Zero tolerance and the drinking policy

[Guest guest]

Okay ... I've received several e-mails in the past few days accusing me of

condoning underage drinking because of my posts concerning this policy.

Do I condone underage drinking? No.

Do I condone the types of displays that were seen in Boston? No.

So what is my issue with this policy? Two words: " Zero tolerance. "

The law is the law is the law. Fine.

It's against the law to drive over the speed limit. Suppose you get a call at

work saying your child has been in an accident. You get in your car and rush to

the hospital. Halfway there, you are pulled over by a police officer. You

explain the circumstances, but because of a " zero tolerance " policy for

speeding, he has to give you a ticket.

It's against the law to run a red light. You are out at 4:00 in the morning and

sit at a light for five minutes waiting for it to change, but it won't. There is

literally no traffic anywhere in sight. Tired of waiting, you turn. At this

exact moment, a cop comes along and gives you a ticket. Zero tolerance for

running red lights, after all.

It's against the law to drink alcohol if you're under 21. Remember my example of

the 20-year-old married couple? Is that really the same as a 18-year-old party

animal bound and determined to get bombed out of his mind? No. But " zero

tolerance " policies treat them the same.

Here's one near and dear to our hearts: It's against the law to park in a

handicapped spot without displaying your permit in the proper fashion. Suppose

you forget to display it, or you knock it off the mirror while exiting the car.

" Zero tolerance " means you pay a $100 fine because you didn't have the permit

displayed properly - even if the cop can see it on the floor, the law says it's

supposed to be on the mirror or on the dash, and it isn't.

(If you think that example is extreme, I will happily show you the two summonses

I have received under exactly those circumstances.)

It's against the law to take things from a store without paying for them. I

have, on one occasion, gone into a store intending to buy two or three things

and walking out with five or six. In the absence of a shopping cart, I put a

couple of items in my pocket, fully intending to take it out and pay for it at

the register, but I legitimately forgot. In the real world, I went back,

apologized, explained the situation, and paid for the item. In a " zero

tolerance " world, I get sent to jail and receive the same punishment as someone

who intended to steal something.

It's against the law to possess marijuana. Here in Colorado, we have a law

permitting the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Our nation's drug laws

more or less ARE " zero tolerance " which means that DEA agents are not allowed to

make a distinction between the cancer patient with a few ounces of marijuana

that she smokes to ease the pain and nausea, and the dealer with a big bag of it

that he intends to sell to your child.

Remember the story about the little kid who got suspended from school for

kissing a girl on the playground? He was suspended because " zero tolerance "

sexual-harassment policies do not permit distinctions between a six-year-old boy

kissing a six-year-old girl who wanted him to do it, and a high-school football

player making unwelcome advances toward a female freshman.

Ditto the story about the little girl who mistakenly brought Advil to class,

realized her mistake, gave it to the teacher, and got suspended because of " zero

tolerance " drug policies in schools.

I don't agree with zero tolerance policies. I believe that the people charged

with enforcing the alcohol policy should have the latitude to use their own good

judgment. " Zero tolerance " by definition does not allow them to use their

judgment - just shoot first and ask questions later. Zero tolerance treats the

20-year-old who is three weeks away from being 21 and quietly enjoying a beer

with his friends exactly the same as the 18-year-old who just downed half a

bottle of Everclear and put his head through a wall. You want to have this

policy, fine. I even agree with the policy. I just don't think it should be

" zero tolerance " between 18 and 21. (Okay, maybe 18-19.) Zero tolerance also

degrades those charged with enforcing the policy. It's the administration

saying, " We trust you with the power to ban someone from the next conference,

but we don't trust you to judge the merits of specific situations. "

So ... just to recap.

Policy good.

Underage drinking bad.

" Zero tolerance " policy potentially worse as it, by definition, allows no

latitude for the punishment to fit the crime.

All clear now?