STUDENTS' CONCERNS FOR DRUG POLICY

While Virginia Tech's Public Forum on Alcohol and Other Drug Policies
flew under the CT's radar in the height of election coverage, students
should be aware that policy proposals to change campus drug policies
are soon to be reviewed.

On the panel, Dr. Christopher Flynn, director of Cook Counseling
Center, pointed to the results of a study that found students who
experiment with marijuana on a whole tend to be healthier and more
well-adjusted than students who abstain completely. He warned that the
university coming down so hard on marijuana use may have the effect of
pushing a culture of alcohol abuse and he stated that it is odd that
Tech is harder on marijuana than the criminal justice system. Flynn
also worried that if laws are too strict they may deter students from
seeking help and that our university policies may be having a parallel
effect.

Vice President Ed Spencer said that Virginia Tech "probably has the
most conservative judicial sanctions in Virginia and probably true
among many of our peer institutions." He also said that most students
going through the university's judicial system for drug offenses tend
to be experimenting and chose to violate the policy, while students
with severe drug problems tend to be the minority.

Frances Keene, director of Judicial Affairs, said in agreement that
the majority of students they see are experimenting and have small
amounts of marijuana. She said that while zero tolerance conveys a
clear message to students, Tech is in the minority and she can think
of only one other university having such harsh a penalty. Keene
convenes a review committee that reviews University Policies for
Student Life annually and may recommend possible changes and proposals
in the spring.

Tom Brown, dean of students, made clear that the review committee can
make recommendations but cannot simply change policy. These
recommendations may be presented and voted on by the Board of
Visitors, which holds final authority to enact university policies.

Many students came forward asking challenging questions. The vast
majority of students came out in favor of a change of policy.

The main arguments in support of the current zero tolerance campus
drug policy were that it is clear and sends a clear message to
students, is justified since illicit drugs are prohibited for everyone
when alcohol is prohibited only for those under the age of 21, is
consistent in punishment and has a deterring effect because of its
strictness.

If a zero-tolerance policy is clear and sends a clear message to
students, does this imply that our three-strike alcohol policy,
allowing for more discrepancy, is unclear and sends an unclear message
to students?

Joe McFadden, president of the Graduate Student Assembly and
co-sponsor the forum, made the point that campus drug policy states
repeatedly that illegal drug use is incompatible with the goals of the
university community.

While Tech faculty and employee policy allows employees caught with
drugs two strikes -- the first referring the employee to a substance
abuse counselor on condition for continued employment -- student
policy does not. McFadden asked the panel whether this discrepancy is
a double standard.

Under Tech's current drug policy, students caught drinking and driving
often can go to class the next day while students merely caught
possessing marijuana are suspended from the university for a full
academic year.

The main arguments against our zero-tolerance drug policy are that it
does not address the harms of drug use, fails to attempt to guide
students toward healthier activities with treatment, treats students
caught experimenting with small amounts of marijuana with the same
mandatory minimum penalty as those caught with hard drugs such as
heroin or methamphetamines, deters students from seeking treatment and
acts as a life-threatening barrier to students from calling for help
in the case of a drug-related medical emergency.

Hosting the forum along with the GSA and SGA, Tech's chapter of
Students for Sensible Drug Policy is now finalizing a "Sensibility
Stimulus Package," policy proposal following the success of the forum
to be reviewed by the administrators on the Review Committee next
semester. The package contains three proposals: a First-time Diversion
Option, the Good Samaritan Policy and a campus-wide Designated Driver
Co-operative.

A First-time Diversion Option would only change zero tolerance
procedure, allowing students caught with drugs for the first time the
option of being diverted from suspension upon confirmation that they
have met with a counselor at Cook Counseling Center for treatment.

The Good Samaritan Policy, enacted at over 100 universities across the
country, is a life-saving measure that shields students from
punishment when calling for help in the case of a medical emergency
because of alcohol and other drugs.

The DD Co-op would call on all students and student organizations to
volunteer, allowing every Tech student a number to call for a sober
ride every Thursday through Saturday night. The program would also
call on the university to provide adequate resources.

While Tech already has a Safe Ride program that provides students
rides on campus, this program would greatly benefit the university and
community by decreasing drugged driving in Blacksburg. These programs
are already in place at a number of universities across the country,
including James Madison University and the College of William & Mary.

A recording of the Public Forum on Alcohol and Other Drug Policies is
on YouTube and GoogleVideo for anyone to see. If you are interested in
supporting SSDP's policy proposals, more information is available on
our Facebook group or you can contact schoolsnotprisons@gmail.com.

Kris Reinertson is a senior political science and sociology major and
the president of Tech's chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy.