More than 100 U.S. college and university chancellors and presidents have signed on to something known as the Amethyst Initiative, which takes as its slogan "Rethink the Drinking Age."
Those leaders say the U.S. would do well to consider reducing the legal drinking age from 21 in an effort to combat the binge drinking that often goes on behind closed doors. We think they may be on to something.
The idea of lowering the drinking age to combat problem drinking among young people may seem counter-intuitive. Henry Weschler of Harvard University compared it to "pouring gasoline to put the fire out."
The gist of the Amethyst Initiative _ that "21 isn't working" _ remains unanswered.
In colleges across the country, young people are drinking massive quantities of alcohol behind closed doors. Their peers, often intoxicated themselves, are ill-equipped to determine when someone has had too much to drink.
Allowing young people to drink in public places, with bartenders who can cut off those who have had too much, could offer an alternative to this sort of clandestine activity.
There's also a philosophical argument worth considering.
Eighteen-year-olds are legally considered adults, but can't drink. This sends a mixed message:
You're grown up, but you're not. You're an adult, but we as a society don't trust you to make adult decisions. It's a difficult position to justify.
While it's difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison, it seems as though binge drinking among young people in Europe and in Canada, where the drinking age is lower, is not as much of a problem as in the United States. Some say it's a cultural difference; others point to stricter penalties for underage drinking and drunken driving.
Whatever the reason, it's clear that a drinking age of 18 doesn't immediately spell disaster for that society.
Critics cite raising the drinking age as a life-saving measure, but it's impossible to separate the law from the cultural shift that accompanied it.
Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving have worked tirelessly over the last 20 years to educate the public about the hazards of drinking and drunken driving. This led to a significant reduction in alcohol-related traffic fatalities.
If the age were lowered, would the impact of all that education simply dissolve? It's hard to believe it would.
Regardless, a prudent addendum to any lowering of the drinking age would be to tighten the penalties for underage drinkers who are caught behind the wheel.
The Amethyst Initiative doesn't come right out and say the drinking age should be lowered _ rather, the 120-plus signatories are calling for "informed and unimpeded debate on the 21-year-old drinking age."
We can't see anything wrong with such a debate, especially when it's clear that what we're doing now is failing to prevent some of the most dangerous types of drinking among young people.
