<p>[Names</a> Revealed in TCU Drug Bust - Local News - Dallas/Fort Worth, TX - Dallas/Fort Worth, TX - msnbc.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46397272]Names”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46397272)</p>
<p>This is terrible and there are going to be a lot of unhappy TCU football fans. Why would these students (and athletes) risk what they had?</p>
<p>because they are young, their frontal lobes are not fully functional yet, and they do not all have the capacity to make “good” decisions or understand the weight of their actions and lack impulse control. </p>
<p>And it is a really sad situation.</p>
<p>I read the Chancellor’s letter–and I have to say, the folks at TCU need a civics refresher about what it means to be arrested for a crime as opposed to being convicted of a crime. The kids who were arrested were all separated from TCU and “criminally trespassed” from the campus. There is not a hint in his letter of recognition that not all (or indeed, any) of these people may be ever found guilty of any crime.</p>
<p>This type of story underscores both the depth of our drug problem and the failure of our efforts to eradicate the problem through criminalization of the petty users and dealers. </p>
<p>Today’s announcement at TCU probably could be duplicated at any other organization that ends with .edu --to different degrees. </p>
<p>The reality is that people, especially the young, desperately want to drink, try drugs, and have sex. Prohibition of sex and booze has proven to be futile, and there are no reasons to think that “we” are making a dent in the drug trade and consumption. </p>
<p>Could we really do worse than what we “do” today?</p>
<p>xiggi, well said and vlines, so true . I wish there was an easy solution.</p>
<p>Not sure what is so “terrible” or “sad” here. That the football team will have to compete without some of its players? That some student drug dealers will have to suffer the consequences of their illegal activities? That a “Christian” college is embarrassed that its students aren’t that special? We’re talking about a lot more than poor impulse control or underdeveloped frontal lobes here. These kids were not merely experimenting with drugs, the were repeatedly selling them, both making a profit and facilitating drug use by others. I only feel sorry for their parents–their kids have been a grave disappointment to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They may be merely reacting to the fact that many people in general need a civics refresher about the distinction between arrest and conviction, since if they do not dismiss the students, there will be constant criticism against the school for “coddling drug dealers” or whatever.</p>
<p>We need to start by legalizing pot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m trying to think of another big school who “had to protect its football reputation” and was lamblasted for not acting quick enough. I seem to recall very few posters here (me being one) saying the very thing you’re saying, but we got blasted on this very site for even considering it. And last I checked, nobody has been found guilty there either…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I’m sure the 3 kids at the high school where I work would have been saved by legalizing it. Sometimes, kids are just plain stupid. Smoking weed in the back of the school bus on the way to a field trip…</p>
<p>“Saved”? Presumably a school bus is a no smoking zone, no matter what is being smoked. So they would be told to put it out. End of story. </p>
<p>What would your school do if they lit up a tobacco product on the school bus?</p>
<p>There is speculation that on February 1, 2012, approximately 60 members of the football team failed a random drug test.</p>
<p>
And that would help…how? By ‘start’ do you mean then following it up with the rest of the drugs these people were arrested for - cocaine, prescription drugs, etc.?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would help by not filling our jails with people convicted of victimless “crimes.”</p>
<p>And yes, I am completely opposed to drug laws in general, for several reasons: as a matter of principle, and because prohibition has been shown to be wildly counterproductive in that is completely fails to stem consumption and creates criminal enterprises and hobbles lives.</p>
<p>If a person wishes to drink, smoke pot, snort cocaine, shoot heroin, or whatever, IMHO it is their own business as long as they do not endanger anyone else–by, for example, getting behind the wheel of a car. I’m all for strong, enforced DUI laws.</p>
<p>BTW, I would have no problem with heroin users being charged more for health insurance, along with smokers and people who persist in driving without their seatbelt on.</p>
<p>[Ten</a> Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/]Ten”>Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal)</p>
