I’m on Robinson’s side with regard to the policy question — we should lower the drinking age — but I find her argument less than compelling.

She feels the need to claim that the law would have positive effects in terms of behavior, and I don’t think that’s true. There’s an argument to be made that the declines in binge drinking and drunk driving started before the federal 21 law went into effect, and therefore the law didn’t cause them. But there’s no argument at all that the law actually increased binge drinking, as Robinson implies (lowering the age “is the just and practical solution to America’s drinking problem”). The rate of binge drinking continued to decline after the law, so it’s highly unlikely getting rid of the law would make it decline even more.

I also think it’s odd to suggest that forbidding your child to break the law, when there’s a chance they might do so anyway, is somehow ignoring reality. There’s a recipe for great parenting: Anytime a child might disobey you, just give up. Keep it real!

The valid argument in favor of lowering the drinking age, which Robinson does get to about halfway through, is that the government, and especially the federal government, has no damn business telling adults how to behave, especially in the privacy of their own homes (and rented dorms in colleges that are OK with drinking). It’s really as simple as that, and I think it’s a mistake to try to make social-engineering arguments in this case.