Underage drinking will always be a part of the growth, learning and experimentation that takes place in college. This does not make it any less illegal, as there are national, state and local laws that reflect how those governing bodies have decided to prohibit those under 21 from alcohol. But regardless of what people believe about the wisdom of this prohibition, it is up to the local police to decide how these laws are enforced.
Policy decisions made by the ASU Police were outlined in the Aug. 19 State Press article "Police target on-campus drinking." The article describes how, in addition to alcohol enforcement shifts for the first three Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights of the semester, ASU Police intend to use plain-clothes officers to enforce alcohol rules in residential halls (which are dry). Apart from the heat and subsequent sweat stains, the only reason to have officers in plain-clothes patrol the dorms is as a transparent attempt to deceive students. Such deception has the ability to undermine the open and trusting atmosphere in which collegiate learning endeavors take place.
While the use of plain-clothes officers is likely to result in a few more citations than having the more obvious black and blue roaming the halls, those few citations are harmless when compared to the additional police policy that would subject hospitalized students, who were drinking underage, to citations. Per the ASU Police zero-tolerance policy toward drinking, if you are underage and sent to the hospital you will be subject to a citation. This policy is a rejection of medical amnesty, or the idea that students who are hospitalized or call in a friend who needs to be hospitalized do not get punished for underage drinking.
Such policies have already been put in place at various universities across the country, yet were rejected at ASU. The 2007 article "More colleges offer 'amnesty' for drinking violations" in the Chronicle of Higher Education mentions that ASU officials decided medical amnesty was unnecessary. ASU director of wellness and health promotion Karen Moses is quoted, "we want to do things that are evidence-based, not shots in the dark." Yet the same article mentions how medical amnesty has been used 100 times in the two years since Emory University changed its policy.
The present ASU policy sets up a potential situation where students must weigh the possibility of alcohol poisoning against the certainty of being subject to citation by the police. And what does this policy gain in return? Maybe a few more students cited in a hospital.
But there is something the University actually gains from refusing a medical amnesty program: the ability to continue to use the "zero tolerance" moniker in describing alcohol enforcement. At some point the decision was made that a zero tolerance policy with a medical exception was too intricate, soft or contradictory. Thus, a zero tolerance policy allows for more restriction and enforcement in response to continued failure of prohibition.
Other routes are available instead of increased restriction, enforcement and non-students wandering through the dorms, such as the Red Watch Band program at SUNY Stony Brook. This program trains student volunteers to properly respond at parties to possible alcohol poisonings, giving out CPR certification along with characteristic bright red-banded watches which are supposed to remind people every second counts.
Luckily, it is not too late for ASU to reconsider medical amnesty. Until then, think before you drink.
Send pleas for amnesty to djgarry@asu.edu
