Pubdate: Mon, 23 Mar 2009
Source: Collegiate Times (VA Tech,  Edu)
Copyright: 2009 Collegiate Times
Contact:  http://www.collegiatetimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/699
Author: Kristopher Reinertson
Note: Kristopher Reinertson is the president of the  Virginia Tech 
Chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

TECH ADMINISTRATION SHOULD RETIRE ZERO  TOLERANCE

I would like to raise awareness of the lack of  celebration for the 
20th anniversary of the enactment  of our university's zero tolerance 
drug policy - a  policy that our administrators would be wise to retire.

In the fall of 1988 we welcomed President McComas to  Virginia Tech. 
On his first day on the job, he held a  meeting with the deans and 
provost expressing his  concern for students' quality of life outside 
the  classroom. March 17, the next semester, Virginia Tech  enacted 
the zero tolerance drug policy while students  were absent on spring 
break. There was not even a  mention of this policy change in the 
Collegiate Times  the entire year.

Why no celebration? Well, first of all, there is no  evidence the 
policy has worked. Drug use rates have  increased, and more than 30 
percent of current students  have reported using marijuana. Since 
fewer students  were using drugs before zero tolerance, it is hard to 
believe that kicking students out of school for a year  for 
first-time possession has had the deterrent effect  that proponents 
of the policy sometimes claim.

Despite the draconian mandatory minimum sentencing laws  and the 
fervid public support for coming down "hard on  drugs" in the late 
1980s, drug use was at a low across  the country. This did not stop 
politicians from calling  crack an "epidemic" and using the issue for 
political  expediency. The "hard/soft on drugs" rhetorical  dichotomy 
has always undermined productive discussion  of the issue and 
citizens act wise to give politicians  who use it the deaf ears they deserve.

The reality is that we have kept a profit-turning  market in the 
dark, attempting to distance ourselves  from the millions of 
Americans who use drugs by calling  them criminals while pretending 
these people are not  our daughters, sons, cousins, brothers, 
sisters, aunts  and uncles. When the parental instinct to protect 
our  youth becomes the groupthink that politicians seize to  get 
elected, our best intentions have paved the way for  our worst nightmares.

Innocent Mexicans are being killed and decapitated by  drug cartels 
that terrorize for greater market share  and access to trade routes, 
an unarmed college student  was raided and shot by the police in 
Michigan for  possessing a few tablespoons of marijuana, and Rachel 
Hoffman - a member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy  and student 
at Florida State University - was killed  after police gave her the 
ultimatum to go undercover or  go to prison for buying marijuana.

As well-intentioned as the ideal of a "drug-free"  America may be, 
these policies have proven unsuccessful  because they lack the 
reality that our politicians  eventually came to acknowledge in 
passing the 21st  Amendment repealing alcohol prohibition: Americans 
will  use drugs and prohibition only creates an unnecessary  culture 
of crime. We left Al Capone and speakeasies in  the past, but now we 
twiddle our thumbs pondering why  drug cartels are keeping us from 
enjoying spring break  in Mexico.

"Drug violence" is "drug prohibition violence," and the  "War on 
Drugs" is a "War on People." Alcohol is a drug,  but we don't see 
Miller and Anheuser-Busch killing each  other and terrorizing in turf 
wars. We regulate the  market, ban television advertising (for 
tobacco), ID  users and strip the licenses from businesses that 
violate these practices. We can and should do the same  with marijuana.

If there is something good that is coming from our  economic 
recession, it is the chance to end ineffective  policies just as 
Prohibition was ended after the Great  Depression. Our new Attorney 
General said that medical  marijuana dispensaries will no longer be 
raided, and  there is a bill in California calling for the state to 
legalize and regulate marijuana. Also, President Steger  joined 134 
university presidents in signing the  Amethyst initiative, calling 
for national debate on  lowering the drinking age - or as some call 
it, ending  the failed alcohol prohibition on 18 to 20 year old  adults.

I hope Steger and our faculty and administrators will  join students 
in encouraging Gov. Tim Kaine to continue  pushing to release 
non-violent drug offenders from our  prisons. The tax-dollars spent 
on building the new  Western Virginia Regional Jail could have been 
spent keeping our tuition reasonable, professors tenured 
and  salaries more attractive to recruit potential staff.

We are spending between $40 billion and $65 billion each year waging 
our so-called War on Drugs. One would assume that with a price tag 
that hefty, taxpayers might see some return on their investment.

Yet, the overwhelming majority of Virginia Tech students have never 
received effective drug education from the state.

Implemented in 80 percent of our nation's school districts, D.A.R.E. 
was found to be ineffective at deterring drug abuse and may actually 
increase the prevalence of drug use among suburban children - 
verified by the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Justice 
Department-sponsored study by Research Triangle Institute.

This leads me to the following question: Why should Virginia Tech 
suspend students for a year for first-time possession of drugs when 
the majority of our students have never received effective drug 
education? It is a wasted opportunity when the alternative is to 
provide the drug education and counseling we have on hand.

If we assume students have educated themselves about the harms of 
drug use, can we not also assume that some students have come to the 
realization that marijuana, especially in edible or vaporized form, 
is safer for both the individual and certainly for society than 
getting drunk and driving?

While both of these acts are currently a crime, our university drug 
policy allows students caught for the first offense of driving drunk 
to go to class the next day, while students caught for the first 
offense with marijuana are suspended.

When administrators and students respond to this dilemma, we may feel 
more willing to return to the dichotomous "hard on drugs" "solution" 
and argue to kick students out of school for drunk driving. If this 
is the direction our policy is to take, then some students will 
continue driving drunk and our attrition rate (number of students who 
drop out) will climb, a factor that would potentially cause our 
university ranking to fall.

A more effective solution would be to create a Blacksburg Designated 
Driver Co-operative and to adopt a drug policy that allows for more 
discretion while utilizing our educators and counselors, rather than 
waging another 20 years of intolerance.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom