By snoadmin
The debate over lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 has surfaced once again when more than 100 college presidents collectively created the Amethyst Initiative.
The stated purpose is to, “call upon elected officials to weigh all the consequences of current alcohol policies and to invite new ideas on how best to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol use,” according to the amethystinitiative.org website.
The Amethyst Initiative, beginning with John McCardell, founder of the Choose Responsibility organization, and its supporters argue the 21 drinking age causes dangerous binge drinking to occur, especially for those attending college.
For most of us, our 18th birthday was spent at home — possibly sober. The milestone brings with it the right to vote, join the military, sit on a jury and rent a car. We also become able to buy cigarettes and are free from the custody of high school.
Eighteen can be seen as the true transition age in almost anyone’s life and, if we could legally drink, we would be close enough to home to learn about drinking under the supervision of our parents, as the Amethyst Initiative suggests.
Along with parental supervision, the initiative’s proponents suggest creating a license to drink. Much like a drivers license, 18-year-olds would have to take extensive educational drinking classes. An educational drinking class is a great idea for all new drinkers, but would be hard to enforce at the current legal age of 21.
A required alcohol education course and a drinking license for those between the ages of 18 and 20 could prove to be a workable solution.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is firmly against lowering the drinking age. The group argues that an 18-year-old drinking age would increase drinking and make it easier for 16 and 17 year olds to obtain alcohol. Since all 50 states changed the legal drinking age to 21 in 1984, statistics have shown almost 60 percent fewer fatal alcohol-related crashes occurred in the 16- to 20-year-old age range, according to the Chicago Tribune.
“It gives me great pause to think of sending thousands of students onto a campus where the person who is most accountable doesn’t seem to be devoted to ensuring their health and safety,” Caroline Cash, the executive director of MADD, told the Baltimore Sun.
It seems that Cash is arguing that the more than 100 college presidents who signed the initiative are not “devoted” enough to care about the students on their campuses.
We at the Daily Forty-Niner like to believe that most, if not all, college presidents are dedicated to students and it seems that starting this debate — whether one agrees or not with the issue — is a testament to that.
A 2003 World Health Organization study for U.S. News & World Report found that, while Italians and Greek teenagers drink more often than American teens, they, as well as southern European teens, drink less each time and more responsibly than their American counterparts.
That’s not to say that what is good for other countries is good for us. However, it is something to consider rather than to simply dismiss as thoughtlessness.
McCardell argues part of the decrease in alcohol-related deaths and injuries are not just a result of a higher drinking age. He suggests that safer cars and the now commonplace practice of designated drivers also are a factor, according to the Los Angeles Times.
One thing that both sides of this issue agree on is that underage drinking is never going to completely go away. High school and underage college students will always be able to get alcohol. What we need to do now is find a better solution through open dialogue.
Maybe lowering the drinking age to 18 will work, maybe not. Maybe raising it to 45 is the solution. Whatever it is, let’s confer with each other instead of ridiculing concerned groups’ suggestions or ignoring the flaws in current drinking policies.
