Proponents of an all-inclusive Good Samaritan policy received good news before spring break: State Attorney General Doug Gansler officially concluded that enacting a drug amnesty policy would not violate state law. Since the legislation has been stalled in the University Senate for the last few months while senators waited for Gansler’s recommendation, his opinion officially marks the beginning of what’s sure to be months of debate on this polarizing issue.
The existing Good Samaritan policy, passed by the senate last spring after four years of debate, only protects dangerously intoxicated students who call 911 for themselves or a friend from university sanction; the new extended policy, which undergraduate senator Brandon Levey officially submitted last semester, would also protect students who have drugs in their system or on their person.
Now that Gansler has weighed in, the Senate Student Conduct Committee has officially been given the green light to review the proposal and the full body will ultimately vote on it. Though they’ve received the attorney general’s approval, students still have major mountains to climb – chief among them being many older senators may not be in favor of such a policy for various reasons. This editorial board would like to educate those senators on why an all-inclusive Good Samaritan policy is necessary to protect students and how foolish it would be to not support it.
Claim No. 1: Enacting a drug amnesty policy would actually condone drug use.
Why that’s wrong: The current proposal would not protect students who have been accused of manufacturing or selling drugs. Instead, it would prevent punishment for students with no drug-related disciplinary record. The student, in exchange for punishment, would enter mandatory treatment and counseling. This policy is by no means revolutionary; if anything, the university is behind on ensuring student safety because 50 other schools across the country – including one in this state, Washington College – have similar policies in place.
Claim No. 2: Such a policy could violate state and federal law.
Why that’s wrong: Gansler has already confirmed that such a law holds water in this state. On the federal level, the Drug-Free School and Communities Act states that “a disciplinary sanction may include the completion of an appropriate rehabilitation program.” Levey’s proposal includes this mandate and ensures the follow-ups aren’t punitive, so students aren’t deterred to call for help. Additionally, the Board of Regents – the 17-member gubernatorial body that oversees the University System of Maryland – has also given the OK to craft such a policy.
Claim No. 3: There isn’t enough research to prove a drug amnesty policy is necessary or would even be effective.
Why that’s wrong: Let’s look at the statistics. According to a 2011 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, drug overdose caused more than 36,400 deaths in the United States and is now the second-leading cause of unintentional injury deaths, trailing only car accidents. Another 2011 study, from the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, showed that hospitalization rates for drug overdoses increased 55 percent between 1999 and 2008; hospitalization from combined drug and alcohol overdoses increased 75 percent.
Here’s the scariest part: A call for help occurs less than 50 percent of the time when someone in the U.S. overdoses, according to 2005 research. The biggest reason for not calling? Fear of police involvement and punitive retribution. A Good Samaritan policy can change that. A 2011 study in the Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice found students are 2.5 times more likely to call for help during a medical emergency if they’re aware a drug amnesty policy is in place.
In the end, senators should really only have to ask themselves one question: If your child were to overdose on drugs and be unable to call 911, would you want there to be anything preventing others from assisting? The failure of an all-inclusive Good Samaritan policy will increase the chance that your child – or someone else’s – dies alone and without help. A drug amnesty policy will decrease the number of seconds someone debates calling 911. And in these situations, seconds can literally determine life or death.
