What the Amethyst Initiative says is college administrators have thrown
up their hands in despair and are attempting to shift the problem to
the legislators or the parents or society or whomever. So, they
recommend renewed "study" of the issue.
However, prolonged study
can create "analysis paralysis," and is sometimes a smokescreen to
conceal a significant anatomical defect: the lack of backbone. When
extended "study and debate" is recommended, somewhere some
administrator or supervisor or leader may be afraid of making a
decision.
Back in the early 1970's the drinking age was
lowered, partly due to the clouded logic concurrent with the Vietnam
War. (There was much clouded logic then.) Simply stated: if a man is
old enough to be drafted and sent away to combat, he should be old
enough to enjoy a beer. (No mention was made of females. Guess they
didn't drink in those days.) The fallacy, of course, is equating the
maturity required for the military with that required for responsible
alcoholic consumption.
Not all ideas are created equal—that, and other news from the "War on the Drinking Age"
In a response to the Amethyst Initiative (a think tank arguing to lower the drinking age to 18), Phil Schurrer of Bowling Green State University goes the low(ish) road by claiming "this is not a debate worth having" and then leaving it at that. We try not to editorialize (or drink) too much here at Splice, but we don't think that's particularly fair treatment to an issue that concerns tragic, preventable deaths. Debate away, please.
