I am writing this commentary in response to the article by John Curran of The Associated Press and printed in The Rutland Herald (Feb. 29) concerning lowering the drinking age; a bill introduced by Sen. Hinda Miller to look into the possibility of lowering the drinking age in Vermont; articles about John McCardell of Choose Responsibly and after attending a recent workshop at The College of St. Joseph on Alcohol Teen Drinking sponsored by the RAP Coalition (Rutland Herald, April 2). This is also a commentary about statements made by MADD as well as some legislators.

Recent research suggests that the minimum legal drinking age has not prevented deaths among 18-20 year-olds, but has simply postponed them to later ages, primarily 21-24. It seems that as there is a marked increase in drunken driving deaths in one age group, there is a parallel decrease in the one adjacent to it. If the drinking age is 18, fatalities in that cohort go up, but go down in the 21-24 cohorts, and vice versa: if the drinking age is 21, fatalities go down in the 18-20 group but go up in the 21-24 set. If the consequence of a higher drinking age was to simply postpone fatalities occurring among 18-20 year-olds until they became 21-24 year-olds, then the "lives saved" assertion bears more careful scrutiny. As an aside, if federal highway funds were not "tied" to temperance legislation, there would be more rational discussion on this issue. MADD should concentrate on drunk driving and not temperance. Why do we only consider teenagers and drunk driving? Legislation like this should not be tied to only young drivers and age, but to drivers of all ages.

Between 1982 and 1992, in spite of raising the drinking age to 21, the United States experienced a lower rate of decline in alcohol-related traffic fatalities than in the following countries: United Kingdom: 50 percent decline; Germany: 37 percent decline; Australia: 32 percent decline; The Netherlands: 28 percent decline; Canada: 28 percent decline; United States: 26 percent decline. This downward trend in drunk driving across the industrialized world shows quite clearly that raising the drinking age to 21 in the United States was, at best, the least effective measure to limit drunk driving amongst these developed countries. There is evidence to show that education broadly defined works to increase public awareness of the risks of drinking and driving. For example, the designated driver, a term unknown before 1984, has doubtless saved many lives. The RAP coalition deserves "kudos" for their part in promoting primary prevention but the legal drinking age is not the answer.

In terms of science, it is true that the brain continues to develop into a person's 20s, particularly the frontal lobes which are critical for many of the higher cognitive functions that are so important for success in the adult world, such as problem solving, mental flexibility, and planning. It is also clear that alcohol affects the adolescent brain differently than the adult brain, but the story is not simple and the data should be interpreted cautiously as this complex science continues to evolve. Although alcohol affects some brain functions more powerfully during adolescence, it affects other functions less powerfully during the same period. For example, studies in animals clearly indicate that a single dose of alcohol can impair learning (and learning-related brain activity) more powerfully in adolescent animals than in adults. But on the other hand, a somewhat higher dose will produce far greater sedation (and sedation-related brain activity) in adult animals than in adolescents. So, in terms of single doses of alcohol, the adolescent brain is not uniformly more or less sensitive to alcohol, it depends on the brain function that is being measured. Importantly, there has been little direct study of the effects of acute doses of alcohol on adolescent humans, compared to adults. Frankly, I would be more concerned with the toxic effects of over drinking at any age on the health of the liver and the resulting effects of cirrhosis. And... by the way, what do the European countries know that we do not? Are their youth unable to make decisions in anyway? Are their youth impaired? I think not.

Any generalizations of the behavior of European youth should be scrutinized. The drinking cultures of northern and southern European countries vary markedly; history and an extensive body of cross cultural research would suggest that cultural attitudes towards alcohol use play a far more influential role than minimum age legislation. Recent research published by the World Health Organization found that while 15 and 16 year-old teens in many European states, where the drinking age is 18 or younger (and often not enforced), have more drinking occasions per month yet they have fewer dangerous intoxication occasions than their American counterparts. For example, in southern European countries ratios of all drinking occasions to intoxication occasions were quite low, roughly one in 10, while in the United States, almost half of all drinking occasions involving 15 and 16-year-olds resulted in intoxication. Though its legal drinking age is highest among all the countries surveyed, the United States has a higher rate of dangerous intoxications per drinking occasions than many countries that not only have drinking ages that are lower or nonexistent, but also have much higher per capita consumption levels.

If you had a room full of teenagers between the ages of 18 and 20 as I do in class and asked them, "how many of you drink alcohol"? The answer would be in the majority. If you asked a room full of people between the ages of 18 and 20, "how many of you have had and still on occasion smoke marijuana"? The answer would be far greater than you think. Aren't our punitive laws working really well? No, not really. We live in a country whose culture is becoming dominated by fear and taboos. No other industrialized nation works this way. In addition, the majority of these developed countries have less drug and alcohol problems in general than the United States. We do not govern by reason anymore.

The drinking age is set at 21 at three countries in the world, the United States, Pallau and Mongolia. All others are lower or have no limit (outside of those countries who ban it altogether for religious purposes). What do Pallau, Mongolia and the United States know that all other countries do not? Or, what do we know that they do not?

Evidence suggests that the 21 year-old drinking age is not an unqualified success, but rather a well-intentioned social policy whose 25 year history has led to several unintended consequences, including but not limited to an increase in the prevalence of abusive drinking amongst young people. Many young people under the age of 21 consume alcohol, and continue to do so despite nearly 25 years worth of prohibition of that behavior. In fact, research shows that consuming alcohol before the age of 21 is actually a normative behavior. Trickle down will occur, perhaps, at any age. It is not a question really of "trickling" but rather education and parenting no matter what the age.

We live in a country of fear, unfortunately. We need to live in a country of hope and rational thinking. I am a science and health teacher and have worked with college students, high school students, inmates, and troubled youth. We don't need to punish to get safe, rational behavior. We don't need to instill fear and policy that only suits the needs of well-meaning adults and organizations. Eighteen is the age of majority. Life-skills and primary prevention, not punishment, are the tools to use and be learned.