At first glance, the aims of a movement to lower the drinking age might seem to be entirely disparate from the goals of a push to tighten drinking laws. But, recently, two campaigns with different aims have addressed a common problem: the poor state of drinking laws in the U.S. The Amethyst Initiative is a petition from university presidents that criticizes the current national drinking age of 21. Another group, All-Wisconsin Alcohol Risk Education (AWARE), is led by the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and supports reforming Wisconsin’s notoriously lax drinking laws. While these coalitions may seem to have opposite goals—most significantly, the latter wants to reduce underage drinking—they are both signs of the widespread dissatisfaction with the current state of alcohol laws in the country.

AWARE makes many arguments about Wisconsin that are entirely justified. The state’s current drunk-driving laws are unconscionably lax: A first conviction is considered a civil rather than criminal penalty. Wisconsin is the only state in which this is so. A felony charge is not issued until the fifth conviction of drunk driving. The results are evident: In 2007, 41.4 percent of motor-vehicle fatalities in the state were related to alcohol, the third-highest of any state in the country and significantly higher than the national rate of 31.7 percent. Drunk-driving penalties in Wisconsin and elsewhere should be significantly more severe, and AWARE is right to draw attention to the problem.

But, frankly, the coalition’s other goal of decreasing underage drinking misdiagnoses the problem. The group correctly notes that underage drinking as currently practiced is a major concern, but, as the Amethyst Initiative concludes, the solution is actually to lower the drinking age. The Amethyst Initiative argues that the drinking culture among students in particular is unhealthy and that the current drinking age encourages dangerous “binge drinking,” since underage drinkers—unable to drink at bars, restaurants, and many other places—have an incentive to drink hard liquor and consume a great deal of alcohol at once rather than spread out their consumption. Places with the most supervision and thus the safest drinking environments are the least likely to allow underage drinking. The result is that students who drink in their dorm room or off-campus—out of the eye of those who could help them if they overindulge—are often afraid to seek medical attention.

These theoretical arguments aside, the statistics on whether higher drinking laws encourage more or less binge drinking and drunk driving are, unfortunately, inconclusive. The debate over whether raising the national drinking age in 1984 caused a decrease in drunk-driving deaths is especially contested. A recent paper by Harvard economics professor Jeffrey A. Miron found a significant flaw in traffic fatality statistics that have often been used by opponents of underage drinking to demonstrate such a link, but the answer is still ultimately ambiguous. Given the uncertainty on whether the effects of the current drinking age are positive or negative, we must give the presumption to those in favor of lowering it. There are many legitimate reasons, such as public safety, for restricting liberty, but without a clear case that the 21-year-old drinking age would cause significantly fewer deaths, we should seek to allow those under 21 who wish to drink to do so.

A drinking age of 18 would be far more reasonable. Eighteen is already considered the age of majority for most purposes, such as the ability to join the military, smoke, and vote. It is an insult to those between the ages of 18 and 21 for the state to say that individuals have not reached the age at which they can choose for themselves to drink responsibly.

While the current national age of 21—effectively mandated by strong incentives in highway bills—is a bad idea, there would be many unfortunate consequences from allowing each state to set its own drinking age. If two states that share a border have different drinking ages, the difference encourages people in one state to drive to the other, drink, and return—possibly driving drunk. Furthermore, such a system would undermine those states that set a higher drinking age, since it would be easy for people to bring alcohol into the state from jurisdictions with a lower drinking age. Rather, the federal government should encourage a national drinking age of 18—using an incentive system much like the one it does now.

There are some other ways in which laws can encourage a healthier and safer drinking culture. One of Wisconsin’s quirkier controversial laws allows people under 21 to drink in bars as long as a parent or guardian is present. This law has a legitimate purpose—to have those under 21 who choose to drink do so safely and responsibly with a parent’s supervision—and should be considered for other states as well. In most states, children are legally allowed to drink at home under their parents’ supervision; the Wisconsin statute only extends this right to public places. These laws give parents discretion about when their children begin drinking and help encourage smart, responsible drinking.

Still, the much larger problem is the current drinking age, which has utterly failed to curb the most dangerous underage drinking. The United States is one of the few nations in the world with such a high drinking age, and we have little to show for it. When faced with widespread disrespect for the law, the government should consider that perhaps the problem is not the disrespect, but the law itself.