<p>If no “association” with drug users is tolerated, I suggest parents sent their kids to BYU (which, btw, I respect for their straightforward approach). I see no evidence that this kid has subtance abuse problem.</p>
<p>Spydy, I may be opinionated, but I dont think I ever kicked someone when they were down. Yes, that is what you did yesterday. </p>
<p>If you can not understand when a situation is urgent, and when it is not, I feel sorry for you. But all you do is perpetuate the stereotype of people who have no compassion.</p>
<p>kayf-
You are still wrong. Keep trying. Clearly, you are an expert on politeness, kindness, and compassion. And more than anything, an expert on personal attacks.</p>
<p>Great grasping of my point on associating with drug users, BTW.</p>
<p>I am not sure how to better explain to you that your opinion on things (for example, the urgency of situations like this) is not fact, so I guess I will stop trying.</p>
<p>And please, keep saying sarcastically that you “feel sorry for” me, tell me that I lack compassion, and belittle well-meaning advice that I gave to the OP, because all of that really does show that you are certainly in a position to judge. This is actually more than amusing. It is downright fun. Pass the popcorn.</p>
<p>“If no “association” with drug users is tolerated, I suggest parents sent their kids to BYU (which, btw, I respect for their straightforward approach). I see no evidence that this kid has subtance abuse problem.”</p>
<p>I SO agree! I would never for one minute consider drug testing my S, searching his room for contraband, or getting him drug and alcohol counseling. I’m stunned that anyone would suggest it simply because his RM was caught smoking pot. It literally boggles my mind.</p>
<p>My friend found out her S was smoking pot, so she enrolled him in drug counseling and started drug testing him at home. That was 2 years ago and he’s worst then ever, graduating from smoking pot to doing any drug he can get his hands on.</p>
<p>Kids tend to live up, (or in this case, down) to our expectations. He’s become the drug addict his mom was afraid he would be.</p>
<p>I’m sure Kay understood what you meant by association with drug users, as do I.</p>
<p>I’d like to know what college he could attend that would ensure that he wouldn’t associate with any “drug users” (college kids who smoke pot). Do you know of such a University?</p>
<p>Coley, one of the great things about the American system of colleges is that there is right college for almost every kid. I wasnt kidding when I mentioned BYU. Parents who do not want drug users (of any shape size or form) might also consider the service academies (if the child can get in) or some of the Christian collegs. CC here provides boards for all of these, and the parent who has zero tolerance for any drug users coming in contact with their child should check them out.</p>
<p>yes, Coley, you did say it was unlawful search in post 25.
How you said it was not a direct quote, but- you posted the school’s ruling that permitted a “reasonable search”, but you said you didn’t think they “had any reason to search”.
Based on your statement, since they are permitted a resonable search(meaning with a valid reason) but you say they had no reason, then there can be only 1 conclusion in your mind- you think a search was done without reason, and that is contrary to their rules, thereby unjustified. You questioned throwing out evidence found in that search, also indicating you believed the search was invalid. You may have changed that position later, but I don’t remember you saying that you had misspoken in 25, or that you had changed your mind since that post. I welcome you to point it out if you did make such statements.
You further confirmed that way of thinking much later than post 25 when you said you’d not pursue court action because you couldn’t afford it. That statement also indicates you feel you have grounds for a legal case[referring to the search] but that you simply can’t afford to pursue it.
Otherwise, you might have said - We’ll not pursue court action because we realize now the school did nothing wrong. But you didn’t say that. You said no action because of the cost.</p>
<p>Is it honorable not to pursue a legal case because one can’t afford it? Yes. No hidden meanings there. It is unfortunate, but we live in a real world, a practical world, not a dream world, and not everything is fair or can be made fair. Costs do often come into play. I understand that.</p>
<p>Interesting:
"My friend found out her S was smoking pot, so she enrolled him in drug counseling and started drug testing him at home. That was 2 years ago and he’s worst then ever, graduating from smoking pot to doing any drug he can get his hands on.</p>
<p>Kids tend to live up, (or in this case, down) to our expectations. He’s become the drug addict his mom was afraid he would be."</p>
<p>But is this shown to indicate those who have stated pot can be a gateway drug are now proven correct, that it can be a gateway drug? Or was this statement intending to show student has a worse drug problem because of the drug counseling? Or does it mean he is a worse drug user now despite the counseling? Or that maybe if they caught it sooner than 2 yrs ago, it might not have gotten this bad? I’m not clear on the point intended…</p>
<p>^This friend really needs to contact all of the medical doctors who are board-certified in addiction medicine, and quickly. Drug testing and counseling causing the disease of addiction…Someone better tell the AMA fast!</p>
<p>Of course, if the entire family does not receive treatment, codependent behaviors can really make someone worse. You didn’t cause it, you can’t control it, but you CAN contribute to it.</p>
<p>My point was clearly not grasped by the other poster, in that the response to it showed otherwise.</p>
<p>Every college has drinking and drug use, even BYU. Yes, it is known as a “stone cold sober” (or whatever they call it) school. Some schools are more known for drinking and partying, some are not, and most fall somewhere in the middle. But your son’s school is apparently a good match, so this is irrelevant. He doesn’t want to transfer.</p>
<p>DS suffered as a result of this recent incident, as did you and your husband. These are consequences (that does not need to be qualified - this is about the future, not about blame) and need to be noted and experienced as such. All I mean by this is, what can DS do to increase the chance that his life will contain no more of these situations from this point forward? He will need to make choices about his friends and roommates, and these choices can help increase the odds that he will not experience any similar (or worse) consequences. </p>
