An Examination of the Criticisms of the 

Minimum Legal Drinking Age 21 Laws in 

the United States from a 

Traffic-Safety Perspective 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

October 2008 

Adapted from: Fell, J.C. (1986). Discounting the Myths of the 21 Drinking Age. Traffic Safety, 86 (2), March/April 1986: 6-9, 27-30, 

and Wagenaar, A.C. and Toomey, T.L. (2002). Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from

1960 to 2000, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement #14, 2002: 206-225. 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

October 2008 

6. Performing Organization Code

An Examination of the Criticisms of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age 21 

Laws in the United States from a 

Traffic-Safety Perspective 

 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

James C. Fell 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation 

11720 Beltsville Drive, Suite 900 

Calverton, MD 20705-3111 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

 

15. Supplementary Notes 

16. Abstract 

Perhaps no alcohol safety measure has attracted more research and public attention or shown more consistent evidence 

of effectiveness than the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) 21 law in the United States. MLDA laws were 

established in the States after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Many States 

set the MLDA at 21 during that time. When the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971 (26th Amendment to the 

U.S. Constitution), many States lowered their drinking age to 18 or 19. Studies in the 1970s and 1980s showed 

significant increases in alcohol-related crashes involving youth aged 18-20 in States that lowered their drinking age. 

Consequently, the U.S. Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act and President Reagan signed the bill 

into law in 1984. Since 1988, the MLDA has been 21 in all 50 States and the District of Columbia (DC). Between 1982 

and 1998, the population-adjusted involvement rate of drinking drivers aged 20 and younger in fatal crashes decreased 

59 percent. MLDA-21 laws have been shown to be associated with this decline. The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) has estimated that MLDA laws save approximately 900 lives a year in traffic fatalities alone. 

Section I of this report presents cases that have been made for lowering the drinking age and examines these 

arguments. Much of the information contained in this section was adapted from two prior publications with similar 

arguments and augmented with new and updated information. 

Section II provides detailed information and supporting data on the benefits of MLDA 21 and the extent of teen motor 

vehicle risks. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Minimum Legal Drinking Age; lives saved; research; underage 

drinking drivers; fatal traffic crashes 

19 Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21 No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8/72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
Introduction

The passage of Minimum Legal Drinking Age 21 (MLDA 21) laws has been one of the most 

successful traffic safety countermeasures implemented over the past 30 years. The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 900 lives are saved every year 

due to these laws, with a total of more than 25,000 lives since 1975. 

MLDA laws were first established in the States after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (21st

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Many States set the MLDA at 21 during that time. When 

the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971 (26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), a 

number of States lowered their drinking age to 18 or 19 to mirror the drop in voting age. 

The resultant differences in minimum drinking ages across the States allowed the agency and 

other organizations to study the effect of MLDA laws set at different ages. Perhaps no alcoholrelated traffic safety measure has attracted more research and public attention. The evidence 

generated as a result has demonstrated clearly the effectiveness of minimum drinking age laws 

set at age 21.

Studies in the 1970s and 1980s showed significant increases in alcohol-related crashes involving 

youth aged 18-20 in States that lowered their drinking age to 18.1

 Consequently, the U.S. 

Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (Title 23 U.S.C. §158). President 

Reagan signed the bill into law in 1984. Since 1988, the MLDA has been 21 in all 50 States and 

the District of Columbia. 

Between 1982 and 1998, the involvement rate of drinking drivers aged 20 and younger in fatal 

crashes decreased 59 percent. Research has shown that MLDA 21 laws were associated with this

decline. However, despite the compelling evidence of effectiveness of MLDA 21 laws, there is a 

movement again in some States to lower it. This report examines some of those claims. 

Section I of this report presents cases that have been made for lowering the drinking age and 

discusses these arguments. Much of the information contained in this section was adapted from

two prior publications supplemented here with new and updated information. 

Section II of this report provides detailed information and supporting data on the benefits of 

MLDA 21 and the status of underage drinking and driving in the United States. 

3
SECTION I: Arguments and Responses 

Argument 1: “Nineteen- and twenty-year-olds are drinking anyway. If we legalize it, at least 

they’ll be drinking in a controlled setting.” 

