Article Analysis "The Dangers of the Drinking Age"

I read an article from Forbes Magazine entitled, "The Dangers of the Drinking Age," the main argument refers to the question why didn't the MLDA21 movement save more lives? Here is the URL link to the article: http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/15/lowering-legal-drinking-age-opinions-contributors-regulation.html

The MLDA21 is the government's Minumum Legal Drinking Age of 21. The authors of the article are responding to and questioning the effectiveness of the MLDA21 over the past 20 years. In the first paragraph of the article, the authors refer to the Amethyst Initiative, a public statement signed by more than 100 college and university presidents. This statement is demanding an informed and public debate over the drinking age which currently is 21. Many negative responses from MADD and advocates voicing the purpose of MLDA21 and its prevention of traffic deaths among 18-20 year old adults. The advocates blamed the colleges and universities of not doing enough research on the relationship between traffic fatalities and America's drinking age. The authors of this article agree with the purpose of the Amethyst Initiative, they researched heavily on this issue and came to the conclusion that "MLDA21 has little or no lifew-saving effect whatsoever." Jeffrey Miron and Elina Tetelbaum are the two authors that prove their point and opinion with supporting facts of history and the prohibition of alcohol and the drinking age. Over time the drinking age in the US has fluctuated separately between states from 18-21. The fluctuations continued up until 1984 when Congress passed the Federal Underage Drinking Act (FUDAA), withholds transportation funding from states that lack the MLDA21. The law was supposed to fewer traffic fatalities, but in fact the only life-saving impact came from the few-early adopting states, not the large remaining number of states that were federally pressured into succumbing to the law. The question we must ask ourselves, is the original reason or benefit we passed the MLDA21 still in effect today? Some people would agree that it was, while others disagree and believe the drinking age has caused the increase in binge drinking and alcohol abuse. Miron and Tetelbaum state that in order for the MLDA to actually work and be effective the government must set a drinking age that responds to local attitudes and concerns. Clearly the MLDA21 hasn't worked so essentially it has failed because a large portion of the population do not follow or obide by it. So in order to tackle youth drinking and its dangers we must do something else, something more effective that educates and reduces alcohol abuse and underage drinking. What do you think we should do, is our system working?