To the Editor:
Your story on the resolution of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) negotiations with the Hanover Police Department ("New 'internal possession' policy adapted," Mar. 28, 1995) makes several errors, as has nearly every story [in The Dartmouth] on this matter.
First, it is a minor error to refer to the students involved as "minors"; people between [the ages of] 18 and 21 are adults, not minors, even though they lack some of the legal rights (though none of the responsibilities) of adults over 21.
More importantly, the Hanover Police were decidedly not arresting only "intoxicated" young adults, but those who they felt had been drinking at all. Your own stories bear this out:
-
On Oct. 25 you reported that "Giaccone said police used a hand-held breathalyzer unit two or three times during the summer. In all the cases, Giaccone said an officer who encountered a group of students smelling as if they had been drinking used the test to determine which of the students had consumed alcohol."
-
On Oct. 26 you reported that Chief Giaccone "said police only approach students if they have a reason to believe the student is underage and has been drinking."
-
On Feb. 7 you reported that "College Proctor Robert McEwen said the increase in underage drinking and public intoxication arrests could be due to better enforcement, rather than more incidents of possession."
Moreover, I know from talking to the students themselves, and from reading arrest reports, that students with Blood Alcohol Contents (BAC) as low as .02 were arrested, handcuffed, taken to the Police station and forced (yes, forced) to take AlcoSensor tests. A single beer will cause a BAC of .04 in a 100 lb. person, .03 in a 120-140 lb. person, and .02 in a person over 160 lbs. This means that some of these young adults who were arrested while leaving a fraternity or sorority party were actually very responsible drinkers, who had had a drink or two, and then gone home -- or tried to go home, until they were stopped, interrogated, arrested, shackled and taken to the police station.
I find your McEwen quote most revealing, given that neither underage drinking nor public intoxication is a violation of any New Hampshire law, while both are violations of Dartmouth's alcohol policy; it would appear that what the ACLU put an end to was the Hanover Police enforcing Dartmouth College rules, rather than New Hampshire law. How nice of the Hanover Police to agree.
True, an underage adult, while consuming a drink, does violate the New Hampshire law (RSA 179:10) that prohibits underage possession of alcoholic beverages (not possession of alcohol, note, but of alcoholic beverages). But to suggest that an 18-year-old who has two drinks is indulging in "alcohol abuse" is preposterous, as is suggesting that we should have Big Brother "help" this person by arresting and shackling them. In saying this I am not denying that there are drinking problems at Dartmouth or other colleges. But what was going on in Hanover was in many cases a hystericaly hyperbolic reaction to responsible drinking, even had the police activities been legal.
But they weren't legal. And as I pointed out in an earlier letter to The Dartmouth, while underage drinking is not a serious crime, illegal police activity most certainly is. I am still very upset that the administration at Dartmouth seems to think that illegal police activity is just dandy, as long as it serves to punish behavior that they don't approve of.
It seems to me that the vicious witch-hunt called the "war on drugs" is now spreading to encompass even the legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. And it's not just the right-wing religious types who feel this way; it's increasingly part of the "liberal" dogma that to smoke at all, or to drink enough to get a buzz on, is a heinous crime -- excuse me, I mean a terrible sickness that requires involuntary treatment and 12-step programs. Maybe soon we can look forward to severe prison sentences for drinking and smoking. And then we can go on to impose them for eating high-cholesterol foods, eating meat, sleeping late ... why, anything that Jim Baker, Jerry Fallwell or the health-food folks think we shouldn't do.
Well, maybe not. Getting the ACLU involved has caused the Hanover Police to stop making illegal arrests, which I do find encouraging (even though we ordinary citizens don't get off this easily; imagine having no criminal charges made if a defendant agrees not to break the law any more!) What bothers me is that it had to take the ACLU, instead of outrage by faculty, administrators or just local citizens, to bring this about.
