Still fighting

When Crystal Varkalis' friend died two years ago from a drug overdose, she wanted to make sure his memory would always stay with her by getting a tattoo in his honor.

Every time Varkalis, a sophomore environmental science major, looks into the mirror, she is reminded of her friend — who was left alone at the hour of his death by others afraid of getting in trouble for participating in illegal drug use.

The winged infinity symbol inked on her shoulder is more than a testament to his life — it's a reminder of the work left to be done on getting a Good Samaritan policy established at both the university and state-level.

Varkalis, who was appointed vice president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy last semester, is only one of the many university students who are continuing to fight for a permanent and concrete Good Samaritan policy that would shield students seeking help for friends who have overdosed on drugs or alcohol.

"When it comes to someone losing their life, their friends and family close to them would trade anything — like amnesty for the friends who were with them to not get in trouble — for that person getting their life back," she said.

But administrators argue sufficient protection is already in place.

In April 2009, the University Senate voted to approve the implementation of the Responsible Action protocol — which allows students to call 911 for a friend, themselves or someone else who is drunk without fear of immediate university sanctions. The cases are dealt with on an individual basis by the Office of Student Conduct.

Last fall, 30 students who called for help received reprieve under the protocol and 24 did not. In the spring, 15 were protected and 15 were not, Office of Student Conduct Director John Zacker said, noting that most students who weren't included under the protocol likely had prior disciplinary infractions that exempted them from protection.

"Generally, our staff has been more lenient in applying the [Responsible Action protocol] than not," he said.

But for Varkalis, even one student who makes the responsible decision to call for help and still gets in trouble is too many.

"It should be 100 percent of people not getting in trouble," she said. "There should be nothing left to chance of you hesitating for any reason to not call and get help. If [my friends' friends] had called for help, things might have happened differently than the way they did. No one called for help."

The Office of Student Conduct finished up a year-long test period analysis of the protocol over the summer and delivered a report to the University Senate student conduct committee last week, stating there wasn't enough evidence from the first year to support a policy implementation.

According to their findings, 71 students were transported to the hospital in alcohol-related incidents last year. And that number has continued to increase: From 2007 to 2008, 40 students were taken, and the following year, that number was 52. But Zacker said the jump in transports isn't significant enough to indicate a cause-effect relationship between the protocol and students calling for help.

"If this increase from 2009 to 2010 was more significant, I think we then could point to a contributing factor," he said. "But the magnitude of the change is not significant. We'll continue to monitor this trend overtime and try to ascertain what's going on."

Administrators have remained adamant that giving full amnesty to students is unacceptable because there may be contributing legal factors to the situation, such as possession of drugs or destruction of property while under the influence.

Beyond that, Zacker said the chance to review students on a case-by-case basis is more beneficial to students' safety than they realize. He noted if students call for help, under the protocol they must be evaluated by a health official to determine if their own level of alcohol consumption indicates abuse, and if it does, they may be asked to participate in substance-abuse treatment.

For Zacker, the decision of whether to call comes down to an individual's personality.

"This is a character issue," Zacker said. "Call for help. Let's not be selfish here. You can plead your case afterwards rather than saying everyone gets amnesty and you don't have to answer to your own responsibility and your own accountability."

He added the debate over implementing an amnesty policy is just the aftermath of a much larger issue that should be discussed: binge drinking.

"None of what we're talking about here is addressing the root problem, which is the abuse of alcohol," he said. "There is an underlying binge drinking and alcohol abuse problem that needs to be addressed."

Zacker's office is hoping to help raise awareness with a new marketing campaign to educate students on the protocol. Posters, postcards and even bus banner ads with the slogan "Friends make the call" are in the process of being distributed throughout the campus.

For undergraduate student senator Irina Alexander, who advocated for a policy implementation last year as president of SSDP, that's not enough. This year, she is planning to go above the heads of university officials and into the offices of legislators in Annapolis.

However, in the 2009 session, a Good Samaritan bill that would provide legal amnesty to both the victim and the caller in a situation where an individual overdosed on drugs or alcohol and needed medical help was passed by the House of Delegates. But because no equivalent was proposed in the Senate, the proposal was effectively killed.

Alexander hopes this time around things will be different.

"There is a lot of support even for a state-wide Good Samaritan policy," she said. "Such a little issue like a campus Good Samaritan policy should get majority support easily. We've gone through students and parents, now we're going to try and bump it up to the state level."