DRUG POLICY CHANGE HARMS STUDENTS

In the news release "Busted" on Sept. 16, The Maroon reported Loyola's
new policies regarding the enforcement of drug prohibition on campus.
"As of fall 2009... students can be arrested by New Orleans Police
Department and taken to jail if in possession of narcotics." This
policy differs from the past, when Residential Life officials
discerned whether violations should be dealt with internally by
university disciplinary processes or reported to the police. Now, as
Robert Reed noted, "[i]t's really up to the officers to decide what to
do."

The rationale behind this change is straightforward; it carries
obvious benefits from the perspective of university administration.
First, to the extent that students perceive the policy as more severe,
they will avoid possessing and consuming illegal drugs on campus.
Second, insofar as there are fewer drug violations on campus, the
university avoids any associated legal liabilities.

Less obvious are the various costs that such policies may impose upon
the welfare and safety of the Loyola student body. I'm not just
talking about the forgone losses to students who would want to use
drugs on campus and now don't or cannot - what economists would call
dead weight losses. Raising drug penalties on campus is synonymous
with raising their costs and thus discourages such behavior, but like
all prohibitions, we do not know exactly how individuals will react to
higher costs.

Amy Boyle, associate director of Residential Life, was reported as
saying the number of drug law violations on campus have dropped since
the implementation of the policy. But is this the whole story? Costs
and benefits are not perceived in a vacuum, they are more often
relative concepts. In order to recognize the fuller scope of costs to
prohibition, policy makers should ask what the alternative behaviors
are that have become cheaper in relative terms because of increased
penalties. In other words, I doubt that students, once drug users, are
now diligently studying in the Monroe library.

What are the available alternatives for drug possession and
consumption on campus? My best guess is that students creatively seek
alternatives when the costs of drug use on campus increase. First, I'd
expect alcohol consumption on campus to increase, and second I'd
expect off-campus drug use to increase.

These alternatives probably retain many of the differed liabilities
and benefits to the university, but they probably impose costs and
risks to student welfare. Binge drinking has greater health risks than
marijuana consumption, for one. Secondly, in conjunction with the
policy that on-campus students cannot own cars, the new drug policy in
effect encourages Loyola students to wander the local
neighborhoods.

I am not trying to imply that Loyola should change its drug policy.
The issue is complex for sure. I am unfamiliar with the precise legal
liabilities that the university may have once been exposed to with
previous policies. My hope is to merely point out that the university
enjoys the benefits of the new policy while the costs are borne by
students. It is a tragic reality that the United States criminal code
creates incentives for the university to sacrifice student welfare.

In closing, I offer a brief message to students: be careful, and look
out for one another. The bonds of trust, responsibility and
reciprocity forged through friendship and social cooperation are
remarkably effective means for promoting safety and human welfare.