Many university presidents collectively agree that the United States drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18 years old. 129 university presidents have signed an initiative that would transform college campuses all around the nation.

Former Middlebury College President John McCardell proposed a highly controversial idea: the Amethyst Initiative. Named after the stone that the Greeks declare protects from intoxication, the initiative argues that the lowered drinking age would prevent multiple campus concerns, such as binge-drinking, partying, drunk driving and violence.

According to www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov, 1,700 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 were involved in unintentional alcohol-related injuries (including motor vehicle crashes) that resulted in death in 2007. Also in 2007, another 599,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 were unintentionally injured under the influence of alcohol. With increasing numbers of deaths and injuries comes growing concerns. Some think that lowering the drinking age can control these issues.

“A culture of dangerous, clandestine ‘binge-drinking’ – often conducted off-campus – has developed,” the Amethyst Initiative reads. The signatories claim that “alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.”

Although the Amethyst Initiative proves promising, there is a lot of debate when it comes to lowering the drinking age. Abuse, accidents and underage drinking are just some of the issues that come to mind.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is strictly against the idea. “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,” MADD stated on their website in response to this initiative.

If the drinking age eventually is lowered, high school students would also be greatly impacted. Palmetto’s students have differing viewpoints on this issue. While some agree that the drinking age is a useless restriction only inhibiting teenage “fun,” others believe that lowering the drinking age would not prevent abuse issues but rather encourage them.

“There is always the possibility that people would be less inclined to abuse a legal right,” senior Matt Longfield said. “However, there is no way of knowing for sure.”

Despite differing opinions, most of the students believe that the drinking age should be lowered.

“I like the idea. I’m excited to go out and have fun at parties,” sophomore Spencer Doehla said.

While some students agree with the initiative for recreational purposes, like having fun at parties and being able to purchase alcohol, others concur for alternative reasons.

“If you are allowed to go to war and fight for your country, you should be allowed to drink,” junior Hyun-Woo Lim said.

Many countries around the world have their drinking ages set at 18 years old or lower. Students who have lived in these countries also believe that the lowered drinking age can help solve a lot of problems.

“Why 21?” asks senior Alvaro Jeanneau, who moved to the United States from Peru last year. “Many other countries, even where I’m from, have their dinking ages at 18, and there seems to be fewer issues with underage drinking in those areas. By having the drinking age at 21, we are making people desperate to drink.”

Some researchers are in accordance with Jeanneau in that establishing a high drinking age pressures teens to want to drink even more.

Dr. Ruth Engs, professor of Applied Health Sciences at Indiana University in Bloomington, says that “drinking is seen by these youth as an enticing forbidden fruit, a badge of rebellion against authority, and a symbol of adulthood,” which makes alcohol more enticing to underage teens. Engs theorizes that keeping the drinking age so high is counter-productive, and though lowering the drinking age would be an important step in the right direction, it would not completely solve the problem.

Amy Schaffer, an AP Psychology teacher, slightly agreed with Engs that there is a “rebellious nature” to teenagers. “There are psychological processes that include wanting what we can’t have,” Schaffer said.

Even though this may cause more underage drinking problems in our country, Schaffer does not believe that lowering the drinking age would fix everything.

“There is research that shows that teenagers don’t always make decisions like adults do,” Schaffer said, because of teenagers’ immature reasoning skills.

The two presidential candidates for the United States have also been questioned about the issue. Senator John McCain told reporters that it was a “tough decision” but that he supported keeping the 21 year old drinking age. When a student asked Senator Barack Obama, he said “I know it drives you nuts. But I’m not going to lower the drinking age.”

Some students and administrators agree with our presidential candidates that lowering the drinking age would not solve the issues that are surround teens.

“I believe that the drinking age is safer at 21 because you are more mature and more responsible,” said junior Carly Liebling.

As a member of our faculty and as a parent, teacher Loni Perse is ambivalent about this initiative.

“There are a few discrepancies that must be considered when it comes to the drinking age. At 18, citizens are considered adults and are able to vote. Yet, they are not being treated as adults,” Perse said. “It’s a matter of maturity level-- it’s about being able to trust our teens to make the right decisions.”