Lower drinking age debate divides colleges
Kristin Villalpando
Many of the United State’s most prestigious college presidents are getting behind one of the most controversial issues in generations of milestones, lowering the legal drinking age in the United States. Presidents from schools such as Duke and John Hopkins have joined a group calling themselves the Amethyst Invite.
Also joining this group are university presidents from the states of Maryland, Ohio, Montana, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina.
They are proposing to lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age.
Claiming that the action congress took, twenty-five years ago, was to cut off federal highway funds, unless the legal drinking age was raised from 18 to 21.
It has led to unhealthy binge drinking on campus, by underage students.
This is what John Hopkins president William Brody had to say on the issue, “Kids are going to drink weather it’s legal or illegal. We’d at least be able to have more open dialogue with students about drinking as opposed to this sham where people don’t want to talk about it because it’s a violation of the law.”
The statement signed by more than 120 college presidents who are behind lowering the drinking age stated, “How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition? Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.”
This is leaving many Arizona college students wondering, what about Arizona?
Richard Fimbres the director of the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway safety is standing by his claim the statistics show the numbers dropped after 1994.
Arizona department of Public Safety says, “Fatal accidents increased over 25 percent while traffic fatalities increased more than 35 percent after the state MLPA was lowered from 21 to 19.”
Unfortunately, for currently underage age college students in Arizona who enjoy a couple of drinks, it looks as though Arizona is going to stick by their “no tolerance” view.
