“Sweet baby Jesus,” I thought to myself while gulping down the last few drops of water I could find in my room last Sunday morning. With hands that felt as if they had dried into paper, I pillaged my room for something to drink. After a terrifying moment in which I thought I would die of thirst, I ran to the bathroom and filled a bottle with water, drinking it faster than the sink could refill it. After quenching my thirst, I returned to my grotto-like room, the shades were drawn and the light off. I burrowed into the hallowed covers of my bed, not to emerge until high noon.
Despite my desperate condition that morning, I’m still more fortunate than the four poor souls who were transported to Parkview Adventist Medical Center the night before.
According to the results of the spring NESCAC-wide alcohol and drug survey, the vast majority (94 percent) of Bowdoin students agree that the College’s policies encourage responsible drinking. Bowdoin’s progressive alcohol policy seems to keep some of the more dangerous aspects of drinking in check.
Recognizing the fact that college students will inevitably drink, the College registers the number of College House party kegs. By deterring the consumption of hard alcohol, the Bowdoin administration aims to foster moderation and self-control with underage drinking.
And yet, alcohol remains the most dangerous and widely used drug on campus. Many Bowdoin students abstain from drinking, though it’s hard to tell who they are because they’re not the ones swarming around College House kegs like animals around a watering hole. For the majority of students who do consume alcohol, Thursday through Saturday, drinking becomes our common pastime. Why not? It provides us the opportunity to unwind and forget about our anxieties.
A 2009 report by David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College in London, offers at least one reason, with findings that indicate that alcohol is by far the most harmful drug to both users and to others. Vying for second are crack and heroin. I don’t want to get too bogged down in the findings of the report, so I will simply mention the fact that if the calculated harm to both users and society for mushrooms, ecstasy, LSD and cannabis were combined, the resulting damage doesn’t even come close to that done to society by alcohol alone.
Once the level of intoxication providing the desired social lubrication provided by alcohol is exceeded, problems such as fights, sexual harassment and the administration’s latest fetish, property damage, become much more common.
Nevertheless, the College has managed to foster a generally secure and sensible drinking environment.
Why is it, then, that the punishment at Bowdoin for possession or use of any of the aforementioned narcotics far exceeds that of alcohol?
As the policy currently stands, Bowdoin reacts very disproportionately to the use and possession of various drugs in relation to their levels of individual and societal harms. You have to wonder why, seeing as you never hear of someone with that damn “reefer madness” smashing holes into walls at Baxter.
Perhaps it is time for Bowdoin to reevaluate its policies to better correspond to the true nature of each drug.
This would be a tricky thing to do. After all, federal and state laws define the bounds of the College’s policies.
While it is ultimately up to the individual to be responsible for his actions and to make wise decisions concerning any drug, this does not alleviate the responsibility of the College to nurture a reasonable and open-minded attitude to the true nature of drinking and drugs at Bowdoin.“Sweet baby Jesus,” I thought to myself while gulping down the last few drops of water I could find in my room last Sunday morning. With hands that felt as if they had dried into paper, I pillaged my room for something to drink. After a terrifying moment in which I thought I would die of thirst, I ran to the bathroom and filled a bottle with water, drinking it faster than the sink could refill it. After quenching my thirst, I returned to my grotto-like room, the shades were drawn and the light off. I burrowed into the hallowed covers of my bed, not to emerge until high noon.
Despite my desperate condition that morning, I’m still more fortunate than the four poor souls who were transported to Parkview Adventist Medical Center the night before.
According to the results of the spring NESCAC-wide alcohol and drug survey, the vast majority (94 percent) of Bowdoin students agree that the College’s policies encourage responsible drinking. Bowdoin’s progressive alcohol policy seems to keep some of the more dangerous aspects of drinking in check.
Recognizing the fact that college students will inevitably drink, the College registers the number of College House party kegs. By deterring the consumption of hard alcohol, the Bowdoin administration aims to foster moderation and self-control with underage drinking.
And yet, alcohol remains the most dangerous and widely used drug on campus. Many Bowdoin students abstain from drinking, though it’s hard to tell who they are because they’re not the ones swarming around College House kegs like animals around a watering hole. For the majority of students who do consume alcohol, Thursday through Saturday, drinking becomes our common pastime. Why not? It provides us the opportunity to unwind and forget about our anxieties.
