One argument for lowering the MLDA from 21 is that 19-and 20-year-olds are drinking anyway, so why not legalize it so they will drink in controlled settings. Research shows, however, that about half of drivers arrested or killed while driving intoxicated (DWI) had been drinking at licensed establishments. Another argument for lowering the MLDA is that keeping it at 21 only increases the desire for the "forbidden fruit," such that when teens turn 21, they will drink heavily. Research shows, however, that when the drinking age is 21, those younger than 21 drink less and continue to drink less through their early 20s. A third argument is that the Federal MLDA exerts too much authority over the States. The response to this argument is that providing for the public's safety is the primary responsibility of government at all levels. Three other arguments for lowering the MLDA are also presented, all to the effect that the MLDA of 21 is ineffective in reducing alcohol-related crashes or that a lower MLDA would be more effective in curbing drunk driving problems. This policy paper argues that national and international evidence shows that lowering the drinking age results in increased traffic crashes and that lowering the drinking age in combination with alcohol education programs does not impact the drinking and driving habits of youth under 21 years old. In arguing for a continuance of a MLDA of 21, this paper points to a 59-percent reduction in the rate of young alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes between 1982 and 1998. 3 tables, 3 figures, and 25 notes