Collegiate Times

How does the CT staff take itself seriously?

here is your drug education: Drugs are bad, mmmmk... That FSU girl committed a crime. She was given a very legitimate ultimatum. Legalizing and monitoring drug use would make things worse. I know I can get drugs in several places right now for fairly cheap. So why legalize it and takes the mess out of it? Legalization would make it harder to find and more expensive? Stop doing drugs while you think about leglizing drugs.

*tax instead of takes...wow I can't type

After I left that comment, I just realized that the article is about a VT policy. There were like two sentences about the actual topic...what a joke

oh my I have a wonderful idea...this will help out the people who don't have medical insurance (re: Everyone deserves right to medical treatment oped ). How about all you liberal hippies that don't have health insurance use your drug money to buy an insurance policy. This way you won't be putting drugs into your system, you can pass drug tests and get jobs and THEN you'll have health insurance so those of us who work our asses off won't have to pay for your dumb choices. BRILLIANT. Problem solved.

This guy is crazy! Eliminating the zero tolerance policy pretty much just gives people the license to be stupid. However, my biggest problem with the article is that this guy writes the exact same article like once every two to three months! Its a broken record. If you wish to advance your cause, why don't you talk about other aspects of your cause instead of the same one every time?

This is ridiculous. Drugs are illegal and eliminating the zero tolerance would give people an open door to do drugs, which is not what we are all about.

I like "BRILLIANT" from Alumni. Drugs are ILLEGAL just like ILLEGAL immigrants and DUI and anything else that is, excuse me for putting this in simple terms, 'against the law'. To stop enforcing a university policy because the druggies don't like getting kicked out is ridiculous. I hope that VT hands these individuals over to law enforcement for full prosecution. 'Come on dude, it's just a little meth, it's no big deal'. WRONG. Perhaps drug users should do a little more self education on the harmful effects of any type of drug. It seems like everyone supports an administration that enforces the law.

I don't think you guys understand what the article is arguing. The idea is to replace the 'zero tolerance' policy with a '3 strike rule', or whatever is similar to the current underage drinking policy. It won't be an 'open door' to do drugs, students caught will still be punished with probation, JR, drug education etc. First time offenders just won't be immediately suspended.

Please. Don't act like you haven't used Marijuana at least once in your life. The legalization of Marijuana would, in the long run, cause no damages. Just like there are alcoholics, there will be potheads. However, saying that all Marijuana users are "liberal hippies" is the same as saying that all drinkers are useless drunks. Some people drink, some get drunk. Some people use Marijuana, some people get stoned.

Actually, I never have used Marijuana. Marijuana is unnecessary. Come up with a legitimate argument instead of the same old lame junk like "alcohol is legal, so pot should be too."

Virginia Tech needs to ease its zero tolerance drug policy. Its current policy of a one-year suspension for a first drug offense seems harsh. Perhaps denying a student of the right to take part in any college sports; of being eligible for the Dean's List; and additional restrictions would be punishment that fits this crime better than a one-year suspension. Perhaps a one-year suspension could be imposed for a second drug offense, and permanent expulsion for a third offense. These seem to be more reasonable and appropriate punitive actions that Virginia Tech should be taking to decrease -- or eliminate -- the use of illegal drugs by its students!

Hey, I have a great idea, how about you just not break the laws unless you are ready to deal with the consequences.

Brilliantly written, and you hit all of the good points. Kudos to you. This is a health problem, not a criminal problem.

Regardless, Mr. Seabe (and others), Virginia Tech is entitled to enact and follow through with any policies it deems necessary to ensure the health and safety of its students. Just like I can tell visitors to my house that they are not permitted to smoke inside, VT has every right to take whatever action it wants to dissuade, really, whatever actions it wants. It's not a question of health at all - in effect, it's a question of right ownership. VT gets to make its own rules - and an implicit part of accepting the offer to attend the school is an acceptance of the extra rules the school employs.

Kyle, I absolutely agree with you. However, just like they have the entitlement to act in the way that they see fit, that doesn't mean it's idiotic policy that in essence removes the students from the best form of dissuading drug abuse: education. If they feel that this is the best way to tackle the issue, then they are entitled to feel this way. We, however, are also entitled to see the flaws with the policy, the harm that it's causing, and call for change in policy.

Ah...typo. I forgot "doesn't mean it's NOT idiotic policy..."

