war, they are old enough to drink (ôHow to Reduce High-Risk College Drinking: Use Proven Strategies, Fill Research Gapsö). Some even argue that ôEstablishing a legal drinking age of 21 is unconstitutional age discriminationö (ôHow to Reduce High-Risk College Drinking: Use Proven Strategies, Fill Research Gapsö).
Some of the reasons for favoring a lower drinking age are attempts to justify it by rationalization. One of the favored arguments in this group is that withholding alcohol from teenagers just makes them want it more, and that if they cannot obtain alcohol, they will simply begin using other addictive substances, like illicit drugs (ôHow to Reduce High-Risk College Drinking: Use Proven Strategies, Fill Research Gapsö). When proponents of the higher drinking age point out that in states where the drinking age has been raised, teen alcohol-related crashes have decreased significantly, they respond by saying ôLower rates of alcohol-related crashes among 19- to 20-year-olds arenÆt related to the age 21 policy, but rather theyÆre related to increased drinking-driving education efforts, tougher enforcement, and tougher drunk-driving penalties.ö (ôHow to Reduce High-Risk College Drinking: Use Proven Strategies, Fill Research Gapsö).
Still another camp makes a distinction between teen driving and drunk driving, insisting that laws should restrict drunk driving but not teen driving:
Any law that restricts the use of alcohol is going to decrease the number of drunk-driving related accidents. It would be only natural for a decrease in the number of drinkers to result in the decrease of the number of drunk drivers. The fact is, that they have misjudged the cause of drunk driving. Studies would show, that if laws regarding drunk driving, not the drinking age, were tightened, instances of drunk driving, and thus deaths in "fatal car crashes" would be reduced (Lenhart).
Finally, some scoff at arguments that alc...