Approximately 100 university presidents from around the country urged lawmakers to lower the drinking age down to 18, stressing the current law encourages students to participate in dangerous binge drinking.  The movement — started by John McCardell, president of Vermont’s Middlebury College — is called the Amethyst Initiative. They started recruiting university and college presidents about a year ago. These presidents issued a carefully worded statement that didn’t explicitly call for the lowering of the drinking age and instead asked for “an informed and dispassionate debate” about the issue.I hate to do this to all the underage students, but I just can’t agree with them.I know there is the obvious, over-played claim that if you can die for this country, then you should be able to buy beer. I don’t buy it — not everyone under the age of 21 is forced to join the military for any period of time. Those brave souls who do fight for the country make a choice to do so. The Amethyst Initiative’s argument suggests that if the drinking age is lowered then drinking won’t be such a big deal when students get to college. That may well be true but won’t it just be a big deal for even younger students? Will it suddenly be the middle of high school when kids are 16? That’s a great idea — high school kids who just received their driver’s license being able to drive to the store to buy booze. Sixteen-year-olds can’t drive as is. I can only imagine the amount of DUI’s and drunk driving accidents that will happen if the drinking age is lowered. One university president who hasn’t weighed in yet is LSU chancellor Michael Martin. Martin said on August 26 that he is “going to resist the temptation to sign on.” He said he hasn’t really seen anything of substance to make him want to sign.  Martin said he was “a little surprised” when the presidents came out with their request.  “Is this an issue that university presidents should be involved with anyway?” Martin asked. The chancellor said the University’s job is to provide a safe and successful environment for students. In response to a question about what steps the University would take if the drinking age was lowered, Martin responded that the change in law would “force us into serious change. The University would have to change orientation.”Martin was concerned about students wanting to stock residence hall rooms with booze and the possibility of students buying younger people alcohol. Martin believed the change in law would add more stress to local law enforcement. There is one group particularly unhappy with the Amethyst Initiative. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) expressed great displeasure.”As students head back to school, more than 100 college and university presidents have signed on to a misguided initiative that uses deliberately misleading information to confuse the public on the effectiveness of 21 law,” according to August 19 MADD news release. It is quite clear to me why university presidents might want to lower the drinking age. It will reduce institutions’ liability. If everyone is able to drink then there is less of a chance universities would be held responsible for the actions of students intoxicated on campus. If people are concerned about lowering the drinking age, they should just urge their state legislatures to lower it. The federal government says they will withhold federal highway money if states do lower the age, but there is a way to counteract federal withholdings.In Louisiana, where drinking seems to be part of the culture, the state Legislature absolutely could decide to lower the drinking age to 18. Then to counteract the loss of federal funds the Legislature could enact some kind of tax on alcohol. The state would have to make up around $4 million per year based on numbers from the late 1990s from the Louisiana State Highway Commission. I couldn’t find how many fifths of liquor are sold in Louisiana, but based on observations made by tailgating, a dollar tax on every fifth of liquor and case of beer would probably make us square. In the end though, I see no need to lower the drinking age. Most people have their first drink long before they turn 21, regardless of the state’s law. Whether it’s in high school or at their first house party in college, it doesn’t really matter. As of right now I see no good reason why we should lower the age. Besides I’ve already waited for 20 years and 10 months — and with only got two months to go, I’m not opposed to telling teenagers to get in line and wait like everyone else. —-contact Matthew Gravens at [email protected]