A 2009 report by David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College in London, offers at least one reason, with findings that indicate that alcohol is by far the most harmful drug to both users and to others. Vying for second are crack and heroin. I don’t want to get too bogged down in the findings of the report, so I will simply mention the fact that if the calculated harm to both users and society for mushrooms, ecstasy, LSD and cannabis were combined, the resulting damage doesn’t even come close to that done to society by alcohol alone.
Once the level of intoxication providing the desired social lubrication provided by alcohol is exceeded, problems such as fights, sexual harassment and the administration’s latest fetish, property damage, become much more common.
Nevertheless, the College has managed to foster a generally secure and sensible drinking environment.
Why is it, then, that the punishment at Bowdoin for possession or use of any of the aforementioned narcotics far exceeds that of alcohol?
As the policy currently stands, Bowdoin reacts very disproportionately to the use and possession of various drugs in relation to their levels of individual and societal harms. You have to wonder why, seeing as you never hear of someone with that damn “reefer madness” smashing holes into walls at Baxter.
Perhaps it is time for Bowdoin to reevaluate its policies to better correspond to the true nature of each drug.
This would be a tricky thing to do. After all, federal and state laws define the bounds of the College’s policies.
While it is ultimately up to the individual to be responsible for his actions and to make wise decisions concerning any drug, this does not alleviate the responsibility of the College to nurture a reasonable and open-minded attitude to the true nature of drinking and drugs at Bowdoin.
“Sweet baby Jesus,” I thought to myself while gulping down the last few drops of water I could find in my room last Sunday morning. With hands that felt as if they had dried into paper, I pillaged my room for something to drink. After a terrifying moment in which I thought I would die of thirst, I ran to the bathroom and filled a bottle with water, drinking it faster than the sink could refill it. After quenching my thirst, I returned to my grotto-like room, the shades were drawn and the light off. I burrowed into the hallowed covers of my bed, not to emerge until high noon.
Despite my desperate condition that morning, I’m still more fortunate than the four poor souls who were transported to Parkview Adventist Medical Center the night before.
According to the results of the spring NESCAC-wide alcohol and drug survey, the vast majority (94 percent) of Bowdoin students agree that the College’s policies encourage responsible drinking. Bowdoin’s progressive alcohol policy seems to keep some of the more dangerous aspects of drinking in check.
Recognizing the fact that college students will inevitably drink, the College registers the number of College House party kegs. By deterring the consumption of hard alcohol, the Bowdoin administration aims to foster moderation and self-control with underage drinking.
And yet, alcohol remains the most dangerous and widely used drug on campus. Many Bowdoin students abstain from drinking, though it’s hard to tell who they are because they’re not the ones swarming around College House kegs like animals around a watering hole. For the majority of students who do consume alcohol, Thursday through Saturday, drinking becomes our common pastime. Why not? It provides us the opportunity to unwind and forget about our anxieties.
A 2009 report by David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College in London, offers at least one reason, with findings that indicate that alcohol is by far the most harmful drug to both users and to others. Vying for second are crack and heroin. I don’t want to get too bogged down in the findings of the report, so I will simply mention the fact that if the calculated harm to both users and society for mushrooms, ecstasy, LSD and cannabis were combined, the resulting damage doesn’t even come close to that done to society by alcohol alone.
Once the level of intoxication providing the desired social lubrication provided by alcohol is exceeded, problems such as fights, sexual harassment and the administration’s latest fetish, property damage, become much more common.
Nevertheless, the College has managed to foster a generally secure and sensible drinking environment.
Why is it, then, that the punishment at Bowdoin for possession or use of any of the aforementioned narcotics far exceeds that of alcohol?
As the policy currently stands, Bowdoin reacts very disproportionately to the use and possession of various drugs in relation to their levels of individual and societal harms. You have to wonder why, seeing as you never hear of someone with that damn “reefer madness” smashing holes into walls at Baxter.
Perhaps it is time for Bowdoin to reevaluate its policies to better correspond to the true nature of each drug.
This would be a tricky thing to do. After all, federal and state laws define the bounds of the College’s policies.
While it is ultimately up to the individual to be responsible for his actions and to make wise decisions concerning any drug, this does not alleviate the responsibility of the College to nurture a reasonable and open-minded attitude to the true nature of drinking and drugs at Bowdoin.