Argument: Forbidden fruit argument on alcohol fails on facts
Robert Voas. "There's no benefit to lowering the drinking age". Christian Science Monitor. January 12, 2006 - "As for the forbidden fruit argument, the opposite is true. Research shows that back when some states still had a minimum drinking age of 18, youths in those states who were under 21 drank more and continued to drink more as adults in their early 20s. In states where the drinking age was 21, teenagers drank less and continue to drink less through their early 20s."