teenage lives.  It isn’t, as Forbes reports today. Key paragraph:
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.
The major implication of these results is that the drinking age does not produce its main claimed benefit. Moreover, it plausibly generates side effects, like binge drinking and disrespect for the law…
So instead of passing a toothless resolution on the 10th Amendment, the Legislature and the Guv could show some actual grit. Lower the drinking age back to 18, and let the Federal Government sue . Grandstanding is one thing. Taking on the fight is something else entirely. (And yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress was within its rights. But that was then, and this is now — and federalism is one of this Court’s hallmarks.)
