Cornell Students and Marijuana

On our campus there has been an increase in the number of disciplinary actions taken against students who have been in possession of marijuana, paraphernalia related to the smoking of the illegal substance and also against those students who were merely in the room where the activity took place. The College must handle marijuana related incidents in a particular way due to threats on our federal funding that are imposed by the Higher Education Act. Many have noted, though, a personal bias against marijuana use amongst those who handle these cases that goes well beyond the enforcement of rules and procedures that are mandated by the government.

The student body, however, is under no obligation to report anything at all, so let’s stop reporting it. A lot of residents across campus look on as nineteen year old students parade through dorm halls with 40 ounce beers taped to their hands (the thought is, that if you don’t put it down, you’ll drink it faster). Now the very same residents get in a tizzy when they think they might smell pot smoke. The fact of the matter is you cannot overdose (OD) on marijuana, while you can OD on alcohol. Why are we as students permitting underage binge drinking and yet reporting, much more regularly, the innocuous behavior of smoking up? Turning someone in puts their federal financial aid at risk, as a conviction leads to denial of that aid, but can also include jail time and large fines.

The personal possession of marijuana has been illegal in the United States since a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, based largely on tabloid newspaper accounts of violent crimes committed by immigrants under the influence of the drug, prompted the passage by Congress of the “Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.” Professionals today would be hard pressed to produce scientific literature that suggests or proves that one-time, infrequent, of even regular users, because of their usage of the drug, are more violent than a person who does not use.

Jimmy Carter, then President, had it right in his 1977 message to Congress in which he said, “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

I suggest thinking twice before reporting the smell of pot smoke to your RA’s, PerMar or the Mount Vernon Police Department. Since our marijuana laws are, in large part, out of whack and do damage people’s lives more than the drug itself does, let’s make people’s lives a little bit easier and strongly consider the ramifications before doing something that can really disrupt a person’s life.

by Addy Free, Columnist
printed in The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 8

Comments

[An '01 Grad]

I'm sure this isn't news to you, but my response to your editorial is simple: I doubt that people report pot-smoking out of concern for the smokers. It's about self-interest. The narc doesn't give a damn if the smokers are going to OD or not. They probably wouldn't mind if they did. Your argument relies upon knocking down the straw man of POT'S-BAD-FOR-YOU, which I don't think is going to come up in a narc's conversation with an RA or Matt. How 'bout some _alternatives_ to reporting to the "innocuous behavior" to the RA?

If your article is in response to a specific narc that DID do it out of concern, then that is one poor sheltered Iowegian.

[Addy]

Well, giving alternatives to reporting would be great, but when I was writing the column and I thought about that, I decided that offering reasonable alternatives would be the same as offering reasonable facts that, in my opinion, dismantle the "straw man," as you put it. Those same people who are reporting out of their own self-interest, though I'm not entirely sure what that self-interest is vested in, wouldn't be very likely to choose an alternative. So, why not preach to the choir, but by virtue of the fact that some people will read the column even if they don't agree with it, get another vantage point, based on the facts, out there.

While I'd like to think that my column does some good and is a form of activism, I do understand that it sometimes won't impact people the way I want. To that end, I do try to provide practical solutions, but sometimes, it just can't be had.

Mr. JoeBlow ;) If you're reading this, I don't like it when I can't reply directly to someone... please leave your real e-mail address next time. Thanks!

[An '01 Grad]

I see what you're saying, Addy. Makes sense. Must be my pessimistic side that is responding to your article the way I do. It just comes across to me as naive, since you don't acknowledge that you're asking people to put others' well-being above their own. (can we agree that most reporters are self-interested?)

Anyway, I think you're right in that preaching to the choir probably doesn't hurt in this situation, and in that changing the mind of a narc via newsprint is pretty futile.

BTW, care to elaborate on your 1st sentence of your response? I don't see how giving alternatives is the same as arguing that the smoker isn't hurting himself... Is it the same in that both represent "another vantage point," which is all you can hope for? I'm sorry, I'm just a bit confused on this point.

And finally, my back-story: A self-interest that caused my friend to report some pot-heads in zerodeck of Merner was her severe allergy to the smoke.

[Addy]

Oh, I was just trying to say that if I wasn't going to really be able to change anyone's mind in their predisposition to reporting the use, then at least I could try to inform.

Yes, we can definitely agree that it's in self-interest, most of the time, that people are reporting, though I think it's often times an arrogance, conceit or general maintenance of being a jerkmo that prompts people to report and that the case of your friend is the rare circumstance. Although, in that case, while I feel for the friend, I would hope that they at least tried to communicate with the smoker, just because of the severe consequences.

Thanks a lot for the comments so far.