This is a response to “Alcohol policy not effective for Tech” (CT, March 25). Several points were brought up and I believe there is another side that should be presented for the education of all readers and the voice of those who disagree.
First of all, both underage drinking and sex between unmarried partners is illegal and potentially harmful, but do you honestly feel you can compare the two? Have you also considered that underage drinking is a Class 1 misdemeanor, while your example of sex between unmarried partners is only a Class 4 and very outdated? In regards to sexual behaviors and their consequences, the deaths caused by them range around 20,000 each year.
I would be very interested in how many of these deaths resulted from something other than the actual act of sex — perhaps from contracting STDs or AIDS, assault and rape, or if drug/alcohol use were involved. In contrast, there are about 85,000 deaths caused each year by alcohol, and one in 25 deaths worldwide.
I think it is a viable argument that underage drinking is a policy that is enforced because of the resulting dangers and irresponsibility of those who choose to drink underage, drink and drive or put themselves or others at risk in the process. This policy is meant to protect students, not hinder or hurt them, and I believe this is evident.
Next, most officials do not believe that drinking is a misuse or abuse of alcohol. Why do you think our state law considers above a 0.08 to be intoxication?
If you are of age and responsible enough, then you won’t have a problem. However, if you are underage and drinking, which is common, then it is considered irresponsible because it is an illegal activity.
The author of the article also stated that heart disease is the number one killer in the U.S. and regular consumption of alcohol should be a part of a healthy lifestyle.
Does anyone know what follows closely behind heart disease? The answer would be alcohol related deaths. If we enjoy on average 13.2 drinks a week here at Virginia Tech as the previous author stated, then this clearly doesn’t show the likelihood of someone consuming six drinks one day and seven the next.
Binge drinking can play into this average, and to pass it off as if 13.2 drinks a week is healthy is an uneducated conclusion. Barely anyone consumes just two drinks per day, but it is very likely someone consumes 13.2 in the span of two to three days.
Consider other studies, other than the one stated previously in the first column, and you will find that two drinks per day increases your chance of pancreatic cancer. The “two drinks per day are good for you” idea is not proven, only a consideration as of now.
In response to kegs at Oak Lane, I would say that suggesting Oak Lane should allow kegs because that is the greenest thing to do is a mockery of a green initiative. The opportunity to binge drink is much higher with a keg, and thus the opportunity for deaths and injuries increases from this as well. So this is not a green opportunity, it is an opportunity to increase alcohol incidents.
The new policy about informing parents about alcohol policy violations does not impact violators but so much. Telling your parents is a right that the school has, and it is a right that is further enacted by a student’s lack of responsibility to drink in moderation or not drink until they are of age.
Most parents are told because with alcohol penalties come education sanctions. These sanctions are charged to your tuition as a fee that most (not all, of course) parents end up paying for and therefore end up having to discuss with their children anyway.
This change is not a huge one, but the point of it is that if you are that irresponsible then your parents deserve to know. I am sure that if we become parents and our children get in trouble for drinking or are thrown in jail and by some odd chance we don’t find out, we would like the right to be notified.
Overall, most students choose to inform their parents anyway — I would venture to guess about 90 percent.
A version of this article appeared in the Mar 26 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 10 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Hahaha I don't understand how you could even suggest that the current alcohol policy is the most effective. What past policies or other universities are you comparing these to? Also, are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Church?
Reply to this Top
I think she is comparing it just to the opinion of being ineffective and taking a stance on the other side. Westboro Baptist Church? hahahahaha I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with this article.
Reply to this Top
No, I am not...and if that was an attempt at a joke, that wasn't funny. You definitely need to look at what those people are actually saying, it is a hate group.
Reply to this Top
This article is a joke.
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
I bet you amount to nothing one day. Instead of feeling guilty for your wrong actions you try to justify them by putting someone else down. When you end up divorced and an alcoholic one day, don't think you didn't have the chance to do something about it.
PS: I bet you are close to flunking out because you can't even spell "Lindsay" the right way. Get a life and get your GPA up.
Reply to this Top
This article is simply awful. Overlooking the fact that it seems to have been written by a 7th-grader, the argument is complete nonsense. The author throws around unfounded and unsupported claims throughout the entire article.
"Overall, most students choose to inform their parents anyway - I would venture to guess about 90 percent."
Oh really? What evidence is there to support that? Rebutting a prior article with a *guess* is likely the most ridiculous thing I've seen in an article of this nature.
"Tech handles the alcohol sanctions very well, and I doubt the previous author has sat in an alcohol education class. I could be wrong about this statement, but if I am right I am guessing the information about these classes has been secondhand. Therefore, if anyone hasn't had firsthand experience then I do not believe they can completely write off the classes just yet."
This paragraph literally made me laugh out loud when I read it. Complete and utter nonsense. The author makes yet another unsupported claim, followed by an unsupported accusation.
In addition, the author directly addresses the author of the prior article at a few points. I consider this a terrible writing style and just added to the already horrid writing of the article. I can't believe the CT published this. Not because of the author's opinion, but because of the horrible writing and virtually non-existent argument.
Reply to this Top
In addition, some of the figures seem wrong (and are, of course, uncited) and presented in an ambiguous manner. But I'm too lazy to verify this, admittedly.
Reply to this Top
I don't see you giving any arguments to refute these. It's easy to criticize and belittle someone's article. You could get off your lazy tush and show some evidence to refute these instead of just saying about how bad something is.
I think it's an outstanding article. There is very good evidence to suggest that there are numerous deaths nationwide caused by underage drinking even legal aged drinkers. You're probably one of the people that drinks underage and instead of feeling guilty about breaking the law you put down someone that writes an intelligent article
Next time you write something without putting in statistical evidence and support of your own opinions (correct me if I'm wrong but you said that to do that is a "terrible writing style") and call out someone else for something similar, you shouldn't respond at all without that evidence. You have a terrible writing style to what you call a terrible writing style.
Reply to this Top
Perhaps you should read my response again. I was in no way refuting the author's argument. I don't even necessarily disagree with it. I was simply stating that the article was written poorly, and that the CT would have been better suited to print it on toilet paper.
And before you make unfounded assumptions about me, let me just say that I do not drink, and have therefore never been in trouble for drinking. The article was written poorly. Assumptions and guesses were used as rebuttals, and that is laughable. And I gave evidence on two of these (I could have done more) in my first response. My point was that the same argument could have been written much better, using actual evidence instead of assumptions.
So before you criticize something, try to first comprehend what the author was saying. And don't make assumptions about them - you're putting yourself in the same league as the author of this article.
Top