Spirituality and Addiction: An Experiential Project to Foster Student Understanding
The linked poem (http://bit.ly/9AzbTU) was created by the entirety of an undergraduate class taking a course entitled: Introduction to Addictive Disorders. Students in the course, about 20, come from a variety of majors across the curriculum at Drexel University. The first line of the poem was drafted by the instructor, without a significant amount of forethought I might add…it just “came to me.” The sheet on which this single line was written was then given to a student, any student; the first student that volunteered to accept the sheet when a volunteer was solicited. That student was instructed to write the next line, which for him or her seemed to be suggested by the one line visible on the sheet. The top line was then folded under so that only the student’s line could be read by the next student and then the sheet was passed on and the process was repeated, the next student writing another single line suggested by "the only visible line on the sheet."
As a result of this process, each line represents the thoughts of a single student who was responding to only the line immediately preceding it that represented the thoughts of that single student who wrote it. As an aside, this was going on as the day’s lecture and discussion was continuing. In other words, the class did not stop while this activity was conducted. NOTE: The theme of the class was the role of spirituality in understanding and treating addictive disorders and it was suggested that spirituality is more than religion and is something more like worldview. In short, it was suggested that although “spirituality” and “religion” overlap, there may be less in common between the two than there is between spirituality and a sense of connectedness…connection between oneself and the Earth, other beings, other people, to a Higher Power, etc. Although waxing metaphysical, the point of the class was to invite students to appreciate the importance of considering addiction as a spiritual disorder or disease as well as physical and mental…in other words, to help them make sense of the AA belief that alcoholism (addiction) is a threefold disease of body, mind, and spirit.
To fully appreciate the result of this project, be sure to return to the first sentence after the last one is read in order to sense the connectivity and cyclical nature this exercise represents.
Dr. Robert
The promotion of change through self-discovery: Thoughts, opinions, and recommendations on the prevention & treatment of behavioral health issues pertaining to alcohol and other drug use, harm reduction, and the use of evidence-informed practitioner strategies and approaches. Robert J. Chapman, PhD
Search This Blog
28 April 2010
22 April 2010
More on Alcohol, Marijuana, and Collegiate Life: Can Colleges & Universities Craft More Equitable Policies Regarding Illicit Behavior?
I am heartened by the umber of readers who have chosen to comment on my last post. Although most seemed to be in agreement with the argument that the penalties for alcohol and marijuana violations on campus should be the same, several questioned if such could ever be because of the illegal nature of marijuana.
This post is not intended to be an argument to legalize marijuana...that is another discussion and one fraught with any number of provocative issues. Rather, it is intended to address a common concern I hear about the hands of higher ed being tied by the current laws governing marijuana and the need to retain current policies regarding use and possession of this controlled substance by students. It is a misnomer to suggest that simply because a substance is illegal that a college or university has no flexibility as regards its response to a student's decision to use or possess illicit substances, in this case, marijuana.
Colleges and universities routinely establish and enforce policies regarding alcohol use and possession for underage students that may well differ from state statutes. For example, it may be a summary violation or at worst, a misdemeanor, to possess or consume alcohol if under the age of 21. This said, a college or university may hold students accountable for their violation of the institution’s policies but not necessarily turn the student over to the local authorities for prosecution. The truth be told, most local police departments do not want to be bothered with underage alcohol violations referred by a college or university. If, for example, a Resident Assistant (RA) finds an underage student drinking in his or her residence hall room, that student is likely to have an IR (incident report) written that documents this act and its violation of institutional policy. This violation is then dealt with via the institution’s own internal judicial system. Unless there is some related criminal activity associate with the drinking, it is unlikely that the institution is going to report this student to the local police for arrest and prosecution. If, on the other hand, it is the local police that find the underage student drinking, the student may well be cited by the police and then this be routinely reported to the college or university where its judicial system will review the case and likely mete out additional consequences.
