View Mobile Site

From the desk of Art Keffer

Underage drinking: Why 21?


It’s a debate that just won’t go away: the furor over the minimum drinking age of 21. Both sides say, "What’s to debate?" A Jan. 12 op-ed piece, in the Christian Science Monitor, "There’s No Benefit to Lowering the Drinking Age," by Robert Voas, responds in highly readable style to the principal anti-21 arguments posed today. Excerpts from his article are reprinted below, along with additional comments, as a convenient way to understand the case for retaining the minimum 21 law.

After nearly four decades of exacting research on how to save ...

** Subscribers Log in to read this full article.

In order to view premium content, you must purchase a subscription.

Thank you for showing so much interest in our site! Our policies allow 10 free article views each month. To access additional articles including the E-Tribune, please subscribe. Already a print or online subscriber? Just log on to access additional content.

A subscription is required before viewing this article and other premium content.

Already a registered member and have a subscription?

If you have already purchased a subscription, please log in to view the full article.

Are you registered, but do not have a subscription?

If you are a registed user and would like to purchase a subscription, log in to view a list of available subscriptions.

Interested in becoming a registered member and purchasing a subscription?

Join our community today by registering for a FREE account. Once you have registered for a FREE account, click SUBSCRIBE NOW to purchase access to premium content.

Membership Benefits

  • Instant access to creating Blogs, Photo Albums, and Event listings.
  • Email alerts with the latest news.
  • Access to commenting on articles.

Please wait ...