And now for something completely different: US alcohol policy

Formulated over beers with my 19-year-old sister at a wonderful bar in Haifa:

The Amethyst Initiative, a coalition of college presidents in favor of lowering the legal drinking age to 18, has once again slipped into the news. This time, pundits and reporters are wondering: will an Obama administration create a legislative environment ripe for a shift in US alcohol policy?

From the perspective of the college campus, legalized drinking for 18-year-olds has a great deal to recommend it. Today, universities are grappling with rampant underage drinking, a phenomenon that many believe stems from legal taboos associated with alcohol. The Amethyst Initiative makes an argument of Zen-like simplicity:


"A culture of dangerous, clandestine "binge-drinking"—often conducted off-campus—has developed.

Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.

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.

By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."


Amethyst's argument does highlight a real problem. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, roughly 60% of underage college students drink alcohol regularly, with a slightly smaller number engaging in regular binge drinking. The result has been a death toll estimated by the NIAAA at 850 underage students per year – in addition to far greater numbers of students allowing alcohol to lead them to poor studies, unsafe sex, and criminal charges. Those who dismiss Amethysts' desire for a new discussion about the risks of prohibition are doing so at their moral peril.

But Amethyst's focus on the college campus considerably dims any hope of a successful policy proposal. In 2006, 3.3 million students were considered high school drop-outs by the US Census. Their data claim that only 58% of high school graduates ages 16 – 21 were enrolled in any college program, either full- or part-time. Those numbers are only slightly below the Bureau of Labor Statistics' estimate for 2007, which reported that 67% of students graduating that year would be enrolling in any college program.

Roughly, we are talking about over 16 million young Americans suddenly allowed to drink, without the benefit of a campus community to help channel that freedom. This is a widely dispersed group of young people that some BLS estimates show to be at nearly 20% unemployment.. Amethyst, and its supporters, have failed to explain or justify the effect that a change in alcohol policy would have on such a large segment of the population.

The conventional wisdom of the Amethyst Initiative – that legalized drinking for 18-year-olds would allow the university to engage with the culture surrounding alcohol, in an attempt to moderate it – is an innovative and worthwhile idea; but it has nothing to say about what such a lifestyle change would mean for a young person not currently attached to a university community. High school drop-outs and graduates who don't enroll in university go on to serve a wide variety of roles in the workforce, primarily in in minimum- or low-wage positions that offer little prospect of advancement. They live with their parents, or in poorer neighborhoods on their own. They are at-risk for alcohol abuse, drunk driving, and arrest.

They are most certainly not part of a community that can reinforce responsible drinking habits. Are the college presidents of the Amethyst Initiative willing to take a chance on the judgment of these young people, without the ability to reach out to them? Are the American people willing to take such a chance? I doubt it.

But that should not close the book on the idea of a lowered drinking age. In fact, the substantial number of high school graduates choosing not to enroll in any university or technical school program is a policy opportunity.

The Amethyst Initiative should revise its goals. Instead of advocating for a lowered drinking age for all 18-year-olds, it should propose a lowered drinking age only for students who can prove that they are enrolled in a university or technical school program.

The process would be as simple as presenting a student ID to a bartender. Most college IDs today are fully readable by infrared scanner, thanks to partner programs between schools and off-campus restaurants. These IDs are already part of regularly-updated campus databases that keep track of a student's purchases – as such, they already provide enrollment data. Universities and technical schools not currently issuing such IDs would, under proposed legislation, be eligible for government funds to upgrade their systems, a worthwhile project in and of itself

Part of the President's task, in rehabilitating the economy, is going to be the provision of incentives for young Americans to seek out higher education, in whatever form that most attracts them: a four-year university, two-year associate's degree, or other technical training. While it may seem crass, for many high-schoolers the ability to legally consume alcohol will not be last on their lists of reasons to continue their education.

Nor should it be. While critics of this proposal will complain that it binds alcohol too explicitly to the university, thereby glorifying it, the truth is that such an explicit bond already exists in the public perception – the statistics of undergraduate alcohol abuse cited above should leave no doubt about that. All that is left for the university to do is to subvert the dangerous social pressures that accompany such a bond.

That means calling alcohol what it actually is to so many young students: the badge of adulthood, the last significant societal barrier to being to being taken seriously as a full citizen. Young people who have taken it upon themselves to enroll in university or technical school are making a serious investment in their own futures, one that merits they be recognized as adults. A policy of legalized alcohol consumption for this age group accomplishes that goal.

Other critics will say that legalization for college students only creates an unfair tier system, in which those who do not have access to strong high school programs are discriminated against. Legislators backing this proposal will be able to respond in two ways:

First, today there is an incredible range of post-high school programs available to students of almost any academic standing. Technical and vocational schools serve a vital role in the ability of the American workforce; it should be a national priority to fill their enrollments.

Additionally, the considerable population of high school drop-outs could be accommodated by a similar privilege extended to any 18-year-old enrolled in a GED program. These programs are inexpensive, and can be completed while working part- or full-time – they are well within the reach of any young person driven to succeed. The underlying purpose remains the same – to encourage young Americans to stay in, or go back to, school.

Today, it seems unlikely that the Amethyst Initiative will gain much traction. But as belts continue to tighten in the US, more and more students will be reconsidering their post-high school paths. Adding one more incentive to a college education can only improve the competence and health of the rising American workforce – an additional benefit that would fit in well with Amethyst's current proposals.