Comments on: [CR] announces Amethyst Initiative

By: Corey

Corey — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:10:41 +0000

Lets deal with people like individuals and deal with actions alone and not treat people like “one sizefits all” and probabilities and propensities! NYU and Sarah Lawrence colleges should join you guys and also Emma Roberts might go to one of those colleges! Lets decriminalize underage drinking once and for all since this is the land of the free.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:03:15 +0000

Underage drinking is nothing new. To anyone. There are too many responsibilities that an “adult” must handle when they are 18. It is a huge problem that every high school and college student is looking forward to taking 21 shots on their 21st birthday. On another note, 18 year old are able to legally serve alcohol in restaurants and bars. The drinking age basically hands young adults a drink, and says, “Hold onto that for a few years. Then you can have some.”

I am glad that prominent and influential people in these institutions are being proactive in solving the problem that has become a national issue over the last decade.

By: chris

chris — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:23:57 +0000

Bravo and long overdue.

By: Robert Mudd

Robert Mudd — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:46:15 +0000

I view this initiative as a cop-out by college administrators who do not have the courage to enforce a the 21 law for fear of upsetting their “customers.” If these so-called educators really cared about young people, they might be asking why the minimum age for serving (and dying) in the military isn’t raised to 21, instead of why the drinking age isn’t lowered to 18.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:00:41 +0000

I think that if you can sign up to fight for your country in a war at 18, then you should be able to choose to pick up a beer and drink. How come there is a double standard? You are grown and a man/woman when you sign up for the armed forces but you are a “child” when it comes to being able to drink at 18. This is ridiculous! Perhaps if we let our youth drink at an earlier age then drinking itself won’t be a novelty and the binge drinking would decrease…

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:31:53 +0000

The major stone on the road is still MLDA21 Act of 1984.Unless this act gets repealed first,MLDA 21 will stay and stay dispite by fact it saved many deaths rather than lives and despite of step by step changings of public opinions.Only after this Federal Act gets repealed,the MLDA18 debates,states’proposals to replace 21 will gain possibility.
I am myself ex-diehard pro-21 supporter.

By: aimee

aimee — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:47:22 +0000

How do they propose to ‘stick to’ or enforce a lower drinking age, if the current legal age of 21 is not enforced or followed now?

By: Barb

Barb — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:13:03 +0000

I applaud all the presidents who have participated in the Amethyst Initiative and am proud to say that my freshman son attends one the universities listed on it. Educating our young adults to drink responsibly rather than in hiding is a more appropriate than saying you’re 21 have at it. I don’t think that raising the drinking age to 21 helped to lower traffic related fatalities – I think stricter laws, designated drivers and education helped to lower those rates. If my children can go fight a war, sign a legally binding contract or get married you better believe they should have the right to have a beer.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:42:02 +0000

Unfortunately, I think that MADD’s tactics will be frighteningly successful in scaring away most college presidents from joining the initiative. After reading the words, “Do not send you children to the colleges which support this”…from an organization with as much national pull as MADD, why would any of them want to risk putting their school’s reputation on the line?

What needs to happen is student organizations need to spring up which show support for their university presidents backing debate. The presidents have to be shown they are not alone.

Also, if you read closely, you can see that the initiative supports lowering the drinking age to 18 with the stipulation that that person has a high school diploma. This would be identified on a driver’s license. It seems that just about every media outlet throughout the country has disregarded this fact so they can use the, “but 16 and 17 year olds will drink more” excuse. They also have disregarded the fact that the initiative simply calls for debate. It is sickening to watch the extent that most news sources have completely disregarded the facts of the story so they can run wild bashing these presidents. Real facts need to be disseminated to the public.

By: Debra

Debra — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:10:35 +0000

Here is a novel concept: why not teach our children to drink before handing them the keys to moving masses of metal? How about taking a look at drunk driving and other alcohol-related incidences in countries where the drinking age is lower (e.g. 16) and the driving age higher (e.g. 18) and comparing that to what is found here? Why not teach our children how to drink, when to drink, and what ‘excess’ means instead of assuming they will automatically follow some rule set for them by bureaucrats who will never again be 18? As a college instructor, I see the effects of young people who lack this training every semester. It needs to change!