It's an incredibly long speech, but I find it incredibly persuasive (again, not that I needed to be persuaded anyway).
Patrick O'Callahan, at the Tribune editorial board, summarizes:
The main issue here, for those who've obviously missed it, is not the pros and cons of legalizing pot – it's drug use in public schools. We wouldn't be cheering this kid if he'd downed a shot of whiskey in front of the Peninsula High School class, either.I'm not sure that's exactly the right comparison. In fact, it gets to the problem.
Consider the consequences Barry would be facing if he'd written 15 pages advocating dropping the drinking age from 21 to 17, and illustrated the point by drinking a shot of whiskey in front of his peers ... would he be facing immediate emergency expulsion? Would he have been sent to Remann Hall? Both options seem unlikely to me.
The reaction and discipline to Barry's joint versus a hypothetical shot of whiskey illustrates my problem with our current drug laws.
2 comments:
While I agree that this issue would not have been a national news story if it had been about lowering the drinking age, I do not agree with the assumption that there would have not been such harsh disciplined handed down to the student. Any student found with a drug, of any kind, will be reprimanded on public school grounds. Not only is it an issue of a minor in possession, but all public schools are a drug free zone, including adults. In fact, students with OTC drugs will be reprimanded and it is clearly outlined in any school policy in order to maintain a safe, learning environment.
Obviously there would be discipline. I can't speak for school policy for an MIP, especially on campus, though expulsion seems harsh in that scenario. Legally speaking, I'm not convinced a student with a shot of whiskey would have been arrested, cuffed, and taken to Remann Hall, either.
Post a Comment