It's never really been made clear, though, where the idiocy in the policy lies. There seem to be a fair number of people who approach the subject with a 'well, I smoke pot, and it'd sure be sweet if there weren't any legal repercussions to it. . ' attitude. To many people, the notion that ANY punishment should be dealt out for indulging in marijuana is sheer idiocy. I don't smoke myself, and after witnessing some Miami denizens smoking on the beach next to us, I can't say that I would ever understand why anyone else would want to do it in the first place. It ought to be a non issue - if for no other reason than that the stuff seems to serve little purpose aside from allowing people to indulge further into a hedonistic ideal which is ripping our society apart. . .

Kyle, bro I hate to facebook, but you say all this and yet "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" is one of your favorite movies?? Mine too! Maybe society isn't really getting so ripped apart after all. On another note, this was a good read and this most definitely IS an issue - and ought be one too.

Paul, 'bro,' I have to inform you that the last time I even looked at what I had listed as interests etc. couldn't have been more recent than a year and a half ago. That having been said, I enjoyed Harold and Kumar because it is a farce - and one which, to a high degree of effectiveness, demonstrates how ridiculous people who smoke marijuana recreationally can be. The notion of 'medical marijuana' is an interesting one which ought to be further investigated, but recreational drug use doesn't really have any useful purpose other than the glorification of the self. One ought to spend one's time doing productive things. . .

bro, who are you to be telling people what they "ought" to be doing?

Kyle, I guess musicians, artists and authors aren't "productive" members of society? Marijuana is not harmful, to anyone. No one has ever overdosed on it and if it were legalized, the violent crime that comes with prohibition would be reduced because it would be cheaper and regulated by the free market, instead of the black market. VT should get with the times and accept the fact that marijuana use doesn't have substantial negative consequences, unlike alcohol. Also, several states (Michigan, Vermont, Ca, Mass. and Colorado) are very close to legalizing it bc they see how much money they waste trying to stop it to no avail. I don't smoke, but I am all for it being legalized, not just for the medical benefits it provides but also from an economical and social standpoint, society would be better off as a whole.

People will spend money on marijuana whether it is legal or not; the last 40 years are a testament to this. Therefore, we need to decide if profits from marijuana sales should go to CVS shareholders or to violent drug cartels. I vote for the former.

It seems to me that some of you need to be educated on virginia techs marijuana policies. There is an automatic suspension of two semesters and you can't transfer any credits from a CC. The university does not provide any sort of education or drug reform. The benefit of this policy is that students get scared so they drive around an smoke MJ. This makes the roads in and around BBurg more dangerous. How do i know this? I was suspended for possession of less than one gram of marijuana. I was a freshman in WAJ. I had decent grades (3.07 first semester). I mean sure they could have been better but i managed to smoke some pot and be a productive citizen at the same time. Whats also amazing is i never OD'd on it and the worst harm to other people was not the marijuana but the fact that VT kicked me out for it.

BTW...marcus vick...ankle stomping, child raping, wonder boy was only suspended for one semester, not the standard two. What does this say about the university and its view of students based on the money they bring in?

Alum - not quite sure I understand your initial point. One of my degrees was in Music Performance, so it's not as though the arts are lost on me. If you truly believe that the drugs an artist uses dictates the art he creates, you may want to take a few more arts appreciation courses. With the noted exception of Berlioz who was heavily addicted to opiates, most of the world's greatest musicians didn't really require the use of drugs in order to create the beauty which they did. Either way, at issue here is not legalization but whether or not VT's policy is legitimate. My original point was that nobody has ever really demonstrated to me what sort of social benefit is derived from smoking a plant which has, for better or worse, been made illegal. If there's some redeeming value to it, please tell me - otherwise, I don't really see how smoking weed is really helping us to movie society forward.

The university has no business imposing itself upon students' personal decisions. People should be free to behave as they please, so long as they do not harm or infringe upon the rights of others. The university should be no more concerned with any student's personal drug use than it should be with his or her sexual habits or diet. All those choices should be considered private, as they fall well within sensible boundaries of a person's own freedom. Grades should matter; personal decisions should not. As for "Alumni" near the bottom of the page, you incorrectly presume that all of us "liberal hippies" who welcome an honest examination of drug policy in this country, from the national to the local level, also support such an irrational idea as socialized health care.

