St. Paul’s new social host ordinance was expected to send shock waves through the St. Thomas party scene this weekend when the law went into effect Friday, Dec. 11 at midnight.
“I don’t think people are that worried,” senior Peter Faulhaber said. “I think St. Thomas students in general are pretty responsible.”
St. Paul passed the ordinance back in October with the hopes of curbing underage drinking. Faulhaber thinks it will cut down underage consumption because it will be harder for younger students to find a place to drink.
“I think people in general are going to be a little more strict on letting people in that they don’t know,” Faulhaber said. “I think it will be hard for hosts to turn away people that they’re friends with, but there will definitely be a decline in just random people showing up.”
Junior Taylor Keup agrees with Faulhaber. He and his three roommates decided not to host any more parties at their house because of the new ordinance. But Keup said the ordinance won’t live up to its original goal of reducing underage drinking.
“It’s not going to stop [underage drinking],” he said. “It’s just going to be smaller, more underground. I don’t feel like people would ever stop drinking just because there is a law.”
Ashley Bolkcom can be reached at awbolkcom@stthomas.edu
Perhaps this is an attribution error. As all (I hope I can be so generous to assume “all”) students, faculty, staff, and administration are aware, this week is finals week. While I am aware some students did not amend their weekend routine, I would like to give our student body enough credit to believe they were spending more time in the books that at the bottle this past weekend. With the upcoming Christmas holiday and J-term, the drinking violation numbers will stay artificially deflated. The true effectiveness of this ordinance will be tested once students return to campus in February for the spring semester.
Point one: Good point, Corey. Should be interesting to see what happens in February.
Point two: I don’t have any problem with the article, and in fact I’m glad the Aquin is covering this story so well. I mean… TommieMedia. Sorry. Still haven’t gotten used to that. However, I’m confused on one point: the headline says that the ordinance is having “some effect,” but both of the two sources for the story seem to suggest that it’s having (or will have) *no* effect. This would seem to contradict. Am I missing something and/or misreading here?
They both stated it would have an effect. To what degree is unknown, but I don’t think that either of them said it would have “no” effect. Keup said his housemates “kinda agreed not to do that anymore.” While he did go on to say it will not stop it, this is an effect. Also, Peter referred to him and his friends when saying it will have little effect. Keup lastly stated they wouldn’t have any body over anymore. If you were looking for a more drastic effect, you are right in that neither of the two thought it would eliminate drinking.
Fair points, Brett. Thanks.