It is my duty to inform you that, if you're under age 21, you've already been entered into the Penn State Police's fantastic "Backward Lottery."

Here's how it works: You go out on the weekend and you drink. The vast majority of the time, nothing of note happens. But sometimes, the police show up and get you in trouble for drinking underage. There's no rhyme or reason to this lottery, and anyone can be a winner. Or a loser, as the case may be.

Far be it from me to question the actions of a police force that would rather look for crimes on Facebook.com than actually go out and prevent them. But I'm beginning to wonder if local efforts to curb underage drinking aren't woefully misguided.

The big tip-off on this one came on March 17, when a Penn State freshman attempted to climb out of sixth-story dormitory window to avoid being cited for underage drinking. Now, obviously, alcohol played a big role in this situation, but nevertheless, this was an individual who decided he'd rather risk life and limb than face a drinking citation. Perhaps these citations are a bit too scary. If you've been drinking underage, when you see the police, you're first inclination is probably to run, and if not, you're certainly afraid.

Underage drinking is always a difficult issue to tackle, particularly in a college community. We'd like to think that the emphasis is on making sure everyone's safe at all times, no one's getting behind the wheel and the punishments are reserved for those who put themselves and others at risk. But I guess this requires a little too much effort, and the lottery method is the faithful fallback.

No one benefits from this system, however. Some college kids who don't have money have to beg their parents for cash to cover a fine and nod off through some alcohol education courses. A few parties get broken up at random; the police earn their paychecks. Everyone's still drinking recklessly, but what are you going to do?

There's a nice model for how these situations should go in Pennsylvania's seatbelt laws. Police don't pull people over for not wearing a seatbelt; however, if you're pulled over for another offense and you don't have a seatbelt on, you're fined twice. No one who's not being dangerous, belligerent, violent or otherwise causing a disturbance should receive an underage drinking citation in Happy Valley. There should be an added penalty for those who harm property, drive drunk, supply alcohol to others or otherwise violate the law while drunk.

Put this policy into effect, and does anyone suffer? No.

Harmless 19-year-olds hanging out at a house party no longer need to fear becoming victims of random busts, and police have more time to try and prevent more dangerous behavior.

Most importantly, however, we would no longer have the instinct to run if we saw the police. There's nothing more unsettling than a culture in which people are afraid of the police. Perhaps if this policy were implemented, we would even see them as (God forbid) a positive presence. Maybe we'd be more willing to let the police know when a truly dangerous situation was emerging, instead of saying nothing, lest we get everyone at the party in trouble.

In no way should we have to see local police as stern and powerful authority figures, and in no way should local police wield their power irresponsibly. We need to find a way to see law enforcement as allies, not enemies. Penn State University Police aren't going to earn our trust by entering us into a backward lottery, one in which the "winners" actually end up losing quite a lot, with overly punitive jackpots. And we're not going to get there by running screaming into the night to avoid underage citations.

We have to remember that in a town with such a drinking problem, we need to continue to review the process to ensure we are dealing with it in the most efficient manner.

Making students afraid of law enforcement isn't going to get the job done.