More than 100 college and university presidents from across the country recently made waves in the debate over whether our legal drinking age should be lowered by banding together via petition to advocate rethinking the age 21 limit.

The movement, called the Amethyst Initiative, began more than a year ago based in part on the rationale that lowering the legal age may help curb binge drinking on college campuses. Many of these college elite argue that the legal drinking age of 21 has been ineffective in combating the problem of binge drinking and driving under the influence among the 18- to 20-year-old set. While we certainly don’t doubt that these college presidents have the best interest of their students in mind, it is perhaps not the age limit but our message against the dangers of drinking irresponsibly that is ineffective.

Lowering the legal age is not really a lasting solution, especially for our state, where in recent years, we’ve raised the age requirements for driving legally, yet many are discussing lowering the drinking age for already young, inexperienced and impressionable drivers.

What the Amethyst Initiative will hopefully do, however, is spark debate on how to effectively relay to young drinkers — no matter the age — the harsh consequences and all too often fatal realities that come with drinking irresponsibly. Based on the statistics, we have failed to effectively deliver that message — a truth that has already cost far too many lives.

No matter the age limit, we need to drive home the message that yes, consuming alcohol is perfectly legal for those who meet the minimum age requirement, but getting drunk and getting behind the wheel and drinking irresponsibly is often deadly and too great a risk to take in any situation.

According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statistics, there were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 — 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year. The 16,885 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes. And while the number of alcohol-related fatalities has steadily decreased nationally since the 1980s, Georgia ranked seventh in drinking and driving fatalities in 2005, according to NHTSA.

Many agree with the often argued point that 18-year-olds are old enough to be sent off to defend our country, and they’re old enough to cast ballots to decide who will lead our country, yet they are still too young to drink legally. That is a point duly noted, but yet there has been no counter argument in favor of raising the enlistment age or the voting age. Rather than focusing on lowering the drinking age, perhaps we should direct our energies to developing dialogue on how to teach responsibility and send young drinkers a better message.

Yes, the drinking age in most European countries is lower than the legal age here in the United States, but there are also other cultural arguments to be made on this point. Mass transportation, which helps to prevent drinking and driving, is more prevalent overseas, as well as other cultural mores that make social drinking and alcohol in the home more commonplace and overindulgence an often frowned upon action.

Binge drinking, or the consumption of large amounts of alcohol over a short period of time often leads to tragic endings — alcoholism, DUIs, suicides and roadway fatalities. The only way this harmful exercise will be eliminated is if we focus on changing the culture that created it. It’s a culture where having a fake ID is a college rite of passage, first-time drinking excesses are glorified, and a listing of the top 25 party schools is released each year. Allowing 18-year-olds, many of whom will still be in high school when they take their first drink if the legal limit is lowered, will do little to change that culture.

If the motivation behind the Amethyst Initiative is truly to create impassioned debate on underage drinking, then we welcome this debate — but younger drinkers won’t necessarily make more responsible drinkers. Maybe lowering the legal drinking age one or two years is a more viable solution.

It’s a possibility — after all, maturity doesn’t necessarily come with age. But binge drinking and driving under the influence are issues that warrant more than a quick fix. These issues warrant our undivided attention in an open and honest discussion in an effort to save lives.