The US enacted a 21-year old drinking age in 1984. It has been an absolute train wreck. One of the most backwards and out of touch with reality national policies that we have. The only reason it's still around is because of an idea that it somehow "saves lives". The stat most often cited to "prove" this, is the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities that have occured in the US since 1984. They have declined, significantly. Does it matter that this has nothing to do with the drinking age? Does it matter that number of highway deaths have declined across the entire world, and at a much faster rate than the United States? Does it matter that highway deaths declined at the same time as a rapid increase in seat belt usage? No. None of it matters. In terms of the narrative MADD won, and half the country believes the drinking age saves lives, even though it's utter baloney.
If Uber can play up the idea that having Uber around saves lives, it's a trump card. It doesn't matter how sound the statistics are, they'll win the narrative in every city. As a politician do you really want to be against saving lives?
Countries with lower drinking ages have much higher rates of binge drinking.
The WHO Europe region has a 70% higher incidence of teen (15-19) binge drinking than the Americas region: http://i.imgur.com/oAbeg7x.png?1
Canada, with its 18 and 19 year old drinking laws has a far higher rate of teen binge drinking than the US, as do the European countries: http://i.imgur.com/iaJbDLd.png?1
Finally, we find that the US has a overall rate of binge drinking in the middle of Europe, lower than France and the UK but higher than Germany and Spain: http://i.imgur.com/h0BkKGe.png?1
You also have to give the value of 20-something binge drinking in both continents for the picture to be complete. Us could have a perfectly good case of postponed binged drinking.
This is possible although I don't have that data. It's still preferable as the amount of brain damage would be significantly less than during teen years, and they would hopefully be at least somewhat more responsible.
The lack of error bars when tracking illegal activity is vary suspect. However assuming there numbers are accurate heavy drinking in and of it's self is a vary minor issue compared to say DUI related deaths which are lower in Europe. Sure it's complex but only looking at negatives tends to create bad pollicy as you end up with stuff like "Taboo till 21 may actually promote drinking in the over 21 crowd."
Lower DUI in Europe might have more to do with availability of public transport then with anything else. Drinking group does not need non-drinking member nor pay for taxi to get home. They just take relatively cheap bus.
Completely anectodal, but I've been a big time binge drinker in my teens in two different EU countries, and I never really felt the urge to drink starting in my 20s. I've gotten that out of my system, no longer as cool as you'd think. I don't even drink when I go out to a bar and club (you won't know that though, it looks like I am) and I go wilder than most drunkards.
The US enacted a 21-year old drinking age in 1984. It has been an absolute train wreck. One of the most backwards and out of touch with reality national policies that we have. The only reason it's still around is because of an idea that it somehow "saves lives". The stat most often cited to "prove" this, is the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities that have occured in the US since 1984. They have declined, significantly. Does it matter that this has nothing to do with the drinking age? Does it matter that number of highway deaths have declined across the entire world, and at a much faster rate than the United States? Does it matter that highway deaths declined at the same time as a rapid increase in seat belt usage? No. None of it matters. In terms of the narrative MADD won, and half the country believes the drinking age saves lives, even though it's utter baloney.
If Uber can play up the idea that having Uber around saves lives, it's a trump card. It doesn't matter how sound the statistics are, they'll win the narrative in every city. As a politician do you really want to be against saving lives?