Leave drinking age where it is
As a senior at Rutgers University, I am appalled by the Amethyst Initiative, the proposal of over 100 college presidents to commence conversation on lowering the drinking age to 18. I wholly agree with Mothers Against Drunk Drivers that this plan is a mere ploy designed to enable college presidents to circumvent both the legal and disciplinary responsibilities associated with underage drinking.

From a college student's perspective, the current law serves more as a restraint to underage drinking than an insurmountable barrier in and of itself. Yes, the rumors swarming the freshmen coming home for Thanksgiving are true; underclassmen drink alcohol. Such drinking is not without its limitations, however. Truth be told, it is often difficult for underclassmen to acquire alcohol. Because most liquor stores and bars now scan drivers' licenses to ensure validity, fake IDs have been eliminated from the picture. Instead, students under 21 often must rely on older students to buy alcohol, often for an increased price. Further, due to the law's severity of providing alcohol to underage persons, most underclassmen find it difficult to acquire alcohol from upperclassmen. Though not entirely inaccessible, these constraints force many underclassmen to ration their alcohol supplies, and others to refuse ownership.

Even with this legal constraint, underclassmen continue to abuse alcohol when they are given the chance. With the ubiquity of ambulances responding to alcohol poisoning of underage students, the vomit-ridden hallways of dormitories, and alcohol-related injuries recorded at the health centers, it is evident that underclassmen tend to abuse alcohol when provided the opportunity.

Given such information, the invalidity of the presidents' claim that decreasing the drinking age would reduce underage drinking is apparent. After all, in the college realm, void of parents and supervision, the current drinking age is the only tangible restraint to underage drinking. Coupled with the immaturity, rebelliousness, and false sense of invincibility that young adults often possess, the elimination of legal penalties for drinking under the age of 21 is clearly an equation for danger. It is no secret that underclassmen, especially freshmen, perceive alcohol as a vehicle to gross intoxication, rather than an accessory to the festivities of a party. Why, then, would we put the alcohol right in their hands?

Rather, we should maintain the current drinking age so as to protect the younger students from acting with this type of recklessness. Indeed, as they mature, the vast majority of upperclassmen ascertain that intoxication is neither a privilege, nor a social attribute, and adjust their behavior accordingly. This is not the time for colleges to look the other way and declare that underage drinking is no longer their problem.
Michele Friedman
East Brunswick