Prohibition doesn't work. Heck, it doesn't even work for pot or meth, let alone a substance that is available in retail - completely legal, but only when a citizen reaches a certain age. Argue that fact away. Just try.

Do any reporters actually read the Iniative? It does NOT ask for a lower drinking age but for an open and honest discussion of the issue. Obviously, many prefer to make headlines rather than sense.

utah has created a culture of fear and repression of serious discussion and responsible policy around alcohol. you can't put up walls around what you dont like, the culture of widespread binge drinking is more intense here because of the higher drinking age.

So, whilst the brain is "developing the ability to make sound judgments, decide important matters or control destructive impulses" it shouldn't drink, but it's ok to send that brain into the military. Before, in fact, it can make sound judgments and control destructive impulses.

Wonderful how issues of brain health are kept to forefront in this country.

The Amethyst Initiative is an effort to open debate about the drinking age in order to find a solution to the widespread binge drinking on college campuses, and not specifically to lower the drinking age to 18. As a matter of fact, no where in the initiative does it explicitly advocate decreasing the drinking age to 18. Furthermore, presidents of various colleges have been encouraged to sign the statement even if they support keeping the drinking age at 21, simply to encourage opening a dialogue about this very serious issue on college campuses all over the United States. As such, it is unfair to simply discount this effort as "absurd".

So we will entrust our newly-minted adults with guns and votes, but beer, hey--that's too far.

War doesn't affect young minds? The war dead and the maimed aren't permanently affected?

Have you been drinking?

Oh good, a story from the church's deseretnews about drinking. I was raised in SLC and was told by the Church that if you drank you could not get into the highest kingdom of heaven. When I mentioned all the wine jesus had, I was always told "oh that was just grape juice"...of course I was very young. I hope to hear more insight on important matters from your news paper.

First!

In recent years, California had a potential initiative that would have raised the legal smoking age from 18 to 21. Our students debated the issue and raised some great points that would be relevant in a national debate about drinking. One student, while an avid anti-smoker whose grandmother had passed away from a smoking-related illness, was against the law raising the legal age despite her strong personal feelings against smoking. The law, she said, takes away yet one more responsible choice that the vast majority of young people in CA already make. These laws create a "conditional adulthood" of sorts, that does the opposite of protecting this age group, it entitles them. It entitles them to think they can acts like idiots, be irresponsible, not make grown up decisions- because the real adults will make all the tough decisions for them. This conditional adulthood doesn't protect them, it coddles them. Being 18-21 should not entitle them to a free pass on making responsible adult decisions for themselves.

I have been a long-haul truck driver for many years and have seen the tragedy that drinking and driving does to the lives of innocent people. Lowering the age of drinking should not even be considered. To think that would end binge drinking is a fools thought. Drinking alcohol is a serious problem and yet it is advertised as a fun part of young life. There are other things in life that positive young people can do besides destroying their lives and the lives of others. This world needs positive change now (not tomorrow). We have left this country a mess for our children to figure out and lowering the drinking age is asinine.

Argument by analogy is for people who can't win an argument on the facts.

I agree, nothing good comes from alcohol consumption. There should be a culture of learning in college, not drinking and partying. I predict that lowering the legal age limit is going to produce more alcohol related traffic deaths, not only the teenagers, but innocent bystanders as well. IMHO nothing good is going to be realized by this initiative. Only time will tell.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Binge drinking happens for those under 21 because they want to 'front load' before they go to a club that won't serve them. You're analogy with cigarettes is completely false. You're implying that binge drinking happens because it's exotic. To a small degree that may be true (and would help to be cured by lowering the age), but it's not the right analysis.

Those over 18, but under 21 have all the responsibilities of adulthood. They should get all of the privileges too.

well, except for america, amost every other country in the world has a leagal drinking age under 20 (germany's legal drinking age is 16), yet in america that binge drinking in collage is a problem. it seemed that the solution might not be more ristrictions, but instead, the state should try to educate the university students. banning ads and having a 21 year old drinking age just doesnt make sense. if by the age of 21, these student still cannot drink resposibly, then the problem is much bigger than alcohol abuse.