But, Jayton, you're missing the point here - as arguments centered around this particular topic tend to do - that the discussion isn't about whether marijuana should or shouldn't be legalized. The discussion concerns the validity of a statute enacted by the University in an attempt (albeit one of dubious success) to curb illicit drug usage among its patrons. You can't have it both ways, when you juxtapose issues like the marijuana policy with issues like concealed carry on campus. Either the University has the right and prerogative to take actions its administration believes to be in the best interests of the student body (and more importantly, of the image of the University as a whole) or not. When push comes to shove, VT is above all else a business venture, as any college is - public image is paramount, and the administration is well within its rights to enact such policies.

Kyle, do you think the university should take a more Draconian stance on underage drinking? Automatic suspension for 1st time alcohol offenders would curb alcohol use. And just like marijuana, it is unlawful possession of a controlled substance. The goal of this argument is to convince the administration to change their policy and treat marijuana like underage drinking. As students, we are well within our right (some might say duty) to come out against policies of the administration that we see as insensible and unfair.

Well, for my time, I don't really care one way or the other since I'm not a student at VT anymore. That having been said, I think the VT administration ought to do whatever it feels it needs to do in order to operate its business model successfully. I can't explain to you why the alcohol policy is one way and the pot policy is another - but someone at some point figured that the university probably looks not quite so rigorous and safe to prospective customers (generally speaking, parents of prospective students) if marijuana use is swept under the rug, so to speak. Keep in mind, most parents grew up and went to college during a time when the drinking age was, in fact, 18 - and to that end, the only reason why the drinking age is 18 is because states lose federal highway funds if they don't legislate it as such. The point is, though, alcohol has less of a social and legal stigma attached to it than pot. So it makes sense to me that the administration emphasizes its policy as such - since its first responsibility is marketability.

Well this is turning into a really constructive and active comment board. Kyle, just because your no longer a student at VT is no reason not to care about drug policy, so I'm glad to your engaging in this discussion. What I love most about drug policy and also why I believe it is slowly but surely moving up the ranks as an issue of importance in the US is because it is so bipartisan. There is the issue of national security with respect to the lack of border control when we continue allowing a money-making market to be supplied by drug cartels. There is the libertarian argument that the government should not enforce what we do with our bodies if we are not harming anyone else. Also, there is the liberal argument that the government can do more to improve the public health when drug use is regulated and brought out in the open rather than kept hidden; when addiction is reason for treatment rather than incarceration. All are legitimate arguments that take different views toward why we should end prohibition, but each argument is alike in that they are pragmatic.

I think your right to say VT enacted its Zero Tolerance policy mainly for sake of marketability. In the late 80s, Zero Tolerance was a buzz word and the case was made that the solution to drug use is punishment. To say this policy has not failed is to ignore reality. We now have the highest incarceration rate in the world. The way to solve this problem is to reexamine who we consider criminal. Since drug users who commit no other offense are non-violent, we should come to the conclusion that drug prohibition is presumptuous. So, while there is every reason to punish a person who commits the crime of driving drugged or selling to a minor, the state could, at the same time, regulate and control the distribution of drugs to adults. The price of doing so is realizing a "drug-free America" is unattainable. So, rather than eliminate drugs, we eliminate drug cartels and drug violence.

Virginia Tech complies with the law whether they kick students out for drugs or not. The point I try to drive home is that by kicking students out, Virginia Tech forgoes the opportunity to educate and counsel them into healthier lifestyles. So now that students have raised this question, Virginia Tech's marketability is again at stake. Do administrators care more about punishing students or guiding them toward better health? Also in the case where VT policy is deterring students from calling for help when a student overdoses, (again) do VT administrators car more about punishing students or saving their lives?

I think you're offering a false dichotomy of choices there, Kris. In many cases, punitive aspects of laws ARE educational; part of the job of the university is to train its students to be model citizens, and model citizens take it as their duty to obey laws. Note that obeying laws is NOT the same as implicit support for laws. Incidentally, and I haven't looked at the stats for this in a long time, but it was always my understanding that the most violent and successful cartels didn't market the 'softer' drugs like marijuana - there was much more of a market for the higher-priced drugs like cocaine. Before we make blanket assessments that legalizing pot would directly reduce the amount of drug-related violence in the US, we really ought to do a little more research. . .