<p>There is a big misconception that all or most kids use drugs. Consult Partnership For A Drug Free America for solid statistics, but this is simply not true. Drugs may be on every campus, but not every kid on every campus uses drugs (especially not regularly). So one option is for DS to room only with kids who agree to keep the room drug free, or (better) who are genuinely drug-free themselves. If there is another incident, your son could jeopardize his place at his school. </p>
<p>This isn’t about a debate on drugs or alcohol, or about which campus is better. This is about preventing your son from getting into further trouble (well, advising him on that anyway). Encouraging him to get away from kids who are into drugs is not an outrageous piece of advice at this point. Certainly he should not be rooming with any of them.</p>
<p>^^^actually i think that is a great piece of advice… if OP’s son is not smoking (and there are NO posts even suggesting such) but if he doesnt feel that there is anything wrong with it, and has been told that to snitch is terrible, he could be in this situation again.</p>
<p>i think most college students can tell you who among their friends smokes or not, so i find it a bit hard to believe he wouldnt know…it definitely might be harder to know what the rm might have in the room, as he himself would have no reason to look through his roommates things.</p>
<p>Of course, not every student uses drugs, but some do. Abstention dorms? Eh thats a problem. At some schools, that mean no cigarettes, no drugs, no alchohol. So what if kid smokes? Frankly, I regard that as more of a problem, but it is not illegal to have cigarretts. </p>
<p>Nothing in life is easy. I dont think Coleys DS will get caught again. It wasnt the use that was the problem. It was the schools reaction. </p>
<p>Some one who has marijuana once needs to see a board certified doctor? Hasnt Obama admitted to smoking weed? Clinton while in the UK? Give me a break. My ex-husband and his wife smoke. Should I not allow any visitation?</p>
<p>The schools get upset about pot, but what about the wide-spread use of prescription drugs that aren’t the student’s own prescription? I see the abuse of Ritalin et al for studying as more of a problem.</p>
<p>kay i think that is the base of our difference… i see the use as the problem…if the rm had not been caught, then there would have been no search. The school policy as posted, said they can search… the rm must have known what the consequence could be. whether smoking pot or not is terrible, isnt the point…the point was that while on campus, pot is not allowed. the rm put OP’s son at risk. The rm may have never smoked pot before, who knows, and i dont think anyone said he was a terrible kid, just one that didnt use good judgment by smoking pot on campus.</p>
<p>This is just the first article that I found tht addresses instances where young, casual drug users are put in the same therapy groups with hard-core users. The results are less than helpful. </p>
<p>I don’t want to derail this thread, but I wan’t about to let this go. Parents overreaction to casual experiements with drugs have often caused things to get worse. Just like ignoring the warning signs. We, as parents, all walk this tightrope from birth to grave.</p>
And yet school officials chose two out of three of those things. Those who individually deal with tens of thousands of young adults over the course of their careers think differently than you do (unless perhaps you feel it could hurt the parent-child bond for Mom or Dad to do these things, which is a reasonable argument). </p>
<p>The school advocated searching the room, and assigning some kind of substance assessment or counseling, no? It’s interesting. You and I have only a few kids, and the people who decide these things see (collectively, as no one makes these decisions alone) hundreds of thousands of them pass under their authority. The actions of school administrators may be more institutionally focused rather than individually focused, but the responses put in place are usually standard and based on best practices.</p>
<p>Parent56 said: “the rm put OP’s son at risk”. It wasn’t the roommate’s photo on the fake ID. The OP’s son would not have had any problems stemming from the search if he had not purchased an illegal driver’s license.</p>
<p>Again, why is the Coley so mad at the school, since the staff was following procedures? The anger is better directed at the kid for breaking the law, and then not being smart enough to cover his crime by hiding the thing better. As to a much earlier poster who questioned whether kids know that possessing a fake ID is illegal - if they didn’t know it was illegal, they’d have just asked the DMV to alter the birthdate.</p>
<p>Just because a school or institution decides to advocate something, it doesn’t mean it’s the right thing. I always feel I know what’s best for my children, and sometimes it maybe different what the “institution” thinks is right. A school’s interest may conflict with my child’s interest.</p>
<p>kkmama… i agree, i was just going back to what started the whole search thing. once inside the room, the OP’s son has his own problems. the op just seemed to be angry that a search was even initiated due to something like smoking pot, whether the school had a right to do it etc… my feelings have been that the school had every right to search and to punish…doesnt matter whether op agrees or not to the rules or punishment being too harsh etc…the rules are rules argument, that didnt go over well LOL</p>
<p>This bogus and presumptuous. Just because OP doesn’t agree with what the school is doing, it doesn’t mean she is a push over and doesn’t exert any disciplin over their child. How often have we seen those administrators, people of authority crossing the line in protecting their own interest or the institution’s interest? I have.</p>
<p>parent56, I would ask why a security person would search the contents of someone who hadn’t been suspected of a crime? The OPs S should not have been searched IMHO because he was not the one caught doing something illegal. That, I believe, was the source of the original post. The problems that come with shared rooms was the problem, not that her DS was caught. I just wish that the S had not agreed to the room search without cause. The drug paraphenalia that was found of the RM side could have been considered shared property and both could have been suspended. That would not have been fair. All of the early posts were happening while the situation was unfolding, and she was trying to get information/advice quickly. Though this thread has long veered off the original reaction to the situation, I believe the OP had genuine questions/concernes about searches, due process, legal standing and how to deal with the school.</p>