Response: A bar is not necessarily a “safe” or “controlled” environment to drink. A recent 

study showed that 76 percent of bars sold alcohol to obviously intoxicated 

patrons.2

 Research shows that about half of drivers arrested for driving while 

intoxicated (DWI) or killed as drinking drivers in traffic crashes did their 

drinking at licensed establishments.

3,4,5 This is not a controlled setting for youth 

to drink.

Argument 2: “Making it illegal to drink until 21 just increases the desire for the ‘forbidden 

fruit’. When teens turn 21, they’ll drink even more.” 

Response: Research shows that when the drinking age is 21, those younger than 21 drink less 

and continue to drink less through their early twenties. The lower rates of 

drinking before 21 are not compensated for by a higher rate of drinking after 

reaching 21.6

 In fact, research shows that the opposite is true.7

In 2004, a joint report by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 

(IOM) reviewed studies that controlled for history of alcohol dependency, 

frequency of heavy drinking, years of drinking, age, gender, race or ethnicity, 

history of cigarette smoking, and illicit drug use.8

 These studies reveal that those 

who start drinking at age 18 are at least twice as likely to be unintentionally 

injured, be in motor vehicle crashes, and be in physical fights while under the 

influence of alcohol than those who start drinking at age 21.9,10,11,12,13 

Argument 3: “The Federal Government is exerting too much authority over the States. The 

Federal law encouraging States to set the legal drinking age at 21, by withholding 

highway funds from States that do not do so, is just one example of this.” 

Response: Providing for the public safety is the primary responsibility of government at all 

levels. Based on accumulating data that young people were being 

disproportionately lost to crashes involving alcohol, the United States Congress 

acted to promote safety and the public welfare. Past and current surveys have 

shown that the U.S. public supports the drinking age of 21.14,15,16 

4
Argument 4: “Lower rates of drinking and driving crashes among 18- to 20-year-olds are not 

related to the MLDA 21 laws, they are related to increased anti-drinking and 

driving education efforts, tougher drunken-driving penalties, and tougher 

enforcement. Additionally, the decrease in drunken driving fatalities could be 

attributed to other factors, such as increased seat belt use.” 

Response: It’s true that highly visible enforcement and stricter laws have had an impact on 

reducing traffic fatalities across the board among all age groups. But if this 

argument were correct, one would expect that alcohol-involved crash rates would 

have fallen uniformly among different age groups when MLDA 21 laws were 

enacted. However, when the MLDA 21 age restriction was initiated, driver

alcohol involvement in fatal crashes declined significantly more among the 18- to 

20-year-old population, compared to drivers aged 21 and older. 

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report17 on the decline of 

young alcohol-impaired drivers in fatal traffic crashes between 1982 and 1998 

found that MLDA laws were a key factor in a 59 percent reduction in the rate of 

young alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes, along with demographic 

shifts, .02 or less blood alcohol concentration laws for drivers under 21, and 

general anti drunk driving efforts. The report noted: 

“MLDA 21 laws clearly reduced youth drinking and driving. They appear to have 

done so both by reducing youth drinking directly and by encouraging youth to 

separate their drinking from their driving.” 

Argument 5: “Government should consider issuing special licenses to 18-20 year olds to allow 

them to drink alcohol if they complete an alcohol education course. The idea is 

that the course will teach them to ‘choose responsibility’ when drinking.” 

Response: There is no evidence to suggest that lowering the drinking age to 18 for those who 

complete an education program will reduce the likelihood of their drinking and 

driving, let alone make them a more responsible drinker. Studies have shown that 

traffic safety education efforts alone are very good at raising awareness, but that 

in many cases they do not lead to behavior change. 

Argument 6: “Don’t experiences in other countries show that there are fewer alcohol and drunk 

driving problems when the drinking age is lower?” 

Response: International evidence shows that lowering the drinking age results in increased 

traffic crashes. For example, in New Zealand, the drinking age was lowered from

20 to 18 in 1999. A study found that after the drinking age was lowered to 18, 

there was a significant increase in traffic crashes among youth affected by the law 

change.18 The study found that the rate of traffic crashes and injuries to 18- to 19-

year-old males increased 12 percent and increased 14 percent for males aged 15 to 

17 comparing 4 years before and after New Zealand lowered the MLDA to 18. 