If the college or university has a “campus police” force as opposed to a “campus security” department, the campus police, as sworn police officers, must enforce the laws of the state in which the college or university is located. This will result in the student receiving both institutional as well as state consequences associated with the underage use or possession even if this occurs on campus only. Campus security, on the other hand, are not sworn police officers and simply monitor and enforce campus policies. These officers do not have the power to arrest and, consequently, will likely intervene in policy violations and document them for review and adjudication by the campus judicial system. This is what happens with alcohol violations...campus policies are enforced and these often mirror if not exceed the underage drinking statues in the state where the IHE is located, but again, such violations are often not reported to the local police.
This same approach can be implemented as regards student use or possession of marijuana. Should a student choose to possess or use marijuana and “get caught,” the institution could choose to deal with this internally...and often does. The problem is—-and this was the focus of my previous post—-is that this frequently results in the student being suspended from campus if not expelled. This strikes me as a missed opportunity to engage the student in a conversation around his or her use of marijuana. This conversation should focus on conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the use rather than lecture, preach, or moralize about what the student should be doing...or not doing as the case may be. In brief, help students look at their use objectively and address a simple question: is the benefit you perceive receiving from your use worth the costs associated with that use? This is what is being done regarding alcohol use, with underage as well as of age consumers...and it works. Students frequently will embrace an opportunity to engage in an objective review of personal use that is devoid of recriminations and recognize that the “good things” about use are related with consumption at the lower end of the range of “typical drinks consumed” while the “less good things” are associated with use at the upper end of their range of use.
Students are insightful, intelligent, and able to see the proverbial forest from the trees when presented with the opportunity to do so in an objective, non-confrontational and collaborative way. If this can be done regarding student use of alcohol, we should provided students with the opportunity to do the same thing as regards their decisions to use marijuana. For this to happen, however, colleges and universities need to amend their “drug use policies” so as to afford the opportunity to engage such students in this conversation rather than punish them for breaking the drug law with suspension or expulsion. NOTE: We are not talking about the student holding pounds of marijuana for distribution on campus, but relatively small quantities associated with personal use.
Not only does the lack of parity in the way alcohol and marijuana are addressed on campus make no sense, it is also way behind the curve as regards current thinking by the law enforcement community and the criminal justice system in general as regards marijuana use. In the last month the new District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia announced that the City will no longer prosecute individuals for possessing 30 grams (about an ounce) of marijuana or less (see http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/89894257.html. This has been reduce to a summary violation and those found holding will forfeit the marijuana and pay a fine of about $300...that is it...no criminal record. This de facto decriminalization of relatively small amounts of marijuana simply presents another argument for why colleges and universities should rethink how they address marijuana use and possession on campus...move towards “acting on” this issue rather than “reacting to it.”
Please do not misinterpret this post...I am NOT advocating marijuana use or suggesting that it is better than drinking or admonishing colleges and universities for having policies regarding marijuana possession or use. Rather I am suggesting that the number one objective of these policies should be to engage students in a conversation about their use essentially fostering a consideration of the question, "is what you get worth what it costs you the get it?" For this to happen a first step is the pursuit of parity between alcohol and marijuana policies on campus.
What do you think?
Robert
I am heartened by the umber of readers who have chosen to comment on my last post. Although most seemed to be in agreement with the argument that the penalties for alcohol and marijuana violations on campus should be the same, several questioned if such could ever be because of the illegal nature of marijuana.
This post is not intended to be an argument to legalize marijuana...that is another discussion and one fraught with any number of provocative issues. Rather, it is intended to address a common concern I hear about the hands of higher ed being tied by the current laws governing marijuana and the need to retain current policies regarding use and possession of this controlled substance by students. It is a misnomer to suggest that simply because a substance is illegal that a college or university has no flexibility as regards its response to a student's decision to use or possess illicit substances, in this case, marijuana.
