Editorial: Drunk dialing for good reason

Underage drinkers whose friends are suffering from alcohol poisoning might finally be able to… Underage drinkers whose friends are suffering from alcohol poisoning might finally be able to call 911 without fear of criminal punishment.

State lawmakers have recently proposed bills that would eliminate penalties for the first underage drinker to request help for a friend who needs medical attention. Though alcohol laws normally spark controversy, this legislation is refreshingly uncontroversial. The state Senate already unanimously passed its version of the bill, and advocacy groups usually against easing alcohol-related penalties are in support, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

These legislators and groups are using pragmatism to prioritize the safety of citizens over aggressive, unjust policies that trump up claims of deterrence. Underage or not, no alcohol consumer intends to drink so much as to warrant a stomach pumping. If medical attention is needed, the legal deterrent means penalties for a concerned friend: a summary offense for underage drinking, a fine and possible 90-day loss of driving license. This proposal would not encourage more binge drinking, rather it would lessen the hesitation to call for help.

Ideally, no petty citation would stop someone from calling for medical attention when necessary. However, the line between necessary and not is hazy, and even more so when that person has been drinking. By adding hindered judgment and possible peer pressure not to “be a narc” or a party pooper, penalties only further discourage a potentially life-saving call.

This legislation serves a noble purpose. Some details have yet to emerge, though. For instance, if only the “first caller” is granted amnesty, will others get cited if they wait for an ambulance with their poisoned friend? What if three roommates drink together and one falls ill? Will one roommate get charged while the other gets a pass? Some of these issues need to be addressed to reduce any lingering fear of prosecution for distressed drinkers.

Also, swathes of students would benefit in other ways. Many professions require blemish-free records. Future teachers, lawyers or officers would not have to worry about one offense ruining their lifelong careers.

Underage drinking as a whole is still a crime, but this proposal rightfully assists people caught in dire circumstances.

To meet halfway, Felicity DeBacco-Erni, program director for the Pennsylvania DUI Association, advocates alcohol-education classes. Rather than criminal records and other consequences, callers would have to attend 12 hours of class. That is a fair trade-off that would hopefully provide some substantive information in the process.

Legislators, lobbyists and college officials must alert the University community about this proposal. If it passes — as it should — the policy would only prove effective if underage drinkers know they would not get in trouble trying to help a friend.

Underage drinking happens. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people aged 12 through 20 account for 11 percent of all alcohol consumed in the United States. This policy would at least address some of the dangers that come with this reality.