When we start treating them like adults, with the choices, responsibility and consequences- they will start acting like adults.

It should be the prerogative of governing officials to educate our youth. We've learned time and time again that making decisions for them does not work. If an 18-year-old wants to drink, he/she will find a way. Try finding a way to prevent that desire to drink and you've solved the problem. When you tell someone not to do something, regardless of demographic, an ingrained desire to do that thing is sown.

Cigarettes are obviously bad for a number of reasons I'm sure you're already aware. Can you honestly say that since they cause harm we should not allow the public to legally have access to them? Can you really negotiate the level of harm that is acceptable for a person to self-inflict? Once a person turns 21 he/she does not become impervious to brain damage.

Once you decide to hear you will know what is and what is not. The closed mind is the first to falter, having no understanding of things which did not exist.

I agree with the author of this article 100% for I find it absurd, as a student in college myself, for these so-called Presidents to stand on such a contradictory footing. Some universities nationwide orientate freshmen (should be required for all students under 21 in my opinion) about the dangers of alcohol abuse through rigorously enforced programs, outlining in each the dangers of alcohol in correlation with developing minds. Thus I find it completely appalling that they choose to circumvent their responsibilities and come up with something as ridiculous as this. Yeah, sure, give these first time college students the ability to purchase and drink alcoholic beverages freely, and in addition to their sometimes stressful transition, they might just explode.
What these pseudo-intellectuals should be doing is appealing for the same restrictive laws on alcohol as the author of this article alludes for tobacco. Countless studies have proven that developing minds are more prone to being swayed by catchy advertisements thus let’s nip the problem in the bud. Those beer commercials may be cool, cute, funny, and outrageously festive, but they in no way mimic the reality of alcohol abuse.

The problem here is the interference by the federal government which effectively made it impossible for states to set their own drinking age. As I remember, the law imposed a significant penalty in federal highway funding unless the states instituted a minimum drinking age of 21.

So, you see, the problem is not that Utah has established its drinking age at 21, but that Congress has effectively taken away the rights of the states to act in their best interests of their individual residents.

Obviously, as stated, binge drinking is quite a problem nationwide. It is further obvious to any intelligent person that there are other factors which contribute to this behavior. But, it has been shown time and time again that those factors cannot be mandated by law or even by common sense.

Furthermore, increased safety of automobiles (air bags, etc.) makes comparing youth highway death statistics an apples and oranges endeavor.

I commend the university presidents who have taken this unpopular and controversial stance. They are at least trying to tackle a severe problem that if not addressed, as stated, will cause irreparable harm to millions of young people.

Why is underage drinking the only crime in which an offender will never be considered an adult? Having a magical calendar for drinking alcohol is not the way to keep an honest man honest. Pull your head out of the sand, teenagers have and will drink as long as alcohol is available -legally or not.

As an American student and Navy veteran in Istanbul I have a unique perspective into this issue. I'm 28 now and have watched the American exchange students consistently getting smashed out of their minds while the Erasmus students of Europe generally give puzzled looks.
It reminds me of being in the Navy with a NATO destroy pack. The American sailors, forbidden from drinking on board the ship would go ape at the first sign of bear and the crews of the European ships would look on with a mix of amazement and disdain. And it was more than a few local bar owners who pointed out to me that the Americans were always the most drunk of any sailors.
Personally I drink just coffee now a'days. The fact is that roughly 10 percent of the population is genetically prone to alcoholism. There are no laws that will prevent alcoholism. But Europe ought to show that a liberal attitude with regards to alcohol seems to encourage a degree of temperance in regards to drinkers who are prone to alcoholism.

