After reading Bill Marshall's response ("Friends' safety more important than mine," April 20) to Kristen Koliba's letter ("Police should make protection priority," April 18), I found it to be contradictory. Sure, it's always great to be there for a friend; everyone needs a shoulder every now and again. That's just what friends do -- help each other when they are in need. However, why weren't you there when your friend needed you to cut off their alcohol intake? Why didn't you stop your friend from guzzling down one too many beers?

Obviously, you were partying hard with your pal as he or she was inching toward the point of puking, unconsciousness and asphyxiation. You weren't looking out for your friend then. Clearly, the friendship doesn't become meaningful until after the festivities are over.

It doesn't matter if you watch your friend's alcohol consumption as long as you'll be there when his or her physical health is in danger, right? Wrong.

Maybe, instead of repeatedly "learning" the hard way, we take a lesson the first time.

It's a nice deed to hold back your friend's hair and make sure he or she is in suitable sleeping attire.

Yet, it's even nicer to save him or her from a night of staring into the porcelain god by sacrificing a few minutes of quality party time to monitor his or her alcohol intake. In Bill Marshall's words, I believe this would be the equivalent of "seeing your friend to safety," minus the trash can.