Once in a while, the Crimson flounders out of its depth on an issue that happens to hit close to home. One such issue is the recent strengthening of Massachusetts' alcohol law to forbid possession of alcoholic beverages, under any circumstances, by minors.

Last week's staff editorial about the new alcohol law ignores one important fact: this particular law is a positive force in society. To extol the law's virtues on a moral basis would be silly; morality might guide our legislators, but it concerns the overall fabric--not the letter--of the law.

The legislators who proposed the change in the existing law are not latter-day Puritans. True, Massachusetts has had a history of government-imposed Christian morality. But this state has so many unenforced laws left over from the Puritan era that such name-calling is preposterous. More accurately, the state legislators are people who are aware of the decline in drunk-driving fatalities that has resulted from increased drinking restrictions all over the country.

The extended scope of alcohol possession laws can be supported by a purely practical argument. Take the analogy of highway speed limits: if the limit is 55 m.p.h., people on average might drive 65. If the limit is 65, people on average would drive at some higher speed.

Increasing the legal prohibitions against use of alcohol by minors has the same effect. Setting a higher restriction increases prevention, even if adherence to the law is not 100 percent. This rationale also justified raising the drinking age from 18 to 21.

One might argue that the expanded alcohol law has no positive effects at Harvard because few students have cars--hence, fewer can drink and drive. That is not the issue. The law was changed for Massachusetts as a whole, not for the 200,000 college students in the Boston area. If highway fatalities drop by any appreciable amount in the next few years, it will be worth putting a crimp in some college students' social habits.

The law takes the University to task for its administrative policies toward alcohol control. For example, would alcohol counselors be criminally negligent if they did not report instances of underage possession? For one thing, their knowledge of possession is necessarily post facto in most cases. Furthermore, no priests or psychiatrists have ever been held accountable for similar admissions of such trivial wrongdoing by their 'clients.'

On another front, Yard proctors and house resident tutors might have to change their current look-the-other-way attitude towards underage drinking in the College. Without advocating an invasion of privacy, proctors and resident tutors can try to be more vigilant in admonishing their students for perceived instances of underage drinking.

Proctors and tutors should not be made to act as law enforcement surrogates, but some are all too frank about the small scope of their concerns. Since Harvard's current system of successive warnings allowed some evasion of the old law, a dormitory supervisor would not be any more of an accessory to the crime than before.

Even if proctors and tutors do not step up their warnings about alcohol possession, Harvard's vast corps of security guards and police could execute the law if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided to push for enforcement in its universities.

For many incoming first-year students, college is the place to discard the restrictions that shaped their adolescent lives. To that end, many use their first encounters with alcohol as opportunities to drink to excess. Residence in the Yard makes a student an obvious target for enforcement of the new, expanded law. Predictably, several first-year parties were shut down during orientation week and shopping week. As usual for first offenses that occur on campus, no students face legal prosecution.

As a more or less direct result of the initial crackdown, many first-years, some asking for heavy drinks, started showing up at parties in the houses. Because upperclass students' parties are unlikely to be shut down unless they are blasting music after 1:00 a.m., this turn of events still allows first-years ready access to alcohol. Even though the majority of the students in the houses are still underage, this situation provides a convenient dodge for the University. For students here, the law might become another ignored Puritan ordinance.

The final question must be whether alcohol has to be so integrated a part of the College experience. Students who are self-righteous about their booze in casual conversation might have trouble defending their stance on paper without making a complete assault on the drinking age as it stands today.

The upshot of the law's enactment as it relates to Harvard and Radcliffe is that not much will--some would say should--change on campus. Harvard University is neither the main target nor the expected enforcer of the law. Too often, we forget that most of us are visitors in a state that has other concerns besides the pleasantness of our stay.