For females, the effect was even greater—rates increased 51 percent for 18- to 19-

year-olds and 24 percent for 15- to 17-year-olds. The study estimated that 400 

5
serious injuries and 12 deaths could be prevented each year among 15- to 19-yearolds if the nation raises the MLDA back to 21. 

Several States have considered legislation that would lower the drinking age. The 

outcomes in New Zealand are similar to the evidence in the United States after the 

drinking ages were lowered in the 1970s. A GAO Report, Drinking Age Laws, An 

Evaluation of the Synthesis of their Impact on Highway Safety, looked at research 

on the effects of lowering the drinking age to 18, and found evidence that traffic 

crashes increased as a result of changes in the law. Lowering the drinking age to 

18 also increases alcohol-related crashes for 15- to 17-year-olds. 

Conclusions 

The following facts support State laws that establish a minimum legal drinking age of 21: 

• A NHTSA study found that MLDA 21 laws were a key factor in a 59 percent reduction in 

the rate of young alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes between 1982 and 

1998. 

• NHTSA estimates that MLDA 21 laws save approximately 900 lives each year in 

reductions in traffic fatalities involving young drivers. 

• Providing science-based responses is important to ensure that those considering any 

change to the law are informed of the facts. 

6
SECTION II: Supporting Data for the Effectiveness of MLDA 21 Laws

Statistics show a decrease in fatal injuries related to car crashes for 15- to 24-year-olds following 

the implementation of the MDLA 21 laws.13 NHTSA credits the passage of MLDA 21 laws with 

saving approximately 900 traffic lives of people of all ages each year.19 

When the drinking age was different from State to State, one of the concerns that led to a 

uniform MLDA 21 was the fact that some young people drove across State lines to get alcohol, 

which created “blood borders” when they were involved in crashes. Having a uniform drinking 

age eliminates unsafe driving behavior related to a patchwork quilt of State drinking age laws. 

Lives Saved by MLDA 21 

NHTSA estimates that minimum drinking age laws have saved 26,333 lives since 1975. This 

estimate represents people of all ages who otherwise would have been involved in a fatal crash 

involving 18-20 year old alcohol-impaired drivers. Every State and the District of Columbia 

have the 21-year-old minimum drinking age law and a zero tolerance law.

20 

16,513

17,359

18,220

19,121

20,043

20,970

21,892

22,810

23,737

24,619

25,509

26,333

1975-96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, Young Drivers, 2006. 

Figure 1. Cumulative Estimated Number of Young Lives Saved by Minimum Drinking Age Laws,

1975–2007

7
Zero Tolerance Laws for Youth Under Age 21 

As of June 1998, every State and the District of Columbia have set a BAC limit of .02 percent or 

lower for drivers younger than age 21 (zero tolerance law).20 This law has been associated with 

significant reductions in underage 21 drinking driver involvement in fatal traffic crashes.20,21 

Studies also have shown that education alone is not effective at reducing consumption. In order 

to achieve long-term results, we have to change the environment as well. That is why policy 

coupled with education is vital. 

.00 BAC AK, AZ, DC, IL, ME, MI,

 NC, OK, OR, TX, UT, WI

.01 BAC CA, NJ

.02 BAC AL, AR, CO, CT, DC, FL,

 GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KS KY,

 LA, MA, MD, MO, MS, MI,

 ND, NE, NH, NM, NY, NV,

 OH,PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VA,

 VT, WA, WV, WY

WA

OR

NV

Drivers under age 21

50 States and DC

CA

ID

MT

WY

CO

UT

AZ

AK

NM

ND

SD

NE

KS

OK

TX

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

WI

IL

MI

IN

KY

TN

MS

AL GA

FL

SC

NC

VA

OH

WV

PA

MD

DC

NJ

VT

CT

RI

MA

NH

ME

NY

HI

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Youth Fatal Crash and Alcohol Facts 2000. 

Figure 2. States with Zero Tolerance Laws for Drivers Younger Than Age 21

Drinking and Driving by Youth 

Two of five deaths among U.S. teens are the result of a motor vehicle crash.22 In fact, motor 

vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among teens, and alcohol is involved in close 

to one-third of these fatalities.

