Imagine that you are underage and receive a call from a friend who has been drinking illegally and needs a sober ride.
Should you be penalized for going to help those who are seeking it? If there is an emergency situation, should you have to fear legal and academic punishments before taking what you know to be the right actions?
That is the question being raised in North Andover, Mass., as a 17-year-old volleyball player is penalized by her high school for going to a party to give her friend a sober ride. The school has handed her a suspension and stripped her of her title as team captain.
These consequences have come even despite responding officers vouching for her sobriety and not issuing her any citations. Doing what many would consider the ‘right thing’ has quite literally cost young Erin Cox and thrust her into the national spotlight, begging the question of how noble intentions could lead to such negative consequences.
In light of events such as this, 11 states began offering ‘Good Samaritan’ amnesty measures dating back to the early 2000s. These policies permit people who may be drinking underage or engaging in some other illegal substances the ability to seek help when necessary without the threat of legal repercussions.
Typically these states protect the person calling about the emergency, and some even offer immunity to anyone who receives treatment. In the latter cases, they tend to offer educational programs to the individuals rather than traditional punitive measures.
According to studies published by the Students for Sensible Drug Policy, SSDP, an advocacy group for these amnesty clauses, should a person be overdosing, there is only a 50 percent chance that one of their peers will call 911 to seek help.
Typically, the primary reason for this hesitation is said to be a fear of legal repercussions. States with these special amnesty provisions prevent that fear, and therefore, have a greater chance of people calling when help is needed.
Much like the states, about 240 universities nationwide have crafted similar regulations within their codes of conduct. Cornell University, for example, established its amnesty provisions in 2002 and saw an increase in calls to emergency services in necessary situations. Despite the greater number of calls and administrative fear that amnesty would lead to more irresponsible behavior, reports indicate that there was no significant increase in alcohol or illegal substance consumption among its students.
College students, in particular a group that is automatically linked with overindulgence, are 2.5 times more likely to call 911 when witnessing the signs of alcohol poisoning if they are aware of some form of medical amnesty.
Does it not seem that both administrations and students benefit in these situations? Neither side must face the knowledge or consequences that inaction on their part was a factor in the potential loss of a young life.
Despite this, UTM is not a member of that list of schools providing amnesty. Specifically for a school that maintains a strictly dry campus, students may be even more intimidated to take appropriate courses of action, but those moments of hesitation may be the difference between life and death.
Surely we at UTM are not necessarily in the same boat as the young woman in Massachusetts, but we, much like her, must be diligent in our demeanor any time we even come close to a drop of alcohol.
Like her, our amnesty is not guaranteed and our futures may very well be tarnished even when we intend for nothing but good.
