Vt was also a long holdout on changing the age down to 18. I lived there when it was dropped from 21 to 18 so that young adults would stop driving to NY and NH where it was 18 and then drive home plastered. I lived there when it was raised from 18 back to 21 as part of the national campaign to force states to comply with a national drinking age (may have been pushed by MADD, I'm not familiar with that).
There WAS a constant din when it happened. Some states (including Vt) filed suits against the Feds claiming that withholding federal transportation dollars from states who didn't raise the drinking age to 21 was extortion. They didn't win.
One goal was a national drinking age so that border towns didn't have bunches of drunk drivers on the roads crossing back and forth across state lines. Another goal was to increase the age to a level that would ensure that those who drank legally were more "responsible" in their decision making abilities. A final goal was probably the return of prohibition but that wasn't in the public documents.
Agreeing with the concept that the age of majority should be the age of majority and that sending someone to war, the ballot booth, prison, etc while saying they aren't old enough to legally buy themselves a beer is ludicrous.
An editorial in our paper today makes just this point.
The editorial also notes that the Universities have not presented "one iota" of evidence that lowering the age would have the intended consequences.
I have to wonder if it wouldn't just push the age of binging down. A 16 year old surely knows more 18 year olds they could convince to buy them liquor than they know 21 year olds.
21 for drinking just seems so arbitrary when they can join the military, vote, buy cigarettes, etc.
