What Has the Amethyst Initiative Been Drinking?

On September 3rd, 2008, Tammy Wallis was killed as she stepped out of her car to retrieve her mail. The alleged culprit: Jonathan Burke, a drunk driver who veered out of his lane and struck Ms. Wallis with his vehicle, only to subsequently flee the scene. Ms. Wallis leaves behind a young daughter of 5, Alexandria, who still cannot comprehend this terrible tragedy. Unfortunately, the circumstances of Ms. Wallis’ death are not individual to her: there are almost 16,000 drunk-driving related fatalities a year, more than four times the total American casualties of the current Iraq war. Still, a group calling itself the Amethyst Initiative, comprised of presidents and chancellors from institutions of higher learning in the United States, is campaigning to change the current drinking age from 21 to 18, hoping to restore the drinking age to its pre-1984 level. Though I, a student under 21, studying at an American university, can certainly relate to the visceral desire to lower the drinking age, doing so would be—like Ms. Wallis’ death—tragic, leading to more alcohol consumption and therefore a greater number of alcohol-related incidents and deaths, automobile or otherwise.

The Amethyst Initiative’s position is two-fold: an ideological belief that gaining many rights at 18 should also give one the right to consume alcohol at the same time, as well as a practical belief that lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking. Both of these positions are incorrect. However, while the former is debatable, the latter is not. The Amethyst Initiatives claim is this: “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.” First, though it is true that each American citizen does gain a number of rights and responsibilities when he or she turns 18, there is no reason to believe that all rights should be granted at this age. In fact, boys and girls as young as 12 have been charged as adults in American criminal court. Should those as young as 12 be legally allowed to consume alcohol? Secondly, the belief that lowering the drinking age will lower alcohol consumption sounds counterintuitive—and for good reason. The Amethyst Position is that due to the current drinking age “a culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.” Actually, there is virtually no reason to believe that, by lowering the drinking age to 18 and removing alcohol’s allure as “taboo,” so called “binge drinking” would subside. Indeed, in Great Britain, a country in which the drinking age is 16, 53,844 under-25’s, the vast majority between 16 and 25, were admitted to hospitals for dangerous binge drinking. It is probably true that some under-aged drinkers do consume alcohol because they are legally forbidden to do so, but the evidence shows that lowering the drinking age would only make the problem of underage drinking worse. Not only is the Amethyst Initiative’s position demonstrably false, there are stark benefits to keeping the drinking age as it is—if not making it higher.

Raising the drinking age to 21 has led to clear societal advantages, namely safer physical development as well as a reduction in alcohol-related automobile fatalities. First, underage drinking, or drinking by those whose brains are not yet fully developed, is also incredibly detrimental to one’s health. Underage drinking can result in problems with brain development, memory, and can lead to alcohol dependence. Unrelated to development, the loss of inhibition associated with alcohol consumption that can lead to one placing him or herself in situations of compromised safety, often sexual situations. Finally, alcohol consumption is heavily associated with traffic fatalities. Three statisticians—Ralph W. Hingson, Jonathan Howland and Suzette Levenson—found that:

"There is evidence to suggest that legal changes have produced declines in alcohol related traffic fatalities. Well-controlled studies of increases in the legal drinking age revealed that although the effects varied from State to State, in States that raised their drinking ages, night fatal crashes in targeted age groups declined 10 to 15 percent relative to States that did not."

Indeed, the higher drinking age has led to fewer automobile fatalities. MADD estimates that, on aggregate, the higher drinking age has saved 25,000 lives since it was put into place in 1984. Raising the drinking age to—and keeping the drinking age at—21 provides society with myriad benefits from safer physical development for children to a decrease in alcohol-related deaths.

There are too many Tammy Wallis’, too many who are harmed or die because of alcohol’s poisonous deluge. The Amethyst Initiative is irresponsible in its movement for a lower drinking age—wrong because a lower drinking age causes more drinking and more deaths. If anything, we should work to stem the tide of alcohol influence, not release the floodgates.

Sources:
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-090608-sjf-newtonvigil.4f79b022.html

http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Statistics.aspx

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051160/Revealed-The-50-000-young-people-drink-way-hospital-year.html

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa59.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-arson-death_x.htm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4628559?seq=2&Search=yes&term=21&term=traffic&term=fatalities&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D21%2Btraffic%2Bfatalities%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3DDrinking%2Bage%2B21%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=3&ttl=1053&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle

http://www.amethystinitiative.org/statement/