Sobering up

Young drinkers need straight talk, not hysteria

A Phoenix editorial

This September, MIT freshman Scott Krueger drank so much alcohol at a fraternity party that he lapsed into a coma and, several days later, died. Friends spoke of a bright young man who seemed to have everything going for him.

Almost as sad is the fact that his death (and that of Meaghan Duggan, a North Andover teen who died at a party that same week) is already fading from the public's memory, with precious little yet accomplished to address the problem: the combustible mix of alcohol and young people.

With the holiday season fast approaching, it is time to do something.

The answer is not hysteria, or vague demands for "zero tolerance." As Jason Gay pointed out in the Phoenix last week, college drinking is actually less of a problem now than it has been in decades past. But, as he argued, that doesn't mean colleges shouldn't be educating students about alcohol -- or that fraternities should be let off the hook for the role they play.

And it doesn't mean there isn't a problem, and one that extends well beyond the college campus. Every day, eight young people die nationwide in alcohol-related car crashes. In Boston, 36 people under the age of 25 were killed in alcohol-related accidents just last year.

Unfortunately, the public conversation has so far focused on an impossible goal: ending all underage drinking. A more realistic -- and more effective -- approach is to ask another question: how do we keep minors from hurting themselves -- and others?

Work with college students. Students do not respond well to threats and grandstanding. Instead, administrators should begin with the premise that students will drink, but that responsible drinking can be distinguished from dangerous behavior. Students are the best ones to teach other students where that line is. Boston College, for example, uses students to patrol popular college party spots and trains them to intercede before trouble starts. Other colleges could adopt similar strategies.

There are other creative possibilities. One is a policy inspired by Students Against Drunk Driving: campus security could let students know that officers could be called for help, or even for a ride home, with no repercussions. Another idea is to establish college "get home safe" funds that allow students to call a cab for free by showing their college ID and signing a voucher.

Don't make it easy. Any business that serves alcohol has a duty to keep it out of underage hands. Establishments that flout the law deserve quick and severe sanctions.

But the Massachusetts Hospitality Association was also right to suggest, as it did before the most recent wave of concern, that those who use or manufacture fake IDs should be punished as well. The mayor has proposed a law that would make it a crime to manufacture and distribute bogus IDs. The Phoenix supports this, and suggests that those caught be required to do community service -- preferably with the victims of drunk-driving accidents -- in addition to paying fines.

Some have also suggested banning 18-plus club shows. But it's not fair to assume that teens who want to see live music are intent on breaking the law. Punish those who do wrong, not everyone.

Keep the T open. Anyone who has sampled Boston's nightlife knows this sad fact: most places stay open until 2 a.m., but the T shuts down at midnight. One of the easiest ways to curtail drunk driving in the city would be to give people a convenient alternative. Why not let the T run an extra two-and-a-half hours on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights? It could well turn out that late-night driving accidents exact a greater toll than keeping the T open. (This simple step would also go far to make the city a more lively place.)

In the end, tragedies like Scott Krueger's hinge on individual choices: Do I have another? Do I stop my buddy? Do I get into the car? As a community, we need to encourage people, whatever their age, to choose wisely.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.