While your argument sounds like it has merit there is one very simple reason to support a lower drinking age. Your suggestion that the alcohol industry needs to be better regulate, as does tobacco, it's advertising is excellent. I feel the argument for a drinking age limit t 18 is that, if done publicly, those students with a binge or other problem are more likely to receive help then those students who drink in secret. You say the government is right in prohibiting drinking until 21 but it is a law with no teeth. The government would like to prohibit drinking until that age but it simply cannot, at least not without turning into a police state with random raids in dorms, etc. Also, authorities are loath to arrest and convict a student for drinking because they know that conviction will follow them the rest of their lives.

I say lower the age, make students less fearful and more public about their drinking and see if this doesn't not improve the situation, Obviously, what we have currently doesn't work.

The idea is not as absurd as the writer presents it. The problem with the drinking age of 21 on college campuses is that students under 21 find themselves learning to drink from their fellow underage drinkers rather than having a public discussion of how to drink.

What the drinking age does is drive college drinking underground, where it becomes more of a problem than before. It seems that we in America have an unnatural fixation on restriction and banning, thinking them to be quick fixes for problems that they actually complicate.

While it may seem intuitive that having a lower drinking age would increase rather than decrease binge drinking, that is actually far from clear given the reality of the situation. Enforceability is a major issue here, and I can tell you from experience that the drinking age is ignored by most college students. Simply put, it doesn't prevent drinking, and the underground nature of 18-20 year-old drinking fosters bad drinking habits at a time when they are just starting to drink.

I welcome the discussion from the college presidents.

An absurd idea is a good description of what this is. I am in my mid twenties and dangerous binge drinking in my age group has not slowed down one bit. Merely because it is enticing is in my opinion not a good enough reason to try this. I agree with Mr.Evensen in that these college leaders and administrators are looking for solutions and do want the best for their students, I can vouch from being around alcohol abuse quite frequently that this is not the solution. The culture of drinking and alcohol consumption has dramatically changed, binge drinking is much more popular that it used to be even years ago, across various age groups. Education and restrictions on advertising are where I feel we should start.

Actually, lowering the drinking age is not an absurd idea. The absurd idea is that a nanny state can decide what a legal adult can do with his or her body. I really don't think that people who are not going to begin drinking legally at 21 will drink because the nanny state says they can. For those who do drink, how many started right at the age of 21? I doubt very many.

It is amazing that a state that is as conservative as Utah there would be opposition to removing of governmant interference in people's lives. Alas, Utah is good at big government and high taxes. Good thing I live outside of Utah in a real conservative state. Interestingly enough, my governor is a democrat, but our gas, property, and sales tax is way lower than Utah. Have it your way. Keep electing republicans while blinding yourselves to the high taxes.

My biggest complaint is that we have a law that says we can't drink until we are 21, yet I would venture to say that a large majority of people who drink started before they were 21. Thus my solution to this problem is that we actually enforce the law we have. I am not against changing the age to 18, but I am for enforcement, and enforcement and punishment that would actually scared kids straight.

We may have a President who use to snort cocaine and drink alcohol. It didn't ruin his brain. What's the problem?

If we must protect young people from the potential danger of self-inflicted harm from alcohol, than how much more effort should we expend protecting those same young people from the very real dangers of military conflict imposed by old men who never served a day of active duty and sit comfortably far from the front lines? And how much effort do we need to protect these young people from the very real harm engendered by global warming?

Perhaps you should focus your pen on more pressing issues.

if young people are treated like responsible adults, they will act that way.
i'd prefer drinking in regulated, licensed venues, rather than the woods or a house party.
The age of 18 works well almost every where in the western world, and fits nicely with finishing high school.

Any man or woman who thinks that making a drug more available is going to reduce the use of it, is either sadly misinformed or is blatantly lying.
It would appear that binge drinking is now the preferred way of consuming alcohol for young people. To get Blitzed out of their minds is their way of proving to the rest of us that they are having a wonderful time and living life to the fullest.
Could it be that they are more pliable when they are constantly suffering the after effects of alcohol abuse, making it easier for their Educators to offer a substandard level of education and have it go unnoticed? I wonder!
The Nazis used alcohol to fuel Rockets which were fired from Continental Europe, across the North Sea and the English Channel to land on London. How could such a substance be not harmful when consumed by living beings?
It is evidence of a sad time when those in charge of the education of our young are advocating allowing them to become embroiled in a life of decadence.

