Column by Tim Riley

In June 2008, a group of college presidents formed a group known as the Amethyst Initiative. Their stated goal, according to their Web site, is to “encourage moderation and responsibility as an alternative to the drunkenness and reckless decisions about alcohol that mark the experience of many young Americans.” However, they are currently best known for their statement that “21 is not working” when it comes to the legal drinking age.

One hundred twenty-nine college presidents signing such a statement has created a storm of controversy inside the political and educational world and reignited an issue that has often been willfully ignored. The current age limit for alcohol is flawed both in its true effect and means through which it was created and maintained.

As the Amethyst Initiative states, the current drinking laws have the dangerous side effect of actually encouraging a culture of heavy drinking among the underage while doing nothing to actually stop it. The fact that it is illegal for people under 21 to consume alcoholic beverages does nothing to stop them, especially on college campuses filled with people who are of age.

Meanwhile, the fact that it is technically illegal helps to add to enjoyment many times. Combined with the fact that they generally cannot access alcohol on a consistent basis, and a recipe for dangerous binge drinking is created.

This culture of heavy overindulgence created by the drinking laws hardly seems necessary judging by the standards of the rest of the world. In most similar countries to the United States, the drinking age is 18 or lower. By setting the law at such an age there is an encouragement of responsibility on the part of the drinker.

At the age of 18, U.S. citizens can vote in elections and die in wars, but they also usually have obtained the freedom to have a much greater control over how they use their personal time. By allowing them at this younger age to begin legally imbibing alcohol, they are not forced to spend three years dealing with the excesses and legalities of underage drinking and instead can begin to learn the responsibility that most legal drinkers develop.

With the extreme problems created by our drinking laws, one can only wonder why this law continues to exist. In 1984, the United States government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This legislation forced each state to make the minimum drinking age 21 or else the state would receive a 10 percent reduction in federal highway funding. Under such a budgetary crunch, each state eventually moved their drinking age to 21 after the Supreme Court held up the act in South Dakota v. Dole.

Now, as the Amethyst Initiative states, it is difficult to even debate making changes in the drinking laws because the issue has been tied into the budgets of the entire country. The leaders of the federal government over 20 years ago wanted to push through a piece of social legislation badly enough that they used a method controversial enough to force the Supreme Court’s involvement. Because of that, we now have a poor law with so many moving parts it seems almost impossible to change.

There is a responsibility that a person takes on when they choose to drink alcohol. There are serious consequences for one’s self and others every time and that should never be minimized. But the current means through which we attempt to deal with those consequences simply does not work.

People must learn to be responsible when dealing with alcohol and by denying a group of people who will drink, legally or not, that opportunity to learn a system is created that encourages irresponsibility. By doing this, the government is doing a disservice to every one of its citizens.

At one time or another, every person or group of people must admit they have made a mistake and it is long past time for reality to be faced with this problem. Our current drinking restrictions are not having the effect they intended. They are only creating a bigger problem. There is undoubtedly a better way, and it is long past time to stop paying the issue lip service and start looking at a real, viable solution.