Editorial: Proposed drug policy revisions logical, beneficial

The current drug use policy at Dixie State College sets disciplinary repercussions for marijuana use on the same level as hard drugs, and we believe this policy is a disservice to DSC students. Dean of Students Del Beatty, along with five other administrators on campus, have been working hard to revamp the existing drug policy to make it more current. In our opinion, it's about time. In a recent interview Beatty said marijuana-although equally damaging-is considered a little different than hard-core drugs such as heroin. The new drug policy proposes that college officials treat marijuana as it would treat alcohol violators. This statement is in line with current medical research that shows that the effects and addictive qualities of marijuana are not on par with those of hard drugs. The Henningfield rating system ranks nicotine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine and marijuana in terms of withdrawal, reinforcement, tolerance, dependence and intoxication. Of the six drugs, marijuana ranks last in terms of withdrawal, tolerance and dependence. It is second to last in reinforcement (behind caffeine) and third to last in intoxication (behind caffeine and nicotine). This rating system can be viewed at http://-www.druglibrary.org/Sch-affer/library/basicfax5.ht-m. According to a study in which psychiatrists, police and legal officials were asked to rank 20 drugs in regards to their overall danger, marijuana ranked No. 11. Hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, as well as legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, all ranked higher on this list. The study is cited in "Ten Most Dangerous Drugs" by Dr. Ben Kim published on March 27, 2007, and is available at http://drbenkim.com/ten-most-dangerous-drugs.html. If experts in addiction law enforcement consider marijuana to be less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, DSC should treat marijuana offenders the same way they treat alcohol and tobacco offenders. Common sense dictates that the punishments should fit the crime, and placing marijuana in the same classification as hard drugs is contrary to this principle. If the proposed policy change is adopted, first time marijuana offenders would be required to attend 10 hours worth of classes at the Wellness Center. Second time offenders would be placed on probation and would attend 20 hours of classes. Third time offenders would most likely be suspended. Aside from basing discipline for marijuana use punishment on the facts above, there is another important angle to consider: the impact on students. While there is something to be said for harsh punishment of crimes, we believe it is more important to facilitate the recovery of drug users in a constructive manner. Quickly suspending students for marijuana use is apt to cause more harm than good to offenders. People who use drugs are generally trying to fill a void in their lives. The feelings of remorse, despair and self-depreciation that result from school suspension are more likely to push offenders deeper into drug use. By expanding the already existing void in a users' life, a greater danger of increased use or descent into harder drugs becomes a reality. If a user suddenly finds themselves with a huge increase in spare time and depression, these consequences are more likely to manifest themselves. Conversely, educating students about the danger of marijuana use helps them to make smarter decisions in the future. Additionally, staying off drugs is made easier when a user has constructive and positive alternatives to using. Allowing offenders to stay in school gives them goals, structure and a way to keep busy. According to policy No. 5.37 section 37.6, "The proactive, positive approach is designed to provide the user with professional help based on minimal loss of integrity and interruption of academic pursuits." Treating marijuana the same as alcohol and tobacco is a crucial step in achieving these stated goals. It's crucial for administrators to look again at the current policy. The proactive and positive approach is not the same as when the policy was revised in June 1998, March 2001 or even November 2005. It has been five years since the last policy update, and we believe further revision is warranted. Currently the revamped policy has not been voted on, but we believe Beatty is right. College officials need to give students at least one chance to change their actions. With the current policy, there is no leeway to help students. The proposed revision will be compared with the policies at other institutions before it is debated and voted upon. Administrators say they are here to make the best decision for students. We believe adopting these changes is in the best interest of DSC students. We do not endorse or advocate the use of marijuana in any way, shape or form, but we believe the current policies are outdated and illogical. Marijuana offenders should be treated the same as alcohol or tobacco offenders, and we urge students and faculty to work together to revise the current drug policy. Making these changes is not only logical in terms of the impacts of marijuana, but is also more likely to aid offenders in their journey for personal rehabilitation and academic success.