Why have we settled on exactly twenty-one? Why not twenty? Why not twenty-two? Or why not nineteen for wine and beer, and twenty-three for hard liquor?

Iowa was one of the very last states to adopt the MADD-approved drinking age of 21. Before then, it had been 19 -- not because 18 year olds aren't legally considered adults, but because they might still be in high school, and Ol' Coach disapproved of drunks on the team.

Iowa changed its drinking age under federal financial pressure. However, it's worth noting that Iowa's traffic fatalities started declining before they changed the drinking age. MADD was a key part of a major social movement. Friends don't let friends drive drunk, even if the drinker is legally old enough to purchase alcohol.

I would support a move away from a federal mandate, and towards letting states make their own choices.

Letting states make their own choices??? So you favor drunken midnight trips to and from state borders, just because one state has a lower age limit? That's the reality. Drinkers (and therefore drunks too) will flock to the border...do we really want THAT instead of a federal age limit? This is not about letting states make their own choices. This is about what's safe for America. Teen drunks on the road is not safe. At least now it's mostly just bingers in their homes...each state having different age requirements puts those drunks on the road.