Not since 1984 has debating over the minimum drinking age been so heavily questioned, thanks largely to the recently popularized Amethyst Initiative. More than 130 college presidents and officials have signed the statement, urging a public forum concerning the drinking age limit and proclaiming "21 is not working," referencing the extreme amounts of binge-drinking on college campuses.
As of now, NIC will not be on that list of schools backing the initiative. Pres. Priscilla Bell and the Board of Trustees are more concerned with the procurement of land for the Education Corridor, as well they should be, and are not prepared to sign the document.
While Mothers Against Drunk Driving vehemently argues the drinking age actually is saving lives, the signers of the Amethyst Initiative insist that a lower drinking age would create a more unified university structure, one where underage drinkers would not be forced to binge-drink illegally and design fake IDs.
But if lowering the drinking age solves alcohol-related issues at college campuses, assuming M.A.D.D. is wrong about the lives saved since the Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed (though statistics prove otherwise), all we are doing is forcing the drinking dilemma to a younger audience: high schools.
It may be true that 18-year-olds can vote, serve on a jury, fight in Iraq and decide to get married, but they certainly are not physically or emotionally mature enough to handle the pressures and hassles of alcohol.
It is entirely different to be trained on how to shoot a gun than to learn the rigors of drinking controllably.
If high schools are already having problems with students text-messaging in the hallways, they would be completely incapable of preventing seniors from downing vodka Red Bulls in the parking lot.
The last thing universities need is incoming freshmen already skilled in binge drinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment