There appears to be a broad consensus among Americans concerning the age of majority. That consensus rests upon the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that the right of a citizen 18 years of age or older to vote may not be denied or abridged on account of age. Ratified speedily between March and July 1971, this amendment responded directly to the charge, "If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote."

To alter the voting age, then, would require a constitutional amendment. That seems improbable.

It also seems unwise. The ratification process initiated a broader reconsideration of when adulthood begins. By the early 1980s age 18 had become the norm. Though specifics might vary, at 18 one is permitted by law to marry (16 in some states, with parental consent), possess an unrestricted driver's license, serve on a jury, sign a contract and purchase tobacco products.

These judgments, whatever their flaws or limitations, represent the will of the public as expressed first to, and then through, their elected representatives. They are the result of protracted and unimpeded debate and deliberation. They have been made, appropriately, at the state level, without federal interference. As a result, there is little inclination to change them -- nor should there be.

Which leaves the drinking age. The Constitution is clear that the states alone possess the right to set the drinking age within their borders. The 18th Amendment was required for the federal government to assume that authority. After more than a decade of Prohibition, during which the law of unintended consequences held sway, the 18th Amendment was repealed.

Still, prohibitionism is with us, at least for young adults age 18-20, who, since the passage of the National Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 1984, are relearning its stern lessons. Of course, states retain the right to set the drinking age. But the 1984 law stipulates that any state setting the age lower than 21 forfeits 10 percent of its federal highway appropriation. This "incentive" effectively has stifled debate.

Meanwhile the evidence mounts that Legal age 21 is not working. As in the 1920s, fewer young adults are choosing to drink, but those who do are "bingeing" behind closed doors, where the law has banished them. The result? More than 1,000 18-24- year-old lives are lost to alcohol each year off the roadways. That number is increasing at an alarming rate. Fake IDs are breeding disrespect for law. As for the principal purpose of the 1984 law, of 102 peer-reviewed analyses of its success in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities, barely half show a positive outcome.

And the law is unenforceable. For every thousand violations of Legal Age 21, there are two arrests or citations. Either we are a nation of lawbreakers, or this is a bad law.

Of course, it is true that "the drinking age does not make a Marine a man," as the Gazette editorial notes. It is equally true that the current drinking age represents the sole exception to what our laws and customs have defined as the moment at which one becomes an adult.

What is lacking is an approach to alcohol education that consists of more than temperance lectures and scare tactics, that involves parents, and that assumes that most young adults and their families most of the time will, if given the chance, behave responsibly. Would it ever occur to us, when a young person reaches legal driving age, simply to say, "Here are the keys. You figure it out. Good luck. Our state forfeits 10 percent of its highway funds if I get into the car with you." Yet that is precisely what Legal Age 21 says to young adults. Education, and licensing, offer a more promising way to deal with the reality of alcohol in the lives of young adults than denial or prohibition.

Finally, if Congress believes alcohol regulation is a federal matter, it might consider amending the 1984 Act by following the admonition of those individuals and organizations who are imploring policymakers to let "science speak for itself." Research indicates that the adolescent brain of laboratory rats is not fully developed until the equivalent human age of 25. Other research suggests that alcohol provides health benefits for males over 50. Still other studies warn about the effects of alcohol on our senior citizens.

So why not raise the drinking age to 25? Or mandate daily doses for citizens over 50? Or prohibit consumption for those over 75? And, of course, increase the highway fund penalty on those states that fail to comply?

No. Bad ideas. Experience and reason have together led us to settle upon 18 as the age of adulthood. The drinking age should be no exception. That is why Rep. Smith has performed a valuable public service.