The Borough's alcohol ordinance

The alcohol ordinance that was sent to the Princeton Borough Council last Friday will likely do very little to end underage drinking at Princeton. It could certainly make it a far more dangerous — and even potentially deadly — activity.

The Borough Council is right that drinking at the University can be a problem. No one, neither the University nor the clubs, wants to see students taken to McCosh or Princeton Medical Center after a night at the 'Street' that was a bit too wild.

The ordinance, however, while certainly well-meaning, and presented only as a way to further the best interests of the community — including students — is a poorly designed way to combat a complicated problem with a very long history. The supporters of the ordinance have not considered the actual effects that the law might have.

If the ordinance were to pass, students who could no longer drink in a relatively public space would find privacy in dorm rooms and other places to meet and to drink. They would supplement beer with hard liquor and in the process run a greater risk of consuming alcohol in dangerous quantities. There would be smaller crowds and no club officers present to help those who might become ill. Even worse, the ordinance could push students to locations further from campus. A student holding a bottle of beer in one hand and car keys in another is a greater problem than anything with which the 'Street' is now faced.

Eating club officers, ICC Adviser Alice Teti '00 and USG president Joe Kochan '02 understand the Borough Council's concern. They should be commended for their efforts to reduce underage drinking in the clubs. The Board of Trustees' own alcohol initiative was created specifically for Princeton, by those Princetonians who know the University best. These are the people who should be designing a policy to reduce underage drinking at Princeton.

Kochan, Teti, the ICC and the Trustees have a clearer understanding of the problem and they approach the situation with a keener sense than the Borough Council can muster. Members of the University community have made concerted efforts to improve the overall environment of the 'Street,' and they take the problem seriously. This issue should not be taken out of their hands.

The Borough Council is right to be nervous. But its efforts will never succeed without considering the ramifications of a new law. There are better ways than the ordinance to solve the problem. If the council is serious about making progress, it should listen to those who are best informed. It should work with the 'Street' to create a cooperative plan of action. Anything less may, unfortunately, be counterproductive.