Binge drinking has nothing to do with age limits and everything to do with the American culture of over-consumption. It's the "adolescent" version of parental indulgence in all you can eat, shop till you drop, and maxed-out credit cards.

Actually I think it's fine leaving the Drinking Age at 21. As long as we make that the Voting Age, and the Military Age... Think how many Lives that last one would Save...

The problem is not the drinking age but whether the government should be interfering with what we ingest at all. Personal liberty is at stake here. I'm against drinking alcohol, but I'm also against the federal government intruding on how I live my life. We need more freedom, more education, and more religious influence—not more regulation!

Vote libertarian: www.bobbarr2008.com

Given that Mongolia, Indonesia and Palau are the only countries that join the US in restricting drinking by 18-20 y/o adults, and given the standing of the US and those countries by any measure of intellectual, academic or social health against world norms, I can really see how prohibiting 18-20yr/o drinking affects mental, emotional and social behavior.

It's interesting how far the U.S. has fallen in world standings of academic and intellectual achievements since the drinking age was raised to 21 and drug policy has become among the most draconian among modern western nations.

Only someone with a distorted mindset would conclude that would believe in the negative effects of valuing and teaching personal responsibility over state authoritarianism.

Top of what list: US, Mongolia, Indonesia and Palau? By what intellectual or academic measure do these countries excel over world averages? Where's the proof of benefit of prohibiting 18-20 year-olds' drinking?

If you sell beer to a 20 year old returning marine from Iraq, you get charged for endangering the welfare of a child...but it's ok to call them men at 18 and send them over to be killed in war...but not let them drink because it might kill them?? What the heck is wrong with this picture?????? I am now convinced 99% of the people in America are completely insane.

This issue is not to lower the drinking age. It's to discuss - talk - about college people drinking and how best to get rid of binge drinking. It's sad that this newspaper's editorial writers can't read.

Nowhere does it seek to lower the drinking age.

But Deseret Morning News editorial writers have to play the party line - its owner believes drinking alcohol is evil, ergo any discussion of problems on college campuses is evil.

Talk about blinders on a horse!

What's up with these college and university presidents?

Talk about an idea not thoroughly contemplated. We're compared or critiqued as lagging behind other developed countries in lowering the drinking age, but I have just two questions.

How many teens are behind the wheels of vehicles in those other countries?

Do we really want to put the rest of the population at higher risk of death due to younger teens drinking and driving?

Foolishness!

President: 35 yo minimum (born in the U.S.)
Senator: 30 yo minimum
alcohol: 21 yo minimum
voting: 18 yo minimum
military: 18 yo minimum
sexual consent: 16 yo minimum (most states)
driver's license: 14 yo minimum (many states)
So what? All these are well within the police powers of the state and rights (collectively) of the citizenry/voters.
Fetal alcohol syndrome: puberty

Your article seems a little biased. 18 is the chosen marker that separates minors from adults. You can not simply compare lowering the legal drinking age from 21 to lowering the legal smoking age below 18. The latter suggests distributing controlled substances to minors which is not the case with the alcohol drive. You also site statistics showing that teen drinking in Utah is significantly lower than the national average. This is true but why the discrepancy? The 21 standard applies to all states, doesn't it? The difference is primarily due to the strong family and social values held by the majority of Utahns not the age restriction. Maybe this shows that there are other more effective ways to deal with the issue of teen drinking. My desire is that we accurately portray both scenarios, 21 vs 18 or 19, and objectively listen to both sides of this debate before making strong informed decisions.

