There's a guest commentary in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today: Matt Lee, a senior journalism major at the University of Georgia, writing about the unintended consequences of the 21 LDA. Lee smartly suggests the old "2-tier" system of beer at 18, liquor at 21 (Lee makes no mention of wine...which, of course, never ever gets you drunk, so it's not a problem). It's a good piece, take a look.
This is exactly what I've been wanting to see, and exactly what I've been observing: a debate on this topic. The New Drys screamed and squealed when this started ("Age 21 Law [is] Not Open For Debate" howled the Marin Institute in a beautiful display of anti-American passion for censorship), and now that it's fully underway, they're engaging in fumbling attempts to ridicule the debate itself (see their blockheaded copy of Choose Responsibility's site). Guys: is a debate of the issue so dangerous that it shouldn't even take place? Or is it that you know your "facts" won't stand up to real scrutiny?