Some students have accused State College officials of favoring draconian methods of curbing student drinking, but the recent suggestions from some officials in Madison, Wisconsin appear to be just as bad, if not worse.

The Madison Alcohol License Review Subcommittee proposed that bars in that city, home to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, have their drink specials regulated by the city. The underlying idea is that drink specials lead to increased alcohol consumption, especially during weekdays. According to The Badger Herald, the University of Wisconsin's student newspaper, a subcommittee member said, "Alcohol is already regulated and licensed and limiting drink specials is a reasonable consideration. Alcohol consumption is a regulated activity for the benefit of society at large."

Understandably, Wisconsin students are pretty upset. As one student said, altering drink prices might only serve to thin students' wallets, not to hamper their alcohol consumption. It is also questionable whether it is within the city council's jurisdiction to regulate drink specials at their local bars.

This is another example of a city council's misguided att-empt to curb binge drinking. Council members' hearts are in the right place, but their methods are ridiculous. City councils in college towns are obligated to make regulations that protect their citizens, but often, drinking laws are foolishly applied.

Yes, binge drinking is a problem in college towns. However, in their efforts to curb excessive drinking, city councils have a tendency to trample on other people, usually students and local businesses.

The suggestion from Madison city officials is comparable to the recent suggestion from State College's borough officials to install surveillance cameras on East Beaver Avenue. Instead of stopping binge drinking, the cameras would be used as a deterrent to rioting (although some may argue the two go hand in hand).

City and town officials in every state must remember that rules designed to help certain citizens can often harm the others.

Plans to impose strict regulations on local establishments and installing surveillance cameras fall into the last category and should be promptly tossed out.