At all BAC levels, the risk of involvement in a motor vehicle crash is greater for teens than for 

adult drivers.

23,24 In 2006, 25 percent of drivers aged 15 to 20 who died in motor vehicle crashes 

had a BAC of 0.08 g/dl or higher.

Tragic as these numbers are, they could have been much worse. In a national survey conducted 

in 2003, 30 percent of teens reported that within the previous month, they had ridden with a 

driver who had been drinking alcohol. One in eight reported having driven after drinking alcohol 

within the same one-month period.25

8
Drinking and driving is correlated with other high-risk behavior. In 2006, among teen drivers 

who were killed in motor vehicle crashes after drinking and driving, 77 percent were 

unrestrained. 

Table 1.Leading Causes of Death for Youth Aged 16-20: 2002

Rank Cause 

Percent 

of Deaths 

Number 

of Deaths 

1 Motor Vehicle Crashes 39% 6,327

2 Homicide 15% 2,422

3 Suicide 11% 1,810

4 Other Injury (falls,

drowning, etc.)

8% 1,258

5 Cancer 5% 805

6 Heart Disease 3% 449

All Other Causes Combined 19% 3,168 

Total 100% 16,239

Source: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 

Vital Statistics Mortality Data - 2002, Multiple Cause of Death 

In 2006, 12.9 percent (7,463) of all the drivers involved in fatal crashes (57,695) were young 

drivers aged 15 to 20 years old, and 16 percent (1,621,000) of all drivers involved in policereported crashes (10,558,000) were young drivers. 

Table 2. Alcohol Involvement among Drivers 15 to 20 Years Old Involved in Fatal Crashes, 2006 

Percentage with BAC Levels

Driver Status Number

of Drivers 0.00 g/dl

0.01 to 0.07

g/dl

0.08 g/dl or 

Higher 

Surviving 4,685 83 5 12

Fatally Injured 3,389 70 6 25

Total 8,074 78 5 17

Source: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Traffic Safety Facts – Young Drivers 2006 Data

Table 3. Intoxication Rates among Young Drivers Fatally Injured in Traffic Crashes by Age, 2006

Age (Years)

Number of 

Drivers

Percentage with 

BAC 0.08 g/dl or Higher

15 84 17

16 341 16

17 567 19

18 827 23

19 837 28

20 834 33

Source: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Traffic Safety Facts – Young Drivers 2006 Data

9
Youth Traffic Fatalities 

The higher drinking age reduces death and injury from traffic crashes for youth. However, in 

2006, about 6 percent of licensed drivers were aged 15 through 20, but this age group accounted 

for approximately 13 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes, and 11 percent of all alcoholinvolved drivers in fatal crashes.19 (See Figure 3)

Young Licensed

6% of All

Licensed Drivers

13% of All

Drivers Involved in

Fatal Crashes 11% of All

Alcohol-Involved Drivers

in Fatal Crashes

Drivers

Young Drivers

Involved in Fatal

Crashes

Young Alcohol

Involved Drivers

in Fatal Crashes

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Traffic Safety Facts, Young Drivers, 2006. 

Figure 3. Young Driver Over-involvement in Fatal Crashes in 2006, Ages 15–20 

The severity of the crash increases with alcohol involvement. In 2006, 5 percent of the 15- to 

20-year-old drivers involved in property-damage-only crashes had been drinking, 6 percent of 

those involved in crashes resulting in injury had been drinking, and 23 percent of those involved 

in fatal crashes had been drinking.19 

10
Endnotes 

 

1

 Government Accountability Office. Drinking-Age Laws An Evaluation Synthesis of Their 

Impact on Highway Safety. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office; 1987. 

GAO/PEMD-87-10. 

2

 Toomey T, Wagenaar AC, Erickson DJ, Fletcher LA, Patrek W, Lenk KM. Illegal alcohol sales 

to obviously intoxicated patrons at licensed establishments. Alcohol Clinical Experimental 

Research. 2004;28(5):769-774. 

3

 Eby DW. The convicted drunk driver in Michigan: a profile of offenders. UMTRI Research 

Review. 1995;25(52):April-June. 

