THE JOURNAL OF
GLOBAL DRUG POUCY AND PRACTICE
Is the Glass Half Empty, Half Full or Dry?
Tavis Glassman, PhD, MPH, CHES
The Amethyst Initiative, a campaign to lower the legal drinking age to 18, garnered a great deal of
attention since the proposal was launched in July 2008. John M. McCardell Jr., a former president of
Middlebury College and founder of the nonprofit group Choose Responsibility, leads the movement. The
organization seeks the support of individuals from higher education, among others, to publicly support the
effort. To date, 134 college presidents and senior administrators have endorsed the initiative. The
question is why, especially considering that a Gallup poll conducted in July 2007 indicates 77% of the
public supports the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA).(1)
The most obvious reasons for lowering the drinking age involve basic civil liberty issues. Proponents for
lowering the drinking age maintain that if you're old enough to vote and go to war, then you should be old
enough to consume alcohol. Some student affairs administrators may also want to lower the drinking age
in an attempt to minimize liability. If the drinking age were lowered to 18, with the exception of a few 17
year olds on campus, underage drinking problems would be virtually eliminated. However, the health risks
associated with alcohol use would still remain problematic, if not worsen.
Consider the following: the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) estimates that
over 1,700 student deaths, 599,000 injuries, and 696,000 assaults annually are directly associated with
alcohol use(2). Excessive alcohol use is associated with unintentional injury (e.g., motor vehicle crashes,
falls, and drownings), sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancy, and violence including sexual
assault(3),(4). Further, based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition,
nearly one-third of college students meet the criteria for a formal diagnosis of alcohol abuse. One in 17
could be classified as alcohol dependent(5). Would increasing access to alcohol improve these key health
indicators?
Further, those who consume alcohol in excess not only place themselves at increased risk for health
problems, but their behaviors also affect others. Wechsler and colleagues describe this occurrence as a
"secondhand" drinking effect. They found, in a national survey, that a considerable percentage of
students experienced the following negative effects from their peers' alcohol consumption: 60% of
students surveyed revealed their study or sleep was interrupted, 48% reported taking care of an
intoxicated student, and 29% were insulted or humiliated. In addition, over half the sample (55%)
indicated they experienced at least two of the aforementioned secondhand effects. Increasing access to
alcohol not only impacts those who choose to drink but those who do not as well.
Another key issue for university presidents to consider before endorsing the Amethyst Initiative involves
academic performance and student retention. Several studies indicate that excessive alcohol use
compromises academic performance. The NIAAA estimates that 25% of college students reported
academic difficulties caused by alcohol use such as earning lower grades, doing poorly on tests or papers,
and falling behind(6). According to a 2002 national survey, approximately one-third of students missed a
class in the previous year due to alcohol use(7). Research also reveals that, overall, the more students
drink the worse their grades suffer. Presley and colleagues found that third year students with an A
average consumed about four drinks a week, B students consumed six drinks a week, C students
consumed eight drinks a week, and students who received Ds or Fs averaged almost 10 drinks a week(8).
Even more problematic than poor grades, studies indicate that college drinking is a major factor with
students dropping out of school.(9),(10) Would lowering the drinking age to 18 improve academic
performance?
Clearly, the proposal to lower the drinking age to 18 would impact more than college students.
