Amethyst Initiative/Drinking Age

Agnapostate · #1 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008, 03:42 PM

So I was searching the forums, and I couldn't find any discussion of the Amethyst Initiative. Here's an editorial essentially describing it. (It is in favor of it.)

http://media.www.berkeleybeacon.com/...-3439568.shtml

Quote:

The Amethyst Initiative has shaken and stirred a serious national debate about the 21+ alcohol policy’s effects on the lives of young people since the Vietnam era. We think that’s a discussion worth having, but merely opening the taps is not enough.

Backed by 130 college presidents and chancellors from across America—including Emerson’s President Jacqueline Liebergott—the plan seeks to launch an overhaul of the under-21 prohibition. It’s a commendable display of respect from heads of colleges for their charges.

While President Liebergott’s involvement with the initiative seconded by many Emerson students, responsibility can’t be legislated, or appear overnight. Lowering the drinking age may be popular among college coeds, but more needs to be done in order to make a transition in drinking-age legislation go over smoothly.

Letting 18-year-olds into the club would be unprecedented but for the repeal of prohibition in 1933, and doing so without promoting awareness about alcohol abuse would be grossly irresponsible.

Imagine everyone in the Little Building and Piano Row, and across campuses all over the city and country, turning 21 all at once. It’d be a great party, but our dormitories and the city would turn into a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Indeed, a major concern shared by critics of the Amethyst Initiative—Mothers Against Drunk Driving chief among them—is that lowering the drinking age will result in an increase in binge-drinking, as well as a rise in alcohol-related injuries and fatalities, mostly due to higher rates of drunk driving. Such groups’ unease is backed by myriad studies and research, such as a publication by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis stating that the minimum drinking age law saved 890 lives nationwide in 2006. A statement released by MADD on Aug. 19 argues the “discussion [of lowering the drinking age] must honor the science behind the 21 law, which unequivocally shows that the 21 law has reduced drunk driving and underage and binge drinking.”

These concerns would need to be addressed in any revision of the drinking code, but Amethyst can be part of the solution. The initiative’s founder, Dr. John McCardell, Jr., is president emeritus of Middlebury College in Vermont and directs Choose Responsibility, an organization dedicated to educating adolescents about the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption. McCardell should incorporate Choose Responsibility’s methods, including creating a “driver’s ed” program for drinkers, into Amethyst.

Critics also contend college presidents are passing the alcohol-education buck to high schools. That’s as it should be. High schools are far better equipped to provide comprehensive alcohol awareness education through health classes, after-school programs and, most importantly, government money. It’s a gross understatement to say colleges have so far proven ill-equipped and incapable of stemming the deluge of booze to campus. High school, anyway, is when the average American teenager starts drinking (age 15.9, according to the U.S. Department of Health). It makes far more sense to educate the nation’s youth about the responsibilities that come with drinking at such an age. Proponents of lowering the drinking age often point to the fact that many European countries get away with regulating drinking ages as young as 16 (or whenver you can see above the bar) by familiarizing younger generations with alcohol early on.

Before everyone gets ahead of themselves, it’s important to keep in mind who’s likely to be footing the bill: liquor producers, and by extention, their customers. Increased taxes are the most realistic source of funding for these new programs.

President Liebergott’s decision to back the Amethyst Initiative reflects a degree of respect for the Emerson student body, and, so long as it includes safeguards against irrationally exuberant boozing, it’s good policy for our college and others, too.
Cheers to that.

Here is an article that is opposed to it.

http://media.www.kenyoncollegian.com...-3439676.shtml

Quote:

In a society in which more money, more friends and more anything is always better, a lowered drinking age would certainly cause problems when combined with this mentality.

As it stands, the current drinking age of 21 is little more than a minor inconvenience for teenagers in search of alcohol. The acceptance of this alcohol use in American society suggests that allowing the underage population to legally drink would not drastically change which people of this age group partake in alcohol-related activities.

Since underage drinking already happens and is generally given the blind-eye treatment, a reduced legal drinking age would, instead of causing a significant change in the number of currently underage people who drink, create a greater opportunity for even younger American teens to find access to alcohol.

With a lowered age, seniors in high school would be able to legally buy beer, wine and liquor for themselves and others. This makes it a possibility that a decreased drinking age would increase drinking by teens as young as 14. These young teens tend to buy strongly into the "more is better" ideal. Their immaturity, strong insecurity and constant need to prove themselves to their peers create a fertile environment for alcohol abuse and serious alcohol-related injury and illness.

While the argument may be made that other nations have little trouble with an even lower, or non-existent, drinking age, other countries also tend to have a better understanding of the concept of moderation. When kids are taught early on that more may not always be better, they are better suited to the responsibility that accompanies alcohol use. If this way of thinking could be taught and accepted in the U.S., a lowered drinking age would be fine. The constant quest for more of anything however is too deeply rooted in American culture for this change to happen easily, or even at all.

Another point of view could also advocate that it is better for teens to experiment with alcohol before they have access to cars. This would allow adolescents to learn their limits before being granted the great privilege of driving. On the other hand, the need for a legal limit on a driver's blood alcohol level clearly illustrates that even those who are of both legal drinking age and legal driving age still have either not learned their limits or tend to ignore them. Since Americans still drive while impaired, a reduced drinking age would simply make it legal for beginning drivers to operate cars while inebriated, a proposition that is disturbing if not downright scary.

