Jeffrey Miron in Forbes: MLDA 21 and Traffic Deaths

On the heels of his recent participation in a panel discussion about the drinking age at Harvard, Professor Jeffrey Miron has written another piece in Forbes questioning the conventional wisdom of Legal Age 21 and its claimed connection to a reduction in alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Miron wrote, “in our recently completed research, we show that the MLDA21 has little or no life-saving effect…the major implication of these results is that the drinking age does not produce its main claimed benefit. Moreover, it plausibly generates side effects, like binge drinking and disrespect for the law–the very behavior that events planned for this month’s alcohol awareness theme are designed to deter.”

3 Responses to “Jeffrey Miron in Forbes: MLDA 21 and Traffic Deaths”

  1. Robert Says:

    Choose Responsibilty really needs to get Professor Jeffrey Miron research out to as many people as possible.

  2. Edwin Says:

    The drinking age must be lowered to 18 to recognize the age of majority and to instill alcohol responsibility to those 18-20, thus the 21 drinking age is unjustifiable. Professor Jeffrey Miron is correct in that the drinking age has no benefit or very little benefit and is why there is no choice but to lower the drinking age to 18 with the alcohol education program. Finally, the 21 drinking age disrespects the age of majority and encourages binge drinking by those 18-20, meaning Choose Responsibility is correct and the opressors are wrong.

  3. Ajax the Great Says:

    Miron and Tetelbaum do a great job of thoroughly debunking the specious claim that the 21 drinking age saves lives. Nice job.