4

 Anglin L, Caverson R, Fennel R, Giesbrecht N, Mann RE. A study of impaired drivers stopped 

by police in Sudbury, Ontario. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation; 1997. 

5

 O'Donnell MA. Research on drinking locations of alcohol-impaired drivers: Implications for 

prevention policies. J Public Health Policy. 1985:510-525. 

6

 O'Malley PM, Wagenaar AC. Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related 

behaviors and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976-1987. J Stud Alcohol.

1991;52(5):478-491. 

7

 Wagenaar AC. Minimum drinking age and alcohol availability to youth: Issues and research 

needs. In: Hilton ME, Bloss G, eds. Economics and the prevention of alcohol-related problems. 

Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 1993:175-200. 

8

 Hingson RW, Kenkel D. Social, health, and economic consequences of underage drinking. 

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Reducing underage drinking: A collective 

responsibility, background papers. (CD-ROM). Washington, DC: Committee on Developing a 

Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Underage Drinking, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences 

and Education, The National Academies Press; 2004. 

9

 Grant BF, Dawson DA. Age at onset of alcohol use and its association with DSM-IV alcohol 

abuse and dependence: results from the national longitudinal alcohol epidemiologic survey. J 

Subst Abuse. 1997;9:103-110. 

10 Hingson R, Heeren T, Jamanka A, Howland J. Age of drinking onset and unintentional injury 

involvement after drinking. JAMA. 2000;284(12):1527-1533. 

11
 

11 Hingson R, Heeren T, Zakocs R. Age of drinking onset and involvement in physical fights 

after drinking. Pediatrics. 2001;108(4):872-877. 

12 Hingson R, Heeren T, Levenson S, Jamanka A, Voas RB. Age of drinking onset, driving after 

drinking, and involvement in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes. Accid Anal Prev.

2002;34(1):85-92. 

13 Bonnie RJ, O'Connell ME, eds. Reducing underage drinking: A collective responsibility. 

Washington, DC: National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, The National Academies 

Press; 2003. 

14 Wagenaar AC, Harwood EM, Toomey TL, Denk CE, Zander KM. Public opinion on alcohol 

policies in the United States: Results from a national survey. J Public Health Policy.

2000;21(3):303-327. 

15 Wagenaar AC. Alcohol, young drivers, and traffic accidents: Effects of minimum age laws. 

Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, Lexington Books Division; 1983. 

16 The Gallup Organization. Underage drinking in America: A MADD and Nationwide Insurance 

Survey. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Organization; April 20 2006. 

17 Hedlund, JH, Ulmer RG, Preusser DF. Determine Why There are Fewer Young AlcoholImpaired Drivers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2001. DOT HS 809 

348. 

18 Kypri K, Voas RB, Langley JD, et al. Minimum purchasing age for alcohol and traffic crash 

injuries among 15– to 19– year–olds in New Zealand. American Journal of Public Health.

2006;96(1):126–131. 

19 National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Traffic Safety Facts: 2006 Data - Young Drivers.

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2008. DOT HS 810 817. 

20 Voas RB, Tippetts AS, Fell J. Assessing the effectiveness of minimum legal drinking age and 

zero tolerance laws in the United States. Accid Anal Prev. 2003;35(4):579-587. 

21 Wagenaar AC, O'Malley PM, LaFond C. Lowered legal blood alcohol limits for young 

drivers: Effects on drinking, driving, and driving-after-drinking behaviors in 30 states. Am J 

Public Health. 2001;91(5):801-804. 

12
 

22 Subramanian R. Motor vehicle traffic crashes as a leading cause of death in the United States, 

2002. Traffic Safety Facts: Research Note. Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2005. 

23 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2004) Q&A teenagers: Underage drinking. Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety [Online]. December 2005. Available at: 

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/underage.html. Accessed March, 2005. 

24 Zador PL, Krawchuk SA, Voas RB. Alcohol-related relative risk of driver fatalities and driver 

involvement in fatal crashes in relation to driver age and gender: An update using 1996 data. J 

Stud Alcohol. 2000;61(3):387-395. 

25 Grunbaum J, Kann L, Kinchen S., et. al. (2004) Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance – United 

States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [Online]. Available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/SS/SS5302.pdf. Accessed October, 2005. 

13