Kyle: I don't think I miss the point at all. As I stated before, the university should have no opinion regarding personal behaviors among its students unless such behavior either a) results in the harm of persons other than the user, or b) has a noticeably negative effect on the user's academic (or athletic) performance. Of course the university administration has the prerogative to enact policies which it deems to be of benefit; however, I find Virginia Tech's policy regarding drugs to be quite the opposite. Automatic suspension of students who are found using drugs which have arbitrarily been deemed illicit is extremely detrimental to those accused, and the idea that such policies actually curb usage rates is quite dubious. Besides, as a publicly funded institution, Virginia Tech should under no circumstances have the ability to restrict the personal liberties of its employees or attendees.

Jayton, I agree, and if VT did go back to taking a hands-off approach, then the law would not change but students also would not face unnecessary suspension. Having met some students who do have serious problems with drugs, I do think VT should take on the role of ensuring those students be assessed to receive treatment. Kyle, I offer no false dichotomy when I say that students caught with drugs should not be suspended but should be assessed for treatment by those most qualified to do so on campus: our Cook counselors. They have PhDs and years of substance abuse treatment experience. So to say they would be less effective than whatever educational experience may or may not arise from suspension is, quite frankly, an insult to our counselors.

One more thing Kyle, I've done my research and cartels, whether violent and successful or not, do not "market" drugs. They control the market because our government opts out. Demand for drugs already exists; they don't need to go marketing for it. About 50% of US demand for marijuana is brought in from outside our borders. Cartels don't need to run television ads like alcohol (which I oppose btw - unlike all my libertarian friends, some regulation is good). Cocaine is an addictive and potentially dangerous drug, which is all the more reason our government should be the one to control its trade.

Of course legalizing marijuana would not eliminate cartels and drug prohibition violence, but it would severely defund the cartels and that quite possibly decrease the violence. With eliminating drug prohibition entirely, the cartel members would be unemployed. Face it, your argument supports drug kingpins, dealers, cartels, drug prohibition-related violence. It does not have to be your argument because this failed prohibition was not our making, it thrown down upon our generation. Also, with the taxes we would reap, we could afford effective drug education. Chances are you took DARE and have, therefore, never received effective drug education. Also, an idea I have is tax incentives for promoting the public health. So, if a licensed marijuana dispensary is "non-smoking," they would receive a tax break. This could greatly improve the public health if people ate or vaporized their marijuana, cutting down on smoking. Kyle, I would like to hear ideas that you bring to the table...

Honestly, Kris, I don't care one way or the other. I'm as freedom-oriented a guy as the next, and the only point I've really tried to make here is that VT is well within its rights to continue to enforce a policy its leadership believes to have a positive impact on the quality of the product they are selling. I don't smoke marijuana, and I don't ever intend to do so - I've never understood what compels people to intentionally alter their brain chemistry when it is otherwise functioning adequately. The legal aspect of this is really irrelevant to me - what this discussion entails, though, is a point of policy enacted by a semi-private institution, and I'll fight to uphold VT's right to enact such policies internally with the same vigor with which I defended the rights of private restaurants to permit smoking inside. The principles here are identical.

Kyle, your arguing that VT has the "right" to suspend students for a year for drug possession is not being contended, we are arguing from within VT to our administration that its policy is less effective at its goal then the alternative - counseling and education. I don't know if you've ever been to counseling, overcome an addiction, or made a drastic change in your habits to better your health, but I would hope you can at least imagine that it is difficult. If drug use is as problematic to the academic community as VT says it is as justification for having this policy, then it should be confronted in the most effective way. One on one, rather than a failed blanket approach.

Also Kyle, just because you don't smoke marijuana doesn't mean you can't accept the fact that over 9,000 current hokies reported doing so - idk, probably they find it enjoyable. SSDP neither condones nor condemns drug use, we seek sensible policy. The point is that our policy has little to no effect on whether or not these students use drugs (administrators have told me this in person). So, why scare them from counseling, and if you truly are a freedom-oriented guy, why punish them for what they are going to do? I believe in freedom, which is why I say anyone can do what they will with their own bodies if their not harming anyone else. Oh, and just because you don't smoke marijuana is no reason not to support its legalization. Beyond the freedom aspect, its prohibition is probably keeping a good amount of hempseed (highly nutritious) out of your diet and is exporting our hemp growing and manufacturing jobs to Canada and across seas while we turn around and buy their products. That's just not smart policy during an economic recession or ever for that matter.

