<p>Aubart is not a typical Dartmouth student. He served in the military before enrolling in Dartmouth. He was a specialist and then enrolled in ROTC there. There are only about a dozen ROTC students at Dartmouth. He wants to be a lawyer in the JAG corps. I can’t find the link I found before, but this will give you some idea of his background:<a href=“ROTC at Dartmouth | Dartmouth Student Affairs”>ROTC at Dartmouth | Dartmouth Student Affairs;
<p>Oh, let the “brothers” have a bit of fun. After all, don’they offer true examples of remarkable citizenship and the moral fiber all parents hope their children will learn after graduation from high school. </p>
<p>What is the problem if a few of those 18 or 19 years old get hooked on illegal substances, or rushed to the hospital fighting for their lives? Won’t they have the eternal support of the “brotherhood?” And, if things go really bad --like DYING-- won’t their parents and friends be told that it was all an issue of personal responsibilities? </p>
<p>Fwiw, we no longer have to wait for an answer to the question why those cancers are still allowed on our campuses and how long it might take to eradicate their toxic presence. By now, we know that no matter how many children die or get corrupted by the “system” few (if any) college administrators have the spine to make the proper decisions. There are simply too many romantics (to please) who seem to like to live vicariously through their children and remember the good ol’ days! </p>
<p>Fwiw, a bit more than 5 years have passed since a certain Gordie Bailey died in Boulder at the hands of criminals masquerading as brothers. After a bit of hiatus, the fraternities are back and in full force. </p>
<p>So, indeed, let the brothers have a bit of fun. Just pray it won’t be one of your kids facing the police or an attending ER doctor.</p>
<p>xiggi, I’m sorry but there are plenty of people here who went to college in the 1970s and have plenty of experience with casual drug use and KNOW that all of this Reefer Madness hysteria is just that. </p>
<p>Personally, I definitely think that pot ought to be legalized, and I see no reason to have laws against using other drugs either. OUI, yes definitely. No one who is impaired should ever get behind the wheel of a car–or any motorized vehicle, including snowmobiles and boats. That is putting other people at risk.</p>
<p>Consolation, it is not hard to agree with you regarding the legalization of pot, especially considering how the alternative has worked for our society so far. However, the issue is one of protection of our younger minds from the rather incredible nefarious role played by fraternities. </p>
<p>We create boundaries to protect K-12 schools --and churches-- from most known “vices.” One would expect more from colleges. Zero tolerance is not a bad idea!</p>
<p>There is no similarity between this and Gordie Bailey. These were just some friends chilling with what many consider to be a recreational drug. At many schools it was widely used in all types of housing besides frats.</p>
<p>Aubart looks like he’s at least in his mid to late 20s.</p>
<p>It appears that he reported this to campus security, not the Hanover police. Campus security referred the case to Hanover police. It sounds like the campus police could have used their discretion on this case but chose not to.</p>
<p>So now these almost-graduates are charged with witness-tampering too. This sort of thing happens all the time in the small cities of New Hampshire where someone beats up their girlfriend and then threatens her if she testifies. It’s usually not associated with college students because, they’re bright enough to know better.</p>
<p>The only things for which there should be zero tolerance are those things that are always and unmitigatedly bad: violence, theft, etc. Drug use is not like that. What’s needed on that front are education, honesty, and adults setting an example of moderation, good sense and responsibility. Zero tolerance is a copout; it’s society’s way of saying “complexity makes my brain hurt.”</p>
<p>I want to understand why Campus Security is not dealing with these issues. Regardless of the status of drugs (and I certainly have had similar experiences to Consolation in regard to casual drug use in 68 - 72, my college years) I think certain people have to report usage because of their own positions in terms of ROTC, honor codes, positions in Fraternity, etc.</p>
<p>However, the Campus Security can deal with this without leveling criminal charges, which might be a better route to follow.</p>
<p>"After reporting the incident to Safety and Security, who subsequently turned the case over to Hanover Police, Aubart was allegedly subject to harassment by Lohse and Clark Warthen '10, according to the Valley news. Both have been charged with witness tampering.</p>
<p>Lohse allegedly spat on Aubart and poured out a beer in his room in the fraternity’s physical plant, while Warthen allegedly asked other fraternity members to destroy a table that Aubart had made for the fraternity, the Valley News reported. Another unnamed student reportedly urinated on Aubart’s bedroom door, and other students were prevented from breaking into the bedroom to urinate on his belongings.</p>
