The most intriguing part of the presentation was the mention of a Medical Amnesty policy, also called a Good Samaritan policy, is a system that encourages students to call medical personnel if a person has too much of a substance, whether it be alcohol or other types of drugs. Under this policy, both the person in need and the person calling for help would be immune from legal repercussions, such as a Minor in Possession charge, or MIP, which is a common penalty among student partygoers. Upshaw’s brother died that night because his fraternity brothers decided not to call an ambulance because many of them feared they would be prosecuted. Had this policy been in place, it is far more likely one of them would have been willing to call for help.

Under the current policy, as many students know, if medical assistance is called, police often come as well. When this happens, it becomes law enforcement’s decision whether or not charges will be filed because often among college parties there is underage drinking or some kind of illegal activity happening.

The fear of prosecution because of the “zero-tolerance policy” is outweighing the fear of death. In most cases, it is not blatantly obvious if a student is at risk of alcohol poisoning and death, fellow partygoers see the risk of death being less than the risk of an MIP. Sometimes this assumption is backward, and in those rare cases, there is tragedy. In the past few years, at least one student has died from partying at MSU. If one student dies from an overdose, that is one student too many.

Those against this policy point to the possibility that the Medical Amnesty policy will become an enabler for underage drinking. The capital fear among lawmakers and law enforcement is that students will view this new policy as a “get out of jail free card.” In many cases, though, after a student is treated for a drug- or alcohol-related emergency, he or she is forced to go through a drug awareness program, something many students would still view as burdensome (as well as useful) but not as detrimental as an MIP. Furthermore, when one looks at places where the plan has been implemented, such as Cornell University, one can see the effectiveness of Medical Amnesty.

A study in the second year of the policy’s instatement showed students who reported they did not call for help because they “didn’t want to get the person in trouble” decreased from 3.8 percent in 2000 to 1.5 percent in 2004. Furthermore, the percent of students treated for an alcohol-related emergency — emergencies which could have been fatal — nearly doubled, from 22 percent to 52 percent. If just one of those treatments was a life-saving one, then there is no argument. Medical Amnesty saves lives; it is invaluable.

Fortunately, I joined the campaign to see this law passed in East Lansing. As I said before, what stood out most to me from Upshaw’s presentation was the mention of this policy. I saw it as something that could really make a difference. I got in contact with her and the team she was a part of here at MSU. Unbeknownst to me, the fight for this law has been in the legislative branch more than eight months ago, when it was first written and submitted. Aaron Letzeiser, ASMSU director of Governmental Affairs, said in an email, “This set of bills has an incredible amount of state-wide support. … After spending a considerable amount of time in Lansing, we have a gained a great deal of bipartisan support for Medical Amnesty and the question now isn’t if the bills will pass but when … My hope is that we will see the passage of Medical Amnesty by early 2012.”

I originally planned to write this column as a call to action for students, to unite their voices and get this bill passed. However, upon learning that its implementation is imminent, this article serves to inform students of what is coming: a law that will, perhaps more than any other piece of legislature, make partying safer for students.

Jameson Joyce is a State News guest columnist and James Madison freshman. Reach him at joyceja1@msu.edu.