Debate: Is STOP program necessary? (Part 1)

Minors seeking a buzz should be wary of the fuzz.

Since 2001, the Franklin County Stop Teenage Opportunity to Purchase program has targeted underage drinking near the Ohio State campus. Its initial intentions were feasible and positive. Over the years, however, it has become a widely ineffective program that intimidates students, distracts police from more pressing issues and is hurting the reputation of the police.

When it was adopted, STOP focused on outlets that sold alcohol to minors. Any guilty business would face a fine or lose its license, which was a reasonable way to halt a minor's ability to purchase. STOP lost its direction when it began ignoring the "P" in its title.

Therefore, the program is basically chugging more than it can swallow. It has transformed from hindering minors' ability to purchase alcohol to the completely unreasonable task of hindering their ability to drink it.

STOP oversteps the necessary boundary of punishment. Offenders are often taken to a real jail and attached to hardened criminals. While this undoubtedly strikes fear into the student, it also makes a joke of the police department.

"What are you in for?"

"Armed robbery. You?"

"Flip cup."

This situation may not accurately portray conversation in the cell, but it does symbolize the attitudes shared by most students, which in turn complicates the duty of Columbus police.

They are, in essence, alienating the very people they wish to protect. While underage drinking is in violation of the law, there are more pressing issues surrounding us than a 20-year-old cracking open a room-temperature Natty.

Even if the program did render only positive results, its effect would still be minimal. A police force arresting five violators in one night would likely represent less than 1 percent of underage drinkers. That is not to say that all efforts should be thwarted just because something cannot be stopped, but in the grand scheme, nothing is changing.

Proponents of STOP could argue that any percentage is better than nothing; that arresting just one person is worth it. However, if taxpayer dollars were going toward a litter clean-up program and only 1 percent of the litter was cleaned up, would it be worth it?

Another claim is that alcohol consumption leads to reckless behavior like rioting. But do only minors riot?

If rioting is a problem, it is a problem regardless of who does it. Target rioting, not just underage drinking. Target the streets and sidewalks, and not houses and apartments. If police have to search for the problem, then is the problem that severe?

STOP's downfall is common among specialized programs. They begin with good intentions but inevitably expand, quickly spoil and become ineffective. It is time for the Franklin County Sherriff's Office to STOP: Suspend This Overreaching Program.