Colleges and universities routinely establish and enforce policies regarding alcohol use and possession for underage students that may well differ from state statutes. For example, it may be a summary violation or at worst, a misdemeanor, to possess or consume alcohol if under the age of 21. This said, a college or university may hold students accountable for their violation of the institution’s policies but not necessarily turn the student over to the local authorities for prosecution. The truth be told, most local police departments do not want to be bothered with underage alcohol violations referred by a college or university. If, for example, a Resident Assistant (RA) finds an underage student drinking in his or her residence hall room, that student is likely to have an IR (incident report) written that documents this act and its violation of institutional policy. This violation is then dealt with via the institution’s own internal judicial system. Unless there is some related criminal activity associate with the drinking, it is unlikely that the institution is going to report this student to the local police for arrest and prosecution. If, on the other hand, it is the local police that find the underage student drinking, the student may well be cited by the police and then this be routinely reported to the college or university where its judicial system will review the case and likely mete out additional consequences.
If the college or university has a “campus police” force as opposed to a “campus security” department, the campus police, as sworn police officers, must enforce the laws of the state in which the college or university is located. This will result in the student receiving both institutional as well as state consequences associated with the underage use or possession even if this occurs on campus only. Campus security, on the other hand, are not sworn police officers and simply monitor and enforce campus policies. These officers do not have the power to arrest and, consequently, will likely intervene in policy violations and document them for review and adjudication by the campus judicial system. This is what happens with alcohol violations...campus policies are enforced and these often mirror if not exceed the underage drinking statues in the state where the IHE is located, but again, such violations are often not reported to the local police.
This same approach can be implemented as regards student use or possession of marijuana. Should a student choose to possess or use marijuana and “get caught,” the institution could choose to deal with this internally...and often does. The problem is—-and this was the focus of my previous post—-is that this frequently results in the student being suspended from campus if not expelled. This strikes me as a missed opportunity to engage the student in a conversation around his or her use of marijuana. This conversation should focus on conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the use rather than lecture, preach, or moralize about what the student should be doing...or not doing as the case may be. In brief, help students look at their use objectively and address a simple question: is the benefit you perceive receiving from your use worth the costs associated with that use? This is what is being done regarding alcohol use, with underage as well as of age consumers...and it works. Students frequently will embrace an opportunity to engage in an objective review of personal use that is devoid of recriminations and recognize that the “good things” about use are related with consumption at the lower end of the range of “typical drinks consumed” while the “less good things” are associated with use at the upper end of their range of use.
Students are insightful, intelligent, and able to see the proverbial forest from the trees when presented with the opportunity to do so in an objective, non-confrontational and collaborative way. If this can be done regarding student use of alcohol, we should provided students with the opportunity to do the same thing as regards their decisions to use marijuana. For this to happen, however, colleges and universities need to amend their “drug use policies” so as to afford the opportunity to engage such students in this conversation rather than punish them for breaking the drug law with suspension or expulsion. NOTE: We are not talking about the student holding pounds of marijuana for distribution on campus, but relatively small quantities associated with personal use.
Not only does the lack of parity in the way alcohol and marijuana are addressed on campus make no sense, it is also way behind the curve as regards current thinking by the law enforcement community and the criminal justice system in general as regards marijuana use. In the last month the new District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia announced that the City will no longer prosecute individuals for possessing 30 grams (about an ounce) of marijuana or less (see http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/89894257.html. This has been reduce to a summary violation and those found holding will forfeit the marijuana and pay a fine of about $300...that is it...no criminal record. This de facto decriminalization of relatively small amounts of marijuana simply presents another argument for why colleges and universities should rethink how they address marijuana use and possession on campus...move towards “acting on” this issue rather than “reacting to it.”
Please do not misinterpret this post...I am NOT advocating marijuana use or suggesting that it is better than drinking or admonishing colleges and universities for having policies regarding marijuana possession or use. Rather I am suggesting that the number one objective of these policies should be to engage students in a conversation about their use essentially fostering a consideration of the question, "is what you get worth what it costs you the get it?" For this to happen a first step is the pursuit of parity between alcohol and marijuana policies on campus.
What do you think?
Robert
05 April 2010
Marijuana instead of Alcohol; advocating "responsible partying" rather than "responsible drinking": Interesting topics for higher ed's consideration
There is a provocative editorial in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled, Waiting to Inhale (click title to read). As with any "provocative" editorial, it gives one pause to think...initially about the article itself and then about one's own views on the topics discussed. This is such an article.
