Friday night, some friends of mine went out for a night on the town, while I was left sitting on the floor of my dorm room catching up on a scrapbook and listening to a musical soundtrack. The cause of this gross injustice? My friends are all 21, and I am only 19.

Though I myself am neither a drinker nor a partier, I can empathize with those in my situation who would prefer the active nightlife. Splitting up social groups of college students is just one of the minor reasons that the 21-year-old drinking age is misguided and inappropriate, not to mention absurdly arbitrary: from a group of 100 college students, could any police officer or bar owner actually pick out those under 21? The maturity and sense of responsibility of some 19-year-olds far outpaces that of some legally drinking 21-year-olds.

The motivation behind raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 was admirable: drunken driving had risen dramatically when the age was lowered to 18 and officials needed a way to curb this grave social ill. But they went about it in entirely the wrong way.

This tradition of ill-conceived legislation continued this spring when the state of Iowa lowered the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit to .08. As similar laws passed in other states, the media repeatedly characterized these changes as a crackdown on drunken driving. But don’t let the ad campaign with its catchy rap jingle fool you — the real solution lies in stiffening the consequences of drunken driving and lowering, if not abolishing, the drinking age.

A glance at a chart of the various first-offense penalties in all 50 states reveals a seemingly callous disregard in this country for drunken driving prevention. While most states have a BAC limit of .08, this limit means nothing when the period for license suspension after a first offense ranges from ridiculously nonexistent (nine states) to one measly year (Georgia). Plenty of Americans know all too well that just that one offense can destroy a life forever. But hey, when your only deterrent is knowing that you’ll have to take the bus for 90 or 180 days, why go out of your way to avoid driving drunk?

Throughout the Western world, drunken driving penalties range from the United States’ relative slap on the wrist to extended license removal, fines and jail time in countries like Japan, France and England. But the severity doesn’t stop there. In Norway, Sweden and Finland — favorite poster children for ideal welfare states — that jail time includes hard labor. Other countries reportedly execute even first-time offenders.

drunken driving is one of the most sickening displays of narcissistic self-indulgence that our society tolerates if not fosters. By decisively locking up first-time offenders and proceeding to revoke their license for life, we not only nearly eliminate repeat offenses, we also make would-be drunken drivers think twice before drinking too much and climbing behind the wheel.

The United States certainly could glean some insight from the attitudes toward alcohol held in other parts of the world. One need only ask any international student to realize that Americans, especially those under 21, are ridiculously crazy about alcohol. Many foreign high school exchange students who submerge themselves in American culture simply scratch their heads at the bizarre enjoyment American teens get from puking their guts out.

Alcohol is fun enough as it is — American society certainly doesn’t need to make it any more appealing to teenagers by forbidding them to have it. As a teenager, are you going to be more eager to drink yourself sick if society just shrugs and says, “Whatever floats your boat,” or if society works itself into a frenzy of hand-wringing and head-shaking? When alcohol is a mundane and accepted part of one’s culture, it loses a good portion of its thrill.

A legitimate objection to the lowering of the drinking age to, say, 18, is that teens would go crazy the minute such legislation was passed. The challenge of enacting such a law then becomes eliminating the alcohol taboo, ingrained as it is, as quickly as possible. Opponents will also argue that there will be an explosion in the number of drunken driving incidents. This is why abolition of the alcohol taboo must coincide with the implementation of stiffer penalties for drunken drivers.

We must shift responsibility and blame away from the substance that, when willfully and consciously misused, leads to incapacitation. Just like it is people and not guns that kill people, so is it drunk drivers — not alcohol — that kills people on America’s roadways.