Herald Editorial: Proposed Social Gathering Ordinance bad for city, students

America’s policy on underage drinking is a silent controversy.  

To many the rules are asinine — that they are too conservative and too idealistic.  Many think that unlike most Western nations, America’s laws on alcohol and stringent enforcement of those laws is not sensitive to our culture.   

 But most of their voices are subdued.  It is, after all, an unimportant point of discussion to someone over the age of 21.

The voices of the underage are easy to ignore because they are so few and so reticent for fear of attracting attention to their presently illegal activities.  

They are afraid because the law uses punitive legal consequences to enforce the laws against the consumption of alcohol by those under 21.  

Minors found in possession of alcohol are jailed and fined.  Repeat offenders are jailed and fined again, more extensively.  People who provide alcohol to minors are jailed and fined.  Businesses that sell to minors are fined and/or closed for good.  If a drunken person gets too rowdy they are clubbed, jailed and fined.  

Most of the above are sent down a tedious maze of legal gymnastics and probationary meetings.  Depending on the age and offense, their criminal record is tarnished.

Despite the stiff consequences, underage drinking remains prevalent.  Society does not condone the behavior, but it seems to take it for granted.  This is especially true in college towns.

College towns are a special situation.  Thousands of students are living on their own for the first time.  The law tells them that they may not drink alcohol, but the availability of alcohol tells them that they can.

Recent legal activity at Western Michigan University has reflected Kalamazoo’s status as a college town.  Until two years ago, the law did not protect pedestrians in Kalamazoo from the breathalyzer.  

But now the Kalamazoo City Commission is considering the “Social Gathering Ordinance,” which provides heinous penalties for homeowners/lessees who fail to “control” underage drinking.

By control they mean either asking underage person(s) who are consuming alcohol to leave the premises and/or calling the police to report their delinquency.  

In September, City Commissioner Stephanie Moore proposed a similar ordinance under the title “Youth Party Ordinance.”

The Social Gathering Ordinance is the revised version of September’s Youth Party Ordinance.  Both bills are intended to address the issue of social gatherings where alcohol is consumed by people under 21.  

The previously proposed bill imposed a fine of $500 to adults who do not control underage drinking in their residence.

The charge was a civil infraction, because misdemeanors preclude recipients from employment.

The revised Social Gathering Ordinance warrants a misdemeanor for condoning underage drinking.  The maximum penalty provided by the Social Gathering Ordinance is sixty days in jail and a fine of up to $500.

The rationale behind adding the sixty-day jail term is unclear.  The practicality of the revised Social Gathering Ordinance remains uncertain.  

This is, after all, a college town.  The Social Gathering Ordinance will not stop the game-day parties.  

This bill presents a danger to a college town.  People go to college to get a degree so that they can find a good job.  If, during attendance, their record is tarnished by some trumped-up party ordinance, then the purpose is defeated.

Short URL: http://www.westernherald.com/?p=10775

Posted by heraldstaff on Oct 25 2009. Filed under Editorial, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

http://HeraldStaff