Proponents for lowering the drinking age suggest the current law is not working because of the prevalence
of underage drinking. It's true that for the average college student who is underage, it is not terribly
difficult to obtain alcohol. Many underage college students are able to acquire alcohol from their older
friends. Indeed, over half (57.8%) of all underage college students reported consuming alcohol within the
previous 30 days.(11) However, imagine if the drinking age were lowered to 18. A significant percentage
of seniors in high school, who are 18, may be asked by their younger friends to purchase alcohol.(12)
Given that the human brain continues to mature until one's mid-twenties and the risk for alcoholism
increases the earlier one starts drinking, the idea of lowering the drinking age becomes more
questionable. (13),(14),(15)
Yet proponents insist that if the United States adopted European countries' more lenient policies for
alcohol consumption, there would be a significant decrease in the drinking problems in the U.S. They
suggest if the drinking law were lowered to 18, alcohol would be less desirable because it would no longer
be considered the "forbidden fruit." However, when New Zealand changed their legal minimum drinking
age from 20 to 18 in 1999, researchers noted deleterious effects. They found increases in the rates of
drunk driving, alcohol-related car crashes, alcohol-related emergency room visits, and disorderly conduct,
all among persons aged 15 to 19 years 0Id.(16) In another study, researchers compared the rates of
alcohol consumption and alcohol-related consequences between the United States with countries in
Europe. They discovered that European youth consume alcohol in greater quantities and experience
more problematic drinking behaviors than do their same age counterparts in the United States.(17)
Somewhat ironically, several European countries are examining U.S. prevention policies in the area of
high risk drinking.(18)
Perhaps what is most disturbing about university presidents signing the Amethyst Initiative involves the
ignorance or disregard for scientific research findings concerning this issue. The results of approximately
50 peer-reviewed Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) studies consistently reveal this law works and
represents effective health policy. Maintaining the MLDA at 21 reduces alcohol-related deaths and
injuries among youth, especially automobile fatalities. The National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration estimates that each year the MLDA results in 900 fewer alcohol-related car crashes; thus,
over 25,000 lives have been saved since 1975 because of this law.(19)
Policy decisions should be based on science and research, not politics and self-serving interests. If
university presidents don't value research and base their decisions on science, who will? According to the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, excessive alcohol use represents the greatest
single problem that America's universities must address.(20) Student death, injury, academic
performance, property damage, vandalism, strained campus-community relations, and negative publicity
are all issues that university presidents and other senior administration officials must deal with because of
alcohol abuse.(21) Given the high stakes -student health and academic performance - as well as the
overwhelming research supporting the MLDA, it is surprising that any university president would sign the
Amethyst Initiative.
Instead, university presidents and other school officials should work with community stakeholders to
implement evidence based interventions. Increasing the tax on alcohol, restricting egregious drink
specials, decreasing outlet density, and increasing the enforcement of underage drinking laws all
represent effective strategies for reducing alcohol consumption with the general population and appear to
show promise with college students as well.(22) Indeed, most alcohol consumption takes place off, not on
campus. Interventions which focus on the environment rather than exclusively on the individual tend to
result in long term, sustained change.(23) The MLDA constitutes such an intervention; thus, to repeal this
policy clearly represents a step backwards.
Author Information
Dr. Tavis Glassman serves as an Assistant Professor at the University of Toledo, teaching Drug
Awareness and Human Sexuality courses. He is a Certified Health Education Specialist with a PhD in
Health Education and Behavior from the University of Florida. Dr. Glassman also holds one master's
degree in Public Health from The Ohio State University and another in Science and Education from the
University of Toledo. He has over a decade of experience working in the health education field and
currently serves on campus, community, and state coalitions concerning alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug
use. Dr. Glassman has extensive health experience, having worked at four different Division I higher
education institutions. He also has community health experience working at the American Red Cross
where he served as an instructor trainer in an array of health and safety courses for over five years. His
research interests include alcohol consumption on game day and 21 st birthdays among college students,
as well as the design, implementation, and evaluation of social marketing messages. Prior to his new
position, Dr. Glassman served as the Coordinator of Alcohol & Other Drug Prevention at the University of
Florida and was successful in reducing the high-risk drinking rate at UF by 19% over a four year period,
through a combination of social marketing and environmental management strategies.
References
1. Drug-Free Action Alliance. (2008). Keep the minimum legal drinking age 21. Retrieved November 26,
2008, from http://www.drugfreeaclionalliance.org/attachments/position.pdf
2. Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcohol-related
mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18-24: Changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual
Review of Public Health, 26, 259-279.
3. Kuo, M., Wechsler, W., Greenberg, P., & Lee, H. (2003).The marketing of alcohol to college students:
The role of low prices and special promotions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25, 204-211.