I tend to agree with the editorial's cited argument that the penalties for the use or possession of marijuana should be no greater, or different, than those associated with the use or possession of alcohol. It does not, for instance, make sense to provide students who have violated an institution’s policies regarding alcohol with options for alcohol education if not an intervention grounded in an evidence-based approach like BASICS for changing personal behavior and then to suspend a student for a similar violation where the only difference is the substance. For example, it is quite possible that a student found with alcohol in his or her room, say a “relatively significant amount” like a “handle,” may have the alcohol confiscated, a fine levied, and be placed on deferred suspension from housing (if a residential student) and referred to an alcohol education program while the same student could be suspended from the institution for having a “relatively small quantity” of marijuana, e.g., say, a gram or less. Although marijuana is an illegal substance, so is alcohol for those under 21.
Regarding the argument to substitute marijuana for alcohol, there seems to be an informal logic to this argument when looking at the types of consequences that tend to follow from the excessive use of either of these substances—the cases of alcohol related violence are notorious while such does not appear to be the case with marijuana. The excessive use of either of these substances, however, strikes me as being equally deleterious when considering the scope of consequences associated with each drug and therefore renders this argument something of a non sequitur. True, the student who smokes to excess may be less of a threat to other students on campus as a rapist or physical aggressor—the operative word here being “less” assuming that student is not engaging in overtly violent acts like fighting or sexual assault. That said, if driving a car, operating machinery, or attempting to negotiate an escape from a burning building, etc. I suspect it is all but irrelevant regarding which substance is responsible for the student’s inebriety and the resulting risk to self and others. Suffice it to say that impaired is impaired.
The question about pursuing “responsible partying” rather than “responsible drinking” is, in my opinion, perhaps the most compelling argument outlined in the piece. “Responsible partying” implies so much more than just “responsible drinking.” First, it means that I may or may not have anything to drink yet still be charged with “partying responsibly.” This could mean that I assume certain responsibilities while at the party...to speak up if I witness a social injustice, to interrupt a racial joke being told, attempt to deter others from engaging in self-demeaning or embarrassing acts, or attempt to initiate protective factors that may result in harm reduction for any and all at the party. I must agree that I support this argument and suspect that this is, indeed, a worthy pursuit and that groups such as the Amethyst Initiative be advised to add this to its mantra if not adopt it as its new objective.
This is a provocative article, one that invites the reader to rethink his or her position on a number of alcohol-related issues as they impact higher education. I am a big fan of dialogue. I believe that if anything, as a nation we have tended to move away from meaningful discussion and debate in the pursuit of partisan “drum banging,” the purpose of which appears to be more focused on deterring such open dialogue. Frankly, any discussion that generates more light than heat is a productive discussion.
Regarding the reference to the "Amethyst Initiative" and its admonishment to lower the drinking age, I suspect there is as much evidence to support its increase to 25 as there is to support its lowering to 18...let’s face it, auto rental companies have not permitted anyone under the age of 25 to rent a car for years...what do they know that we do not? In addition, how come there is not a “Hermes Initiative” to roll back this age discrimination? NOTE: If Amethyst is the Greek sober stone named after the maiden of Greek myth who was turned to a pillar of quartz by Artemis to protect her from the wrath of Dionysus who unleashed his tigers in rage to punish her for violating his garden on her way to worship at Hermes's temple only to feel pity for her and pour his “tears of wine” on the quartz staining it “amethyst,” then the "Hermes Initiative," Hermes being the Greek god of roads and travel, might be the appropriate name sake for a contemporary group looking to change the age when one can rent a car.
To return to seriousness, however: (1) a discussion about the penalties for marijuana possession and use in higher ed as compared to those related to alcohol does make sense; (2) the argument to substitute "weed" for "booze" by college students seems a bit of a stretch to me; (3) pursuing “responsible partying” does strike me as a more noble and altruistic objective than “responsible drinking,” which is, by the way, the tag line for any number of brewers and distillers—not to mention, “drink responsibly” implies the command that all college students should drink.
What do you think?
Robert
There is a provocative editorial in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled, Waiting to Inhale (click title to read). As with any "provocative" editorial, it gives one pause to think...initially about the article itself and then about one's own views on the topics discussed. This is such an article.