<p>Aubart subsequently moved out of the fraternity into a dormitory, according to the report.</p>
<p>All three students charged in the incident have been released on personal recognizance. Additional arrests are expected, Hanover Police said in a statement Thursday."</p>
<p>What a bunch of jerks.</p>
<p>Why is the student who turned them in the bad guy? The tone of this thread (everybody does it, they were such promising young men etc is very sad.)</p>
<p>Recreational drug use is not a victimless crime. Its not just an individual choice. Its the end point of a supply chain that is a river of misery. Putting aside any harm to themselves or their immediate community these young men have contributed to the death and degradation of others. There’s a huge societal cost for their fun. Usually those enjoying the drugs pay very little of it. </p>
<p>I am not a fan of our current “war on drugs”. But I see nothing to defend about what these young men did and no reason to criticize the young man who turned them in.</p>
<p>Their subsequent behavior is shameful. Whatever your position on drug use its pretty clear they are indeed jerks.</p>
<p>And while I’m at it, please, would people stop talking like everyone going to college in the 70s was getting high. Not so. And we didn’t all experience casual cocaine use either, even in grad school in the 80s.</p>
<p>I agree with Bay and Consolation. Any one of us who matriculated to college in the 70s and then went out into the workplace, at least in major cities, could not possibly avoid the casual-use drug scene. I’ve known many, many friends who were casual users of pot, coke, and even hash, who did not get addicted and turned out just fine. I’m not endorsing drug use, but I found the hysteria then, and find it now, really uncalled for. The people I’ve known over the years who indulge in occasional recreational pot use are way less of a problem to themselves, their families, and society than the many “functioning” alcoholics I know.</p>
<p>My guess is that this turned into felony charges because of the intimidation directed against Aubart. He didn’t call the cops; he called S&S. The brothers then allegedly made his life miserable to the point where he had to move out of the frat house. </p>
<p>You can’t let students intimidate those who report crimes. If you do, other crimes will not be reported. You have to do something to get across the message that intimidation won’t be tolerated.</p>
<p>I’ve never used either, but I think there’s a HUGE difference between pot and cocaine use. Cocaine can make some folks very belligerant. Cocaine is also WAY more addictive than pot.</p>
<p>"Researchers supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse have identified a process in the brain that may help explain addiction to cocaine and other drugs of abuse. </p>
<p>Their research indicates that repeated exposure to cocaine causes a change in genes that leads to altered levels of a specific brain protein. This protein regulates the action of a normally occurring brain chemical called dopamine. It is a chemical messenger in the brain associated with the cocaine’s pleasurable “rush”-the mechanism of addiction."</p>
<p>Please. Cocaine is a drug, it’s addictive and it’s illegal. How can you begin to justify this?</p>
<p>The whole Greek system is not a good thing. This is the second incident that brought Dartmouth bad publicity in less than a year (the previous one invovled the harassing of some Harvard players) that fraternity brothers was involved. I heard that Dartmouth’s former President James Wright tried to tackle the fraternity issue at the onset of his presidency and got blood-nosed. I hope that the new President Kim can do better.</p>
<p>recreational drug ABUSERS and USERs seldom if ever consider the criminal enterprise associated with their drug usage…and the murderous gangs and drug lords, the total decay of society in poverty stricken countries in latin america and so on and so forth. </p>
<p>“Its all good fun” is really a misnomer. “Its all a murderous criminal enterprise” is a better way to put it.</p>
<p>I have no empathy whatsoever for these frat boys. NONE.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for their parents, but I hope the law and Dartmouth throw the book at them and throw them out of school.</p>
<p>alqaeda and the taliban and other murderous jihadists are funded by drug sales in afghanistan and iran. Meanwhile these obnoxious and arrogant frat boys are urinating on the belongings and door of a person in uniform? Disgusting.</p>
<p>By asking, will the punishment fit the crime?</p>
<p>In this instance, where the report indicates that a “small amount” was present, and allegedly 2 adults were using it in their own home, do you think a felony charge, potential imprisonment, a life-long criminal record and forfeiture of a college diploma is justified? I don’t.</p>
<p>If they were your friends and roommates, would you call the cops on them? I wouldn’t.</p>
<p>Fortunately for George Bush and Barack Obama, they didn’t have “friends” like Phil Aubart.</p>