"This figure decreased dramatically when these states eventually increased the drinking age again."

I guess this means you can stop playing the fake emotion card, because you prove that fake ids have little effect here.

In addition, your discussion of South Dakota v Dole seems contrived, especially in a post 9/11 world where a healthy infrastructure makes us safer. These benefits greatly outweigh the cost of that drastically diminished group who drink underage and drive. Stop thinking so pre-9/11 and chase those other ghosts, you know all those supposed Americans talking to Al Qaida on the phone. Then you can save us the trouble of trying to decipher your understanding of the Constitution, and just shred it.

Mr Fabu

I've never read of anyone in the past ten years who has used _Dole_ as an argument that the drinking age should be lowered, or that it is bad law. I suppose that because I don't run with folks who believe the New Deal should be abandoned. So congratulations for burning the straw man to fill up the second half of this tripe.

I suppose (as a Republican) that you will also take the _Science_ study you reference as evidence that people between under the age of 22 cannot be executed (or perhaps even tried in adult court), admitted into the military, or be allowed to vote. After all, if they are prone to make rash decisions because of brain development, it makes little sense to treat them as adults in other contexts.

Finally, your theory on drunk driving convictions ignore, inexplicably, the sweeping change in drunk driving laws that came about roughly the same time as the drinking age changed. Why do you assume the latter was responsible for the drop in problems (for all ages, note) rather than the former.

Tripe, tripe, tripe.

And yet underage people will continue to drink at house parties, as has been the case since the advent of '21', what else is new?

Meanwhile in Darfur, genocide. Does anyone realize this?

I'm reading ... and reading ... and reading, and I never got to the part that tells us why "Underage drinking hurts economy." Either rewrite the article or change the title.

"Often, a person's prefrontal cortex portion of their brain -- which controls such functions as providing a person with the ability to use judgment and reason -- does not completely develop until they reach their early 20s"

This would explain Darryn's columns and their lack of judgement and reason.

Underage drinking hurts the economy? Good title, but why didn't you write that article? There is one sentence devoted to the topic, and it has no explanation. $58 billion? $196 per American, per year? Could you back that up a little bit? No, I didn't think so either.

Hey darryn get your facts straight. After prohibition the leagal age to consume liquor was 21 but it was 18 for beer. If you ask any of your parents they will tell you about going to beer bars. so from 1933-1985 if you were older than 18 you could drink beer. It took me all of 3 min to find the info on this, hey editors do some fact checking!

Oh and darryn if you don't like drinking and partying why did you come to the nations #1 partying (drinking) school? I'm sure BYU would be more than willing to take you.

Beckstrom is always so sky-high on the "let's have some level of fun in life meter"!

Darryn, this is one of the first times I will be disagreeing with you on an issue. The statistics you use are wish washy at best and do not take the totality of what went on in the 80's when the drinking age was raised to 21.

First States had their highway dollars tied to the drinking age. Meaning raise your state law to 21 or lose Federal dollars. Second, during the 80's the issue of DUI was elevated and ads from manufacturers like Coors and Budweiser began talking about drinking responsibly. At that same time schools began a program of talking about the dangers of drinking and driving in drivers ed courses. No research demonstrates the only effect on lowering the number of deaths by teenage drunk drivers was only effected by making alcohol harder to obtain.

Any study of the cost associated with underage drinking likely ignores the revenue that bars and clubs generated when people my age were able to go drinking when we hit 19. Now some of those dollars that were taxed by the state are replaced by alternative intoxicants that are illegal and not taxed.

As for you brain research, while it is interesting, using your logic we would have to prohibit 18 year olds from voting, joining the military, driving, or having sex as examples. Europe, Canada and most of the Western World have drinking ages as low 16 and do not have near the problem of 19 year old frat boys drinking themselves to death. Why do you think that is? Drinking is not good or bad for you it is how much you drink in a single seating and how frequently you overdrink. A glass of wine or a dark beer a day is good for your heart, thins the blood and tastes better than aspirin.

As a conservative I do not believe in a Nanny state that protects people from their own stupidity. Your dislike of retched fermented yeast is problematic in your arguements because it is obvious that your distaste for something limits your ability to deliver a consistent logical arguement.

Alcohol has been a part of the social process since the Egyptians first made beer, and since a guy with the initials JC passed around some wine while he hung out with 13 guys at the last supper.

First, I would like to state that I am not an economics major, and thus, I will not pretend to be one.

Second, I would like to note that this article should not have been titled "Underage drinking hurts the economy" but rather "Irresonsible drinking hurts society".

You claim that underage drinking costs some 58 million. But to who? This fact (the only one that has anything to do with the economy) is not well supported, and does not seem to prove anything detrimental to the economy.

So, now we should focus more on how underage drinking is more detrimental to society. (which seemed to be your intent all along)

I will use the same example you used (drivers/avis) in refutation. Do you really think that no driver over the age of 25 ever uses a car irresonsibly? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the answer is most certainly no. The reason that car rental buisnesses don't allow rentals to people under 25 is because they are more likely to misuse the car.

Much like this, it is not underage drinkers who are causing the problem, it is those who drink irresponsibly. I will grant you that those under 21 may not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex portion of the brain, and that they are more likely to drink irresponsibly. But saying that underage drinkers are a strain on society is the same as saying all drivers under the age of 25 are a drain on society. If driving was not a near necessity, would you argue that no one under the age of 25 should be allowed to drive? I would argue, even proportionally, that more lives are lost to drivers under 25 than to drinkers under 21.

So rather than grouping all underage drinkers as problematic, I would ask you to please direct your comments to anyone who drinks irresponsibly; including those who are over 21. They are the burdon, not those who choose to be responsible individuals who enjoy drinking with their friends.

Is this your response to the rest of the Editorial Board trying to get your underage overachieving self drunk?

Ann Coulter, Jr. strikes again!

Ugh. Slowly back away from the keyboard, Darryn.

This is the most scatterbrained, poorly written article I have read in quite some time.

learn how to spell...retched, what is that?

Perhaps Ms. Beckstrom should start a UW branch of the Temperance League, wear jean skirts down to her ankles, and rally for the passing of constitutional amendments that bar all forms of pleasure.

I had no idea Terri Schiavo was writing for the Badger Herald.

Beckstrom's attention-grabs have shown a continuous pattern of failure to provide facts to back up her one-sided claims. Perhaps she shouldn't follow Casey Hoff's talk-radio style of harping to the lowest common denominator and actually try to provide some insight. Shrillness does not suit you.

I love the idea that an 18 year old's brain is not mature enough for them to drink alcohol responsibly...but they can be sent off to fight a war, drive a car, and a whole host of other things that would seemingly require much more maturity than drinking.

I'm comforted to know that our brains fully develop around 21. Maybe by the time Darryn gets there, she'll come to her senses and stop barraging us with poorly thought out articles...one can only dream...

"I love the idea that an 18 year old's brain is not mature enough for them to drink alcohol responsibly...but they can be sent off to fight a war, drive a car, and a whole host of other things that would seemingly require much more maturity than drinking."

... or go to grad school or be the ed. board chairperson of a newspaper.

if you can go to grad school, don't ya think you can drink?

"I would argue, even proportionally, that more lives are lost to drivers under 25 than to drinkers under 21."

Well, how many of those people that are "under 25" are "under 21"? Are you simpily saying that more lives are lost by the group of people that are between the ages of 21-25? because that is what your saying.