The Amethyst Initiative is an organization made up of U.S. college presidents and chancellors that, in July 2008, launched a movement calling for the reconsideration of U.S. legal drinking age, particularly the minimum age of 21.
The Amethyst Initiative states that, in their experience as university presidents, they have observed, "Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students," and therefore they urge lawmakers "to invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol".[5]
Gustavus Adolphus College President Jack R. Ohle said in a statement that the initiative is not about lowering the drinking age, but to open a debate on alcohol policies that affect young people and their choices about alcohol use.
We need serious, sustained, unfettered debate about the drinking age and the reality of life on a college campus and how these two things are aligned. I signed the statement in hopes that it would encourage debate on our campus about the seriousness of drinking in general but more importantly the high-risk drinking that has become so common on college campuses today. As an educator, I feel a responsibility to encourage a discussion about responsibility. That responsibility rests with not only the students but with those of us who work to provide for their education, safety, and well being. We must engage in civil, informed, and dispassionate debate and consider all policy alternatives no matter how controversial.[6]
In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which imposed a penalty of 10% of a state's federal highway appropriation on any state setting its drinking age lower than 21.
Twenty-four years later, our experience as college and university presidents convinces us that…
Twenty-one is not working
A culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.
Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.
Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.
By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.
How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?
We call upon our elected officials:
To support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21-year-old drinking age.
To consider whether the 10% highway fund “incentive” encourages or inhibits that debate.
To invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.
We pledge ourselves and our institutions to playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold.
In a press release, MADD argues that lowering the drinking age would result in greater numbers of fatal automobile accidents, and that the presidents are "looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem" and "misrepresenting science."[8][11] MADD cited former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, and current University of Miami president Donna Shalala statement that "maintaining the legal drinking age at 21 is a socially and medically sound policy that helps parents, schools and law enforcement protect our youth from the potentially life-threatening effects of underage drinking."[8]
In addition, MADD debates that: "minimum drinking ages have saved approximately 25,000 lives", "[l]owering the age will cause even younger people to begin drinking", and that "[b]inge drinking on college campuses should be combated with stricter enforcement of current laws."[12]
Choose Responsibility argues that scientific evidence supports the Amethyst Initiative's views and goals,[13] and refutes some of MADD's past claims.[14] Sanford Ungar, president of Goucher College and signee of the initiative argues that opponents should not fear because the Amethyst Initiative is about opening up the debate to improve alcohol policy. He brings about the misconception that they want to "polarize" the issue at hand, but instead wishes to find a better alternative to the current drinking age.[15]
Radley Balko, of Reason, wryly noted inconsistency in opponents' arguments and supporting evidence against the Amethyst Initiative in that they believe that it "would be a "national tragedy" to, for example, allow 19- and 20-year-old men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to have a beer in celebration of completing their tours of duty."[16] Balko, also, noting research showing that underage drinking laws had not reduced highway deaths.[17]
In November 2008, the Student Senate at the University of Wisconsin–La Crosse rejected a proposal to urge that university's chancellor to sign the Amethyst Initiative.[18] Supposedly the first such attempt by a student body to ask a president or chancellor to sign on, the measure at UW–L was defeated 14–19 after three weeks' debate. Chancellor Joe Gow said this vote, "certainly defies the 'conventional wisdom' regarding young people being eager to lower the drinking age."[19][unreliable source?]
In 2014, a pair of researchers published a literature reviewinJournal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs of studies on the effect of the drinking age in response to the Amethyst Initiative; the review indicates support for the drinking age remaining at 21.[20]
^DeJong, W; Blanchette, J (2014). "Case closed: research evidence on the positive public health impact of the age 21 minimum legal drinking age in the United States". Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Supplement. 75 (Suppl 17): 108–15. doi:10.15288/jsads.2014.75.108. PMID24565317.