I tend to agree with the editorial's cited argument that the penalties for the use or possession of marijuana should be no greater, or different, than those associated with the use or possession of alcohol. It does not, for instance, make sense to provide students who have violated an institution’s policies regarding alcohol with options for alcohol education if not an intervention grounded in an evidence-based approach like BASICS for changing personal behavior and then to suspend a student for a similar violation where the only difference is the substance. For example, it is quite possible that a student found with alcohol in his or her room, say a “relatively significant amount” like a “handle,” may have the alcohol confiscated, a fine levied, and be placed on deferred suspension from housing (if a residential student) and referred to an alcohol education program while the same student could be suspended from the institution for having a “relatively small quantity” of marijuana, e.g., say, a gram or less. Although marijuana is an illegal substance, so is alcohol for those under 21.
Regarding the argument to substitute marijuana for alcohol, there seems to be an informal logic to this argument when looking at the types of consequences that tend to follow from the excessive use of either of these substances—the cases of alcohol related violence are notorious while such does not appear to be the case with marijuana. The excessive use of either of these substances, however, strikes me as being equally deleterious when considering the scope of consequences associated with each drug and therefore renders this argument something of a non sequitur. True, the student who smokes to excess may be less of a threat to other students on campus as a rapist or physical aggressor—the operative word here being “less” assuming that student is not engaging in overtly violent acts like fighting or sexual assault. That said, if driving a car, operating machinery, or attempting to negotiate an escape from a burning building, etc. I suspect it is all but irrelevant regarding which substance is responsible for the student’s inebriety and the resulting risk to self and others. Suffice it to say that impaired is impaired.
The question about pursuing “responsible partying” rather than “responsible drinking” is, in my opinion, perhaps the most compelling argument outlined in the piece. “Responsible partying” implies so much more than just “responsible drinking.” First, it means that I may or may not have anything to drink yet still be charged with “partying responsibly.” This could mean that I assume certain responsibilities while at the party...to speak up if I witness a social injustice, to interrupt a racial joke being told, attempt to deter others from engaging in self-demeaning or embarrassing acts, or attempt to initiate protective factors that may result in harm reduction for any and all at the party. I must agree that I support this argument and suspect that this is, indeed, a worthy pursuit and that groups such as the Amethyst Initiative be advised to add this to its mantra if not adopt it as its new objective.
This is a provocative article, one that invites the reader to rethink his or her position on a number of alcohol-related issues as they impact higher education. I am a big fan of dialogue. I believe that if anything, as a nation we have tended to move away from meaningful discussion and debate in the pursuit of partisan “drum banging,” the purpose of which appears to be more focused on deterring such open dialogue. Frankly, any discussion that generates more light than heat is a productive discussion.
Regarding the reference to the "Amethyst Initiative" and its admonishment to lower the drinking age, I suspect there is as much evidence to support its increase to 25 as there is to support its lowering to 18...let’s face it, auto rental companies have not permitted anyone under the age of 25 to rent a car for years...what do they know that we do not? In addition, how come there is not a “Hermes Initiative” to roll back this age discrimination? NOTE: If Amethyst is the Greek sober stone named after the maiden of Greek myth who was turned to a pillar of quartz by Artemis to protect her from the wrath of Dionysus who unleashed his tigers in rage to punish her for violating his garden on her way to worship at Hermes's temple only to feel pity for her and pour his “tears of wine” on the quartz staining it “amethyst,” then the "Hermes Initiative," Hermes being the Greek god of roads and travel, might be the appropriate name sake for a contemporary group looking to change the age when one can rent a car.
To return to seriousness, however: (1) a discussion about the penalties for marijuana possession and use in higher ed as compared to those related to alcohol does make sense; (2) the argument to substitute "weed" for "booze" by college students seems a bit of a stretch to me; (3) pursuing “responsible partying” does strike me as a more noble and altruistic objective than “responsible drinking,” which is, by the way, the tag line for any number of brewers and distillers—not to mention, “drink responsibly” implies the command that all college students should drink.
What do you think?
Robert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)