The focus on lowering the legal age for alcohol consumption in the U.S. tends to highlight the pros and cons of allowing early college-age adults to drink. This focus is misguided, since this population already finds readily available access to alcohol and encounters little, if any, resistance using it. The spotlight should be directed instead toward the implications of a new drinking age on the even younger teens who would surely discover new ease in obtaining beer, wine and liquor. American culture combined with the insecurity and immaturity of this age group would lead to increased alcohol abuse and misuse, leading to more alcohol-related injury, illness and possibly death.

So I am curious on knowing your opinions regarding the lowering of the drinking age.

Nicholas the 8,358,353rd · #2 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnapostate

So I was searching the forums, and I couldn't find any discussion of the Amethyst Initiative. Here's an editorial essentially describing it. (It is in favor of it.)

http://media.www.berkeleybeacon.com/...-3439568.shtml

Here is an article that is opposed to it.

http://media.www.kenyoncollegian.com...-3439676.shtml

So I am curious on knowing your opinions regarding the lowering of the drinking age.

There should be no drinking 'age'. Not every 18 year-old is equally mature. People should be penalized based on their actions. In some cases, the parent/guardian should also be penalized.

Tarheeler · #3 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008, 06:27 PM

I can't say that it should be lowered, but I do think that we should have one age for consent.

Currently, at 18, you hit the age of consent. You are an adult, can enlist, and can enter into a legally binding contract.

If you are mature enough to do all of this, you are mature enough to drink.
If you are not mature enough to drink, then you are not mature enough to do any of it. Go home and mooch off your parents.

rsay32 · #4 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarheeler

I can't say that it should be lowered, but I do think that we should have one age for consent.

Currently, at 18, you hit the age of consent. You are an adult, can enlist, and can enter into a legally binding contract.

If you are mature enough to do all of this, you are mature enough to drink.
If you are not mature enough to drink, then you are not mature enough to do any of it. Go home and mooch off your parents.

Exactly. One age for all and enough with the (*)(*)(*)(*) double standards.

Mr. Mojo · #5 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnapostate

So I was searching the forums, and I couldn't find any discussion of the Amethyst Initiative. Here's an editorial essentially describing it. (It is in favor of it.)

http://media.www.berkeleybeacon.com/...-3439568.shtml

Here is an article that is opposed to it.

http://media.www.kenyoncollegian.com...-3439676.shtml

So I am curious on knowing your opinions regarding the lowering of the drinking age.

You can enter into contracts at the age of 18. You can decide who can be President, Governor, Mayor, etc. at the age of 18. You can go to war and kill at the age of 18.
It seems to me that the age of 18 is well established as the age of majority.
Making the change to 21 for alcohol was your typical knee jerk response that you get from the libs when trying to solve a problem.
Good intended, wrong, solves nothing.

Makedde · #6 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008, 06:46 PM

The drinking age is different depending on which country you are in. Here, it is 18. In the US, it is 21. Which country are we talking about here?

Agnapostate · #7 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008, 06:51 PM

Well the Amethyst Initiative is an American proposal, so we would be talking about lowering it from 21. Europe as a whole is evidence of the benefits of lowering the drinking age by virtue of its lower binge drinking rates, but Britain is a whole other issue unto itself.

Personally, I would favor the abolition of a minimum drinking age.

Makedde · #8 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008, 08:28 PM

I'd say lower it to 18, same as what we have here.
Drinking should be allowed at the age of sixteen, provided a responsible adult is around.

Agnapostate · #9 (**permalink**) 09-18-2008, 09:50 PM

Well, the drinking age itself actually isn't 21 in the States, at any rate. The purchase age is. Drinking is legal for youth in many states with parental consent, and occasionally without. The problem is that the police can charge them with "internal possession" after they've consumed alcohol.

Nicholas the 8,358,353rd · #10 (**permalink**) 09-19-2008, 03:36 PM

The ultimate irony behind our ridiculous alcohol laws? Almost all alcohol-crimes (drunk-driving accidents, wife-beating, etc.), are committed by older people. Did the rate of alcohol-related crimes drop more than a point since alcohol age-limits were introduced?

Age-limits are discriminatory, malignantly broad, reliant on superficial, subjective observation (forcing every common business-person to be a second-hand police officer), and downright un-American. Or maybe we should require people to be a certain height before they can buy alcohol?

We should return to 'innocent until proven guilty'. Being a certain age does not make you guilty of an alcohol-crime. Of course, our society is so brain-washed, they believe marijuana (and basically all drugs other than government drugs - haha!), are the Apple in the Garden (the ill's of religious indoctrination... will they never end?). The Apple, of course, is what causes the ridiculous notion that simply using a substance such as alcohol or marijuana is somehow a crime.

View Poll Results: Should the Drinking Age be Lowered? (Explain your reasons below.)
Yes.	10	83.33%
No.	2	16.67%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Obama, Keep Your Hands Off My Faith-Based Initiative	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	0	07-06-2008 03:00 PM
Mike Gravel and the National initiative	Ronin-Talgar	Elections & Campaigns	4	03-01-2008 04:32 AM
Ballot Initiative to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts	Truth-Bringer	Elections & Campaigns	72	11-27-2007 03:44 PM
New Freedom Initiative	MICcheck	Political Opinions & Beliefs	2	12-19-2004 08:22 AM