Also Kyle, just because you don't smoke marijuana doesn't mean you can't accept the fact that over 9,000 current hokies reported doing so - idk, probably they find it enjoyable. SSDP neither condones nor condemns drug use, we seek sensible policy. The point is that our policy has little to no effect on whether or not these students use drugs (administrators have told me this in person). So, why scare them from counseling, and if you truly are a freedom-oriented guy, why punish them for what they are going to do? I believe in freedom, which is why I say anyone can do what they will with their own bodies if their not harming anyone else. Oh, and just because you don't smoke marijuana is no reason not to support its legalization. Beyond the freedom aspect, its prohibition is probably keeping a good amount of hempseed (highly nutritious) out of your diet and is exporting our hemp growing and manufacturing jobs to Canada and across seas while we turn around and buy their products. That's just not smart policy during an economic recession or ever for that matter.

Keep in mind, though, Kris, that sensibility is in the eye of the beholder. From some standpoints, someone might argue that reckless drivers ought to be executed. Child rapists? Executed. Thieves? Executed. Hell, if we had a penal system in which any felony was punishable by death, we'd have a lot fewer felons roaming the streets. Now, of course, that's not really a realistic way of doing business - but to some people, it's sensible. You work your way up a slippery slope when you use the 'they're gonna do it anyway' argument, because the same can be said for repeat felons - if we keep lettin' them go free, and they keep doing bad stuff, should we just stop prosecuting them since 'they're gonna do it anyway?' Finally, effectiveness has more to do with desired result than anything else. If the desire is to purge marijuana from VT, then expelling users from campus seems a pretty effective method. If the desire is re-education and curbing drug use, then it is only mildly effective. But I'm not an administrator, so I don't know which is the point. . .

Also, just as an aside - I was never enrolled in a DARE program. I got just as much drug education as everyone else in my public school - by which I mean, like all the other students, health class was naptime. I don't do drugs because I don't trust them to interact nicely with my brain. I figure that I do pretty well for myself right now - I can't imagine that smoking pot, snorting coke, or shooting heroin is REALLY going to improve my life drastically. It's expensive, it can be addicting, and it doesn't seem to have much real benefit. Plus, I'm a musician so the health of my lungs is paramount. Just FYI.

One of the Rockefeller drug laws in NY gave capital punishment to convicted heroine dealers. You know what the effect was? The number of police killed on duty drastically increased. It seems when, under this law, a heroine dealer receives the same sentence for killing police officers as for being caught, they more often than not chose to do whatever they could to not get caught. Now that this latent function of the law was discovered, this policy is no longer seen as sensible and it was repealed. When judging a policy's effectiveness, you cannot use tunnel-vision. So while you and our administrators have assumed that suspending users from campus seems a pretty effective method, I have been arguing all along that it is not. Over 9,000 current students reported smoking marijuana; less than 30 a year caught and kicked out. Meanwhile, the LATENT FUNCTION of our policy would only logically stand to deter the over 9,000 students from counseling to reduce or eliminate their use. While we have to use logic and not data to reach this conclusion, it can also be assumed given data relating to it which shows that students report the #1 barrier to calling for help during an alcohol-or other drug-related emergency is not wanting to get their friend in trouble and another barrier is not wanting to get self in trouble.

Kyle, your arguing as though purging marijuana and counseling/education are two distinct things, when the reality is that counseling/education are preventative means. Also, I've never even implied that you should use drugs, I'm a musician too, all the more power to you. If you are to continue caring about this policy enough to continue arguing about it (which I hope you do), I urge you to research the history of the drug war, of marijuana prohibition, and of VT's policy, so that you are fully aware of how we got to where we are. The fact is that VT is a land grant university (our tax dollars directly fund the land that VT uses) - and just out of due respect for the students - this policy should have been discussed with the students before enacted 20 years ago when we were out on Spring Break. No wonder we enacted a less effective policy than the alternative, when it was passed behind our backs.

Grow Chief,choice revolution sleep figure significance text lovely sense play necessarily identify following allow network immediately substantial later code promise little holiday finger seat association affect occasion study television date flower coal interpretation silence tree bone war simply industry human wing century thanks low task county garden ignore yeah increase rain fast artist walk railway according social display careful international length deal action programme surely trial pool damage good dangerous mile rural fully answer scientist line check blue former college time set farmer early colour shape realise approve