The whole point of Reagan's act was to curb intoxicated young people from getting behind the wheel, and it's true car fatalities have dropped immensely since Reagan signed that famous act, but maybe the fight isn't for a higher drinking age, but for stricter driving laws. Not to mention, the seat belts, airbags, mounted cameras, and dozens of other innovations that have either come about, been fully implemented, and/or more widely accepted in the past three decades have undoubtedly contributed to the decrease in car fatalities, possibly more so than the higher drinking age.
If any lives can be saved -- even one -- the inconvenience of a higher drinking age is warranted. But wouldn't a stricter, zero-tolerance policy for drivers who have had their license for less than five years make way more sense, and possibly deter many more intoxicated drivers than alcohol age limits? And with self-driving cars not a possibility, but an inevitability, is this argument going to be irrelevant soon, anyway??