4. Naimi, T., Brewer, R. D., Mokdad, A., Denny, C., Serdula, M. K., & Marks, J. S. (2003). Binge
drinking among US adults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 70-74.
5. Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Nelson, T. F., & Lee, H. (2002). Trends in college
binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts: Findings from four Harvard School of Public
Health College alcohol study surveys: 1993-2001.Journal of American College Health, 50, 203-217.
6. National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse. (2002a). College Drinking - Changing the culture:
A snapshot of Annual High-Risk College Drinking Consequences. Retrieved November, 27, 2008, from
http://www.coliegedrinkingprevenlion.gov/NIAAACollegeMaleriaIslTaskForce/lntro 03.aspx
7. Core Institute at Southern Illinois University. (2005). Core alcohol and drug survey results:
Consequences. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from
http://www.siu.edu/-coreinstl
8. Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. w., Cashin, J. R., & Leichliter, J. S. (1997). Alcohol and drugs on American
college campuses: Issues of violence and harassment. Carbondale, IL: Core Institute, Southern Illinois
University.
9. Sullivan, M., & Risler, E. (2002). Understanding college alcohol abuse and academic performance:
Selecting appropriate intervention strategies. Journal of College Counseling, 5, 114-124.
10. Perkins, H. W. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research on consequences of alcohol
misuse in college populations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(Suppl. 14), 91-100.
11. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
Underage Alcohol Use among Full-Time College Students. Retrieved November, 27, 2008, from
http://www.drugabuseslatistics.samhsa.gov/2k6/coliege/coliegeUnderage.htm
12. Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention. (2008). Hot
topic: Minimum legal drinking age. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from
http://www.hlgheredcenter.org/servlces/assistance/lopics/hot-topic-minimum-Iegal-drinking-age
13. American Medical Association. (2004). AMA report on alcohol's adverse effects on the brains of
children, adolescents, and college students. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from
14. Grant, B.F., & Dawson, D.A. (1997). Age of onset of alcohol use and its association with DSM-IV
alcohol abuse and dependence. Results from the national longitudinal alcohol epidemiologic survey.
Journal of Substance Abuse, 9, 103-110.
15. Spear, L. P. (2002). The adolescent brain and the college drinker: Biological basis of propensity to use
and misuse alcohol. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(Suppl. 14), 71-81.
16. Everitt, R., & Jones, P. (2002). Changing the minimum legal drinking age its effect on a central city
emergency department. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 115, 9-11 .
17. Grube, J.W. (2005). Youth drinking rates and problems: A comparison of European countries and the
United States. Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Office of Juvenile Justice
Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program.
18. Wagenaar, A.C., & Toomey, T.L. (2002). Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and
Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Supplement 14, 206-225.
19. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. (2008). An examination of the criticisms of the
minimum legal drinking age 21 laws in the united states from a traffic-safety perspective. Retrieved
November 26, 2008, from
http://www.udetc.org/documents/Examination of MLDA Laws NHTSA Pub 11 6 08.pdf
20. National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse. (2002b). College factors that influence drinking.
Retrieved October 27, 2008, from
http://www.coliegedrinkingprevention.gov/SupportingResearch/Journal/presley.aspx.
21. Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention. (1997). Be
vocal, be visible, be visionary: Recommendations for college and university presidents on alcohol and
other drug prevention. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from
http://www.higheredcenter.orglpubslplgvisionarv.pdf
22. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2002c). Alcohol Alert Number 58: Changing the
Culture of Campus Drinking. Retrieved November 27, 2008 from
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa58.htm
23. Dejong, w., Vince-Whitman, C., Colthurst, T., Cretella, M., Gilbreath, M., Rosati, M., & Zweig, K.
(1998). Environmental management a comprehensive strategy for reducing alcohol and other drug use on
college campuses. Newton, MA: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.
© Copyright 2006 2010 The Journal of
Global Drug Policy
and Practice