Start small by allowing over 18s to consume alcohol in restaurants when eating. That starts to get across the message that alcohol is better as an acompaniment to food and consumed slowly, than slung down the throat in vast quantities alone. I think most European countries actually allow 16 year olds to drink alcohol with a meal in a restaurant if it's bought by an adult.

Decriminalize teenagers having a drink at home. It's the responsibility of the adults (over 21) present to make sure they don't get behind the wheel of a car afterwards. Allow over 18s into all clubs and pubs where alcohol is served even if they can't drink. Maybe seeing their elders making total fools of themselves will be a salutory lesson?

See how that goes for a couple of years. And continue to throw the book at drink drivers.

Your propositions are interesting.

They will never "go" in the US, however.

In the US, we tend to legislate to control things with a "stick" rather than a "carrot." Legislation has to be aimed at punishing people for it to be considered "good." We would rather see an entire generation in jail than actually "fix" the problem.

We, as a society, are not - at all - interested in reducing deaths by intoxicated drivers, unless it involves punishing someone. Anything less is considered pandering to the perceived "criminals." Therefore, non-punitive solutions just don't interest us...

...which is a pity, as you just end up with a bunch of hacked off youths who stick 2 fingers up to the law. This may be a rather 'middle class' option, but seriously I would lower the age to 18 in restaurants when the alcohol accompanies food. And the fact that the drink drive laws aren't tough enough isn't a reason to give up on them. We have to take people's licenses away and if necessary put them in jail. We have to act like we mean it. (Oh, but we also have to improve public transportation too so we can tell "Tough. Get the bus."

"We, as a society, are not - at all - interested in reducing deaths by intoxicated drivers, unless it involves punishing someone" It shows from your posts that you just view everything the gov't does with a cynical eye. I'm sure more than 99% of Americans feel that the reduction of drunk driving deaths is a major issue (maybe not by you, though).

"Small starts" only encourage kids and bar owners to find the loophole (the bar that is a "restaurant" allowing kids to drink with meals, i.e. bar food). "Small starts" allow underage drinking without oversight. A gradual process isn't going to prevent binge drinking at off-campus parties (something that will happen regardless of whether you cave in to "small starts". Sorry, it won't work here.

Quite honestly, whatever you make the legal age, you are never going to stop people drinking, or even binge drinking. We've been drinking since the ancient Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners invented alcohol many years BC. Alcohol has been around a very long time, and I've no doubt that the debate over what age young people should start drinking it, has been around almost as long. It was probably debated in the Roman Senate.

Then we invented the motor car and it all got lethal.

What you have to do is stop people drinking and driving. THAT's what matters. Many drunk drivers over 21 kill people. The age is almost irrelevant. And you don't need to be on a binge to be dangerous behind the wheel. "Just a pint" is enough to put many people over the blood alcohol limit and damage their judgement enough to make them a danger -although most people wouldn't consider a single pint as a binge (I know after one pint I'm not capable of driving safely.) If people set out deliberately to have a binge, they may actually leave their cars at home and arrange a taxi, knowing well ahead they will be incapable of driving. It's the driver who has 'just one or two' who may be more of a threat because they actually still think they are quite capable. And they may well be over 21.

I think binge drinking and drink driving are 2 separate issues and should be treated as such. Using 21 as this magic cut off point is obviously not working. Make drink driving (at whatever age) a MAJOR crime, and let my kids (18 and 20) have a glass of wine when we go out to dinner. I've already hammered into them that if they ever drink drive, I will throw the book at them, never mind the law doing it. Drinking, smoking, voting, joining the military should all be the same age, and perhaps even the legal age of sexual consent too. It's legal adulthood. If you are old enough at 18 to join the army, you are old enough to buy a pint of beer or have a glass of wine in a restaurant.

"Drinking, smoking, voting, joining the military should all be the same age, and perhaps even the legal age of sexual consent too. It's legal adulthood. If you are old enough at 18 to join the army, you are old enough to buy a pint of beer or have a glass of wine in a restaurant."

That logic doesn't follow. Just because someone can voluntarily sign up for the army doesn't mean that he or she should be able to buy a beer. There is no connection. In this country, you're not able to rent a car until age 25. It's all about risk and responsibility. The fact that you want everyone to be able to drink a beer THE SAME DAY they can legally drive is amazing. Here's a license to drive...now go abuse your body with alcohol and then drive home.

I know that in Great Britain, you do have a tremendous problem with teenage drinking and fighting in the streets...that teaches us, what, that it's better than our system? At least here we have GRADUAL steps toward responsibility. Due to the dangers associated with alcohol, whether it is with driving, fighting, or anything regarding decisions we make (alcohol clearly clouds those decisions), we don't allow people to get everything handed to them all at once...many kids will abuse it if they get things all at once, as in your country. First, you're able to vote in civil society at age 18. Then, you can smoke (if you want to) at age 19. Then, you can drink (again, if you want to) at age 21. You can then rent a car at 25. You get gradual levels of responsibility, and it's up to you to choose to live by them or against them. Wouldn't it be great if we could do everything all at once? Sure, but it wouldn't be the safest thing to do. Isn't safety the #1 goal here? We're talking about 18-year old kids here...what 18-year old do you think is capable of making all of these life-changing decisions at once at that magical age?