State Rep. Terese Berceau recently introduced a piece of legislation that would add alcohol to the state’s list of intoxicants that can reverse the agreement of sexual consent. Removed from the list in 1997, alcohol is not currently on a list of registered intoxicants for which users of the given drug lose their ability to give consent to sexual intercourse.

Though we feel the state, through statute, has an inherent responsibility to safeguard victims against sexual assault and allow them appropriate avenues for recourse, we believe the rights of the accused must not be overlooked.

Wisconsin statute currently includes a surprisingly expansive list of controlled substances that can influence a victim’s state of mind to the point they can no longer consent to sex. Some substances, such as Roofies, are known for their connections to predatory rapists, but the list also includes drugs like marijuana and cocaine. Drugs like these are taken voluntarily, and users should be held responsible for their actions, especially considering that getting stoned or coked-up does not interfere with one’s ability to consent in the same way more traditional “rape drugs” do.

The last thing we would advocate (or the state should in any way condone) is predatory sexual abuse. Certainly, alcohol can be an abetting force in this endeavor. But ultimately, under the umbrella of consent, the use of alcohol should not alone allow someone to reconsider the consequences of their actions.

Alcohol currently is considered an intoxicant in all other aspects of state statute. The use of motor vehicles, watercraft, and all-terrain vehicles while consuming a nominal amount of alcohol is illegal under state statute. All of these laws assume drunk individuals are responsible for their actions; cases of a sexual nature should be no different.

Should this proposal be enacted into law, the possibility for frivolous legal recourse for apparently consensual sex enters the realm of possibility. Though alcohol can be used aggressively, its ingestion is a choice, and the consequences of that choice are matters of personal responsibility. Adequate penalties exist for sexual intercourse with a person who is determined genuinely incapacitated. If a person under the influence of alcohol is asleep, a second-degree rape charge may well apply. Lower degrees may still lead to conviction even if someone is conscious but sufficiently impaired.

Due to alcohol’s widespread use on this campus and its frequent association with sexual encounters, we fear the possibility of “after the fact” accusations that may place the innocent in peril of undue prosecutorial action. There are no definitive means that can be used to judge the rational capacity of an individual who is under the influence. For some, the line could be three drinks. For another, it might be 10. The use of alcohol is a choice that has inherent risk; its use does not relieve the drinker of all personal responsibility.