<p>Worth pondering. Note however that the reduction in drug addiction required not just decriminalization, but significant increases in treatment availability/health care (no, they don;t charge heroin users more for health insurance) and public investments (read: taxes) in risk-reduction strategies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>suspension- there is a “no tolerance policy”, and cigarettes are illegal for a 15 year old too. Our “no tolerance” society does not allow for learning from mistakes. Long gone are the days when the police brought you home after a mischevious night and embarrased the hell out of you and your parents. Now it’s straight to jail.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mini, the idea that the US will get to this place anytime soon just made me laugh out loud. Not because I do not agree with you, I agree completely. Rather because I went to bed with a headache yesterday after yelling at the ding dongs on TV arguing over birthcontrol. A very 60’s and 70’s topic. I can’t believe that it is so front stage right now in politics. (and no, they could not hear me yelling at them through the TV ! LOL )</p>
<p>
By ‘a person’ would you include a minor? Do you think it’d be fine if a 12 y/o decided to try crack? If not then would you want it to be illegal for people to sell drugs to that 12 y/o?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that is a question that does not come with a canned answer a la SAT. There are no black on white or easy answers, but sooner or later we will have to conclude that our attempts to control through enforcement and punishment are not working too well. Looking at the population that fills our prison makes you wonder if there is not a cynical desire to keep our unemplyment lower through massive government employment and keeping a good number of our youth behind bars. With the poor prospects of rehabilitation after incarceration, we do seem willing to condemn more than a few to disguised life sentences. </p>
<p>However, preaching for changes or deriding current policies is not working too well either. The problems seem to get worse instead of getting better. All leading to a conclusion that new solutions should be pursued. </p>
<p>A good start would be to realize that no solutions will be easy and quick. The examples of the Netherlands and of Porugal (as cited by Mini) are not example of perfect changes. But again, could we really do worse than we have done so far? </p>
<p>Fwiw, here are a few articles that might open the eyes to different approaches. It is easy to dismiss such reports as lunacy … until we weigh our options. </p>
<p>[Failed</a> states and failed policies: How to stop the drug wars | The Economist](<a href=“How to stop the drug wars”>How to stop the drug wars)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Former</a> Mexican president urges legalizing drugs - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/07/26/mexico.drugs/index.html]Former”>http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/07/26/mexico.drugs/index.html)</p>
<p>[War</a> on drugs has failed, report finds - CNN](<a href=“http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-02/justice/drug.commission.report_1_drug-legalization-drug-markets-drug-policy?_s=PM:CRIME]War”>http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-02/justice/drug.commission.report_1_drug-legalization-drug-markets-drug-policy?_s=PM:CRIME)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But do we preclude that to happen today? How many 12 years old have seen or tried crack in our inner-cities? Heck, let’s forget our abject ghettos. How many in our high priced neighborhoods and fancy schools have access to fancier and exotic drugs?</p>
<p>We really do not want to know!</p>
<p>^^ I used ‘12 y/o’ as an example but one can substitute 15 or 17 if they wish and I think we’d all agree that 17 y/o, 15 y/o, and unfortunately sometimes even 12 y/o do try some of these drugs including the ‘hard’ ones. The question’s the same though. I’m just trying to see if the advocate for legalization of all drugs has a threshold and if so, what it is.</p>
<p>In answer to your question, I’m not sure. My focus is to figure out what actually works. Prohibition doesn’t. </p>
<p>One approach would be to use a uniform age of majority. In other words, a person determined to be “of age” has the right to do what they wish with their own body without anyone else’s consent: have sex, do drugs, drink, bungee jump, pierce their ears, risk permanent brain damage by playing football, or whatever.</p>
<p>Our society does in general recognize some need for the protection and support of minors. At what age “majority” should occur is another matter.</p>
<p>It is also true that I think our nation’s drinking laws are insane, and have done much to encourage binge drinking among adolescents and associated risky behaviors. Many of us have decried the drunken hookup culture on college campuses that can lead to much damage for both genders. Some countries, such as Switzerland, have a graduated drinking law, so that adolescents can drink beer and wine at an earlier age than the hard stuff, just as some localities have graduated driving laws that prevent a new driver from carrying passengers, driving late at night, and so forth. The latter seems eminently sensible to me, at least as it pertains to driving. Whether it would work for substances is an open question.</p>