So it apparently all comes down to this: Loyola's zero-tolerance policies are what force innocent Loyola students to become binge drinkers. Or no-- better than that-- the uptight parents who raised these students are at fault, as their stunted conservative morals damned their children to a college career of alcohol. Because, obviously, we cannot expect a single Loyola student to be held accountable for her/his own drinking pattern, nor for whatever breaches in the law that such patterns may entail. And, of course, we should alter the laws to reflect this inability of young adults to control themselves, so that society adequately panders to the lowest common denominator. Who are we kidding?

You know, maybe I could have bought that line of reasoning as applied to an age group ten years our junior, but the fact is we're now legally adults. Not only capable of being, but expected to be responsible for ourselves and our actions. And the knee-jerk reflex of blaming outside forces for our own behavior is no longer supportable. At a certain point, it must be acknowledged that drinking, like so many other activities, is fundamentally a personal decision, not one foisted upon any discerning person against her/his will. A student at Loyola chooses whether or not to drink. And, in making that decision, s/he must recognize its potential repercussions, and be prepared to deal with them.

Why is it that we are allowing a double standard toward the action of unsafe drinking that we would never permit concerning any other unsafe activity? (In writing this, I am specifically labeling binge drinking as unsafe, I do not mean to demonize drinking in moderation.) The "intrepid facade" of our culture is not that we don't recognize that college students drink, but that college students don't see a problem in the manner in which they drink. Beyond even that, that students have learned to view laws restricting drinking as insidious limitations, a mentality rarely applied to seatbelts or helmets. Nevertheless, the basic tenet and intent of the laws concerning all three is identical. Why then is there no similar push toward "changing the attitudes of parents" so that we can cruise around free of the unsavory burden of lapbelts? Do students whose parents made them wear seatbelts as a child now cavort ecstatically around the car when they drive, reveling in their emancipation from buckled bondage? No-- because choosing whether or not to wear a seatbelt, just like choosing whether or not to drink, is a personal decision. Outside factors may influence you, but they never determine you.

Loyola already tacitly supports a "drink sensibly" approach; speaking to any representative from the Alcohol and Drug Education and Support Services will more than validate this assertion. Loyola is more than lenient with its alcohol policy, especially in juxtaposition to the state and governmental laws regarding underage drinking. That this leniency doesn't affect the decision of Loyola students to get drunk completely undermines any push to alter laws as a means of altering behavior. The regulations and punishments have already been lessened; the instances of drunk students at Loyola have not.

Loyola's problem, as I understand it, is not of the presence of alcohol, but instead of the mentality concerning it: students drink to get drunk. This has nothing to do with pandering to "fragile parents," nor with Loyola's supposed "zero tolerance policy," nor with societal conventions, nor with American "hypocrisy." It has everything to do with personal accountability and decision making. As convenient and contemporarily omnipotent as it may be to blame poor judgement calls on others, each person must ultimately acknowledge that s/he is responsible for her/his own actions. And must accordingly accept the aftermath, no matter how unpalatable it may be. No sane person should be held exempt from the repercussions of their own actions, no matter how disagreeable those may be. Welcome to social reality.