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