Should you give alcohol to a recovering alcoholic? The answer to this question, no matter what the circumstances, is no. Alcoholics experience powerful cravings for alcohol that inhibit their ability to control the amount they consume. Cravings can't just be subdued by extra-strong will power.

Alcoholics aren't to blame; it's simply out of their control. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism explains that "cutting down" on alcohol intake doesn't work on the road to recovery. Completely cutting alcohol out is necessary for a successful recovery.

Seven out of 10 inmates in Wisconsin's prison population have substance abuse problems. Many are alcoholics. Why, then, are members of the Wisconsin state Legislature advocating for prisoners to have access to alcohol? Our correctional systems are supposed to be a place of rehabilitation and preparation for reentry into the outside world. Teaching alcoholics that it's OK to have "a little" alcohol is not acceptable rehabilitation.

The Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association's lobbyist is registered against Senate Bill 174, which would allow prison inmates access to alcohol during a religious service. I can understand why — this bill creates more potential security threats for law enforcement officers both inside and outside of our state prisons. Corrections officials have expressed their concern that allowing inmates to consume alcohol will defeat their efforts to curb alcohol abuse.

Many offenders are in jail because of alcohol-related crimes; when these people return to society, where the amount of alcohol they consume isn't monitored, what will stop them from relapsing into their old destructive behavior? If this bill becomes law it certainly won't be anything they learned in prison, where the message is "a little alcohol doesn't hurt."

Contrary to what Senate Bill 174's supporters would have you believe, refusing to allow inmates access to alcohol is not a violation of First Amendment rights. I take First Amendment rights very seriously, and value them immensely. In a prison system, however, these rights don't mean the same thing. Every reasonable effort to afford prison inmates their individual rights should be made.

Any supporter of Senate Bill 174 who argues that refusing to allow inmates access to alcohol is a violation of First Amendment rights isn't telling you the whole story. There is plenty of precedent in place that should guide lawmakers from even considering reckless laws like this one. Perhaps most notably, in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Turner v. Safley that "when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests" [emphasis added].

Would anyone consider granting prisoners their Second Amendment right to bear arms? No, because penological interests would be threatened. Should inmates who are struggling with alcoholism be allowed to consume alcohol in the name of the First Amendment? No, because penological interests would be threatened.

The argument that religion can help some people back on the path of recovery is a valid one. Religious counseling and study can be crucial in the rehabilitation process for some people. Prisoners shouldn't be prevented from exercising any religious practices that don't threaten penological interests. And that doesn't just apply to Christians (who seem to be the only religious group Senate Bill 174's authors are concerned with). The Turner decision should be used to guarantee exercise of religion rights to inmates whenever possible. But once you allow members of one religion to exercise freely, be prepared to allow the same freedom to members of every religion.

Beyond this, though, what the bill's supporters failed to consult in this instance was common sense and the need for safety and security in our state's correctional systems. The order we impose within our prisons is a necessary component of the rehabilitation process, which should above all teach inmates how to make reasonable, safe decisions once they return to society. Senate Bill 174 undoubtedly impedes this success.

Liz Sanger ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in violin performance and English.