It would be useful if we could say, for example, watch your drink, because GHB is floating around. Or: here's when you should take your friend to the hospital, or call for help. But we simply say no, with-- if the anecdotes are to be believed-- predictable results.
Isn't this why RAs and student advisors exist? To give more realistic semi-official advice that can be officially disavowed?
Oh, and I had the very same experience at Instapundit yesterday: Hey, he's making sense here! And this post is longer than usual...
Is it legally possible to say "No, but...." As in: "Don't drink, and if you do drink, don't drive, and make sure no one puts GHB in the drink, and take your friend to the hospital if, and...."
Or would that just make too much sense?
Or can you give advice like this: "IF YOU'RE OVER 21" (etc.) The top result at my employer's website for 'alcohol' gives advice of a sort, but I guess it's not aimed at freshmen. Though I am really surprised to see an arm of the Texas Government bashing on mixing beef and exercise.
I went to one of those parties in Greenwich, CT when I graduated from highschool (boardingschool). We all drove several hours. So none of us were going anywhere. The guy's Mom had hired a security guard, and the thing was catered. It was odd.
My alma mater, R**d College, subcontracted alcohol and drug education, or part of it, to a semi-autonomous student group which produced an unofficial orientation packet.
During the Reagan administration one line from the packet, "Drug use is condoned at R**d College" , caused Bill Bennett to go ballistic (not that he usually needed a specific cause.) The alumni think that this story is funnier than the administration does.
I think they are testing how much beef you've had while reading... of course, they mispell "in", so maybe their collective nose was broken while they typed this.
R^$d College certainly had a reputation as a place where a lot of drug use went on. I hope people were or are less dumb about it there than they are here, though.
38 years after I left, my observation is that some of the biggest druggies later on became very succesful in their professional fields. I doubt that they maintained their level of intake, though.
Interestingly, Reed is one of the schools that requires a classicist Great Books humanities program for everyone. Not a panacea for conservative values at all.
My sister attended St. Johns in Annapolis, also a Great Books school, and also (although probably not Reed-class) a school wih plenty of recreational drug use. As you said, any conservative who thinks that a rigorous classical education is going to produce students they'll regard as virtuous is sorely mistaken.
Actually, since the Great Books program at St John's is much more extensive than that at Reed, we might expect the drug use to be correspondingly greater.
Or at least more arcane. Absinthe, anyone?
Surely Alameida should weigh in on this.
Why, yes. It's surprising how difficult it is to write a coherent opposition to a motion made by idiots -- sputtering "But, but, what they're saying doesn't make any sense! At all! They haven't even stated the elements of their claims, much less supported them with evidence!" really doesn't work. I end up having to write their arguments before I can refute them.
But I'm going home now, given that it's after midnight, and that it's therefore my birthday.
A drink after a hard day reading the great books.
Also happy birthday. You're five days ahead of me.
Happy Birthday, Lizardbreath and washerdreyer!
Why doesn't it work?
I find it difficult to stretch incredulous contempt into enough citation-ridden prose. What this thing deserves is half a page of dismissal -- what I have to come up with is reams of counterargument. I'll get it done, but it's annoying.
And happy birthday, w/d.