Utah liquor laws are absurd and need to be normalized. That being said, lowering the drinking age is not responsible. Maybe colleges, parents and the business community need to do a better job educating people about alcohol and seek to reduce the social pressures to drink. Excessive commercialism is the real problem - for adults, too.

If people under the age of 20, or even into their 20's, haven't fully developed "the ability to make sound judgments, decide important matters or control destructive impulses", then they shouldn't be allowed to join the military, enter into contracts (credit card agreements, anyone?), or drive a car, nor should it be legal for parents, pastors, or other teachers to subject their undeveloped critical facilities to any sort of religious indoctrination. Is that really what the author wants? Or was he drinking before he started writing?

Anyone against lowering the age to 16 (yes I said 16 not 18) ignores the responsibility of a parent to teach and discipline. The proponents of the 21 age limit ASSUME if a 16 year old has a beer, he will jump in his death machine and hurtle towards Hades dragging hundreds of the proponent's innocent relatives with them.
Chicken Littles! That is all you are!
Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither!! It applies to our lives more today than ever before. We have allowed our government to oppress us for far too long. We need to quit giving up individual freedom for the promise of a utopia that will never happen.
Aidan:
"Any man or woman who thinks that making a drug less available is going to reduce the use of it, is either sadly misinformed or is blatantly lying."
This is a lie but yours is too!
Nazi alcohol rockets? You are drinking now aren't you?

What about the non-college? Will they still have t wait until 21? Why stop at 18--if you lower it to 12 you can cut down on high school drinking.Right?

First, I love how you are comparing it to tobacco, because tobacco does present the solution to curbing drinking in America. Under age tobacco was curbed by uping sin taxes. To the politician that will do that with alcohol, good luck getting re-elected.

Second, as with any behavior taken part of behind closed doors, the public accountability is diminished. The larger problem is these young ADULTS are learning to drink from other young ADULTS, and have no accountability to more experienced role models or family, and few will get help when they need it if their behavior is unseen.

Finally, I am disgusted with how content we are to reject this because it is out-of-sight-out-of-mind. People will not learn to drink responsibly, by ignoring the issue we are allowing it to continue. People need to learn to take accountability for their own actions, this will never happen when they are told it is the colleges fault. Help these students grow up, not lead a repressed development in overpriced day care.

Only fools ever believe that any prohibition works.

Alcohol prohibition was a complete joke from 1920 to 1933. The current drug prohibition is a waste of our tax dollars! We need to legalize "weed" and sell it like tobacco and tax the heck out of it, because at least taxes are coming in from the consumption unlike today where we don't get taxes.

I drank back when it was legal to drink at age 18, heck I even drank as young as 15 because you could always find someones older brother or sister to buy it for us, and I'm sure that still happens, and it will never quit happening.

The point of lowering the drinking age isn't to reduce drinking, it is to reduce binge/irresponsible drinking--so your comparison to cigarette smoking misses the point.

The fact that so many presidents from top universities have signed on to this initiative are being dismissed as being nut cases and ignoring science can only mean one of a few things--they are stupid, they are lazy, or they have something to say. My bet is they have something to say, so why not hear them out before drowning them out?

Colleges would like to see the age lowered to 18 to exclude themselves from lialility. If its legal they can't be sued for not preventing it.

What is absurd is the current drinking age of 21 years. Aside from the excellent argument about 18 years old being an age when other significant responsibilities are given to young people (registering, considered an adult for crimes...they can drive when 16), I wonder why American youth are being condescended to when it comes to alcohol. As a proud American who has spent many years overseas, I have seen that every country I have been to has both a lower drinking age AND more responsible drinking (i.e., less drinking related crimes and problems). As an American myself, I do not perceive Americans as less responsible than their counterparts in other countries. In fact, I think American youth are quite mature. Time for change.

I have on my blog a link to a scientific report, as published in ScienceDaily, that shows that accidents go up as the drinking age goes down.

As some pilot said: "Welcome to Utah! Please set your watches back a hundred years."