<p>Same day that this story came out we had a tiny 1 inch article in the local paper about a young 20 yr old college student who was charged with dealing cocaine. She was a student living off campus near the local UC.
I find myself having conflicting feelings on the subject. My first reaction is that the student should have called the parents. Drug users need help not jail. I base this on watching several young people I know struggle with addictions. I have a good friend whose D is lost. She is sick and not at a point willing to get help. Her parents are frantic as they watch their 19 yr old D spiral out of control. Putting herself in dangerous positions in order to get drugs. In this case the girl has some mental health issues that need treating. She needs treatment not jail. She is sick not a criminal. On the other hand I know that some people drug users or not are not good people. It sounds like these young men thought they were above the law.</p>
<p>
A quick google search brought up arrests for cocaine possession in the last six months of students at Chico State, Texas Tech, SUNY Binghamton, and UCF. I’m sure that just scratches the surface. Does that make us all racists or elitists? Of course not. I didn’t exactly come in here and start threads after each of those incidents. But it’s human nature to view people who seem similar to us (the vast majority of CCers are or have kids with some interest in “top” schools") differently from those who are less like us. Every day, somebody makes a “mistake” and does something illegal. Usually, they are poor. Usually, they don’t even attend college at all. But we don’t say anything until it happens at Dartmouth.</p>
<p>I’m not judging you or anyone else here personally. Maybe you have taken a stance on this issue for years or written your congressman or donated to pay the legal fees of poor “kids” caught doing the same or done something else to help solve the problem you see. If so, I applaud you for it. I don’t know you and I’m not going to judge you. But that doesn’t mean that we as a group or we as a society are any less hypocritical for ignoring the problem when it happens most often. So I will judge us all as a community.
If you (I’m using “you” in a general sense, not directed to nightchef specifically) feel that a law is unjust, you have plenty of options available to fight it. You can protest publicly, communicate with your representatives, donate to political movements, or practice civil disobedience. But as coureur already said,
If they knowingly violated the law, they are morally obligated to live with the consequences. No sympathy required.</p>
<p>Dartmouth does have “Good Sam” policies in place – so a student can call for an ambulance for another student who is drunk and there are no legal consequences. I do not know if this extends to drug use. Alcohol is legal after age 21 and pot and cocaine are not. </p>
<p>DH (a quiet, laid back, hugely tolerant sort) observed that one of the mistakes made was for the cocaine groupies to “dis” the concerns/reports of the veteran. “I don’t know that I’d be picking a fight with someone trained to kill”, he noted. Too bad the students didn’t have a ton more respect for their housemate. Just that could have led to some very different problem solving.</p>
<p>The students who were arrested were subject to the Super Chicken rule–They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.</p>
<p>While I’m not sure that I would have made the same decision as Aubart, I think the university should make strenuous efforts to identify the students who have been harassing him and expel (not suspend) them–no ifs, ands, or buts.</p>
<p>
This is missing the point. I am in fact doing several of the things you refer to (I have written to my representatives and donated to drug-law-reform lobbying groups), and I’m also very proud to live in one of the few states to decriminalize marijuana without resorting to the ridiculous “medical” dodge.</p>
<p>But this thread isn’t about what I’m doing. It’s about what some Dartmouth students did. The question is, when is it appropriate to turn someone else in to the authorities for breaking the law? Some of you are responding as if the answer is “always,” or as if this isn’t even a legitimate question to ask. I submit that the answer is not “always” and that it is very much a legitimate question.</p>
<p>
Okay, here’s the problem: there will eventually be someone, somewhere who cannot just look the other way. Maybe they’ll be unable to support their family if they don’t do their job as a security official. Maybe they are afraid of being implicated in something they haven’t done. There could be plenty of reasons. The point is that some people are going to get turned in. And if this is the case, why should others who did exactly the same thing get off? Why should the possible consequences of a law be felt on the arbitrary standard of the individual who happens to get the choice of whether it is reported?</p>
<p>Aubert is going to Duke Law School so we’ll assume that he was able to find the same court case that I found on the web. There it said that the arrangement was that DSS would confiscate drugs in small amounts and there wouldn’t have been a legal case over it unless the amount of drugs amounted to dealing. Given the police charges here, the amounts looked to be for personal use.</p>
<p>Apparently the people on duty in DSS that evening didn’t follow the informal rulebook.</p>
<p>^^noimagination, you’re saying that there’s no way to prevent some violators of a questionable law from being prosecuted and having their lives damaged, and that this is unfair to them. True. But why is that an argument for turning others in? That’s like saying, “because lightning is bound to strike houses now and then and burn them down, fairness requires every citizen to burn down as many houses as he can.”</p>
<p>
Four reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The lightning example is irrelevant because we do not expect natural catastrophes to occur in a just or equal manner. They are by definition arbitrary. The same should not be true of our justice system, where laws need to be applied in as fair and impartial of a manner as is possible. </p></li>
<li><p>Casual disregard for the law may be worse than some crimes. It is no great secret that cocaine is illegal in the US.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t necessarily agree that the punishments are out of line with the crime. That will have to wait until they have their day in court and judgment is dealt out. Possession of cocaine is, in my opinion, more serious than you may believe. Even if the War on Drugs is the root cause of much drug violence, that does not change the fact that purchasing cocaine ultimately helps fuel brutality and injustice. These guys had a choice, and they chose to do something that was both illegal and harmful. Now, this is a debate that may belong in the politics subforum and not here, but it may very well be that providing arguably excessive punishment was morally preferable to providing no punishment at all.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As an actual member of the class of 2012 here at Dartmouth, I would just like to shed some light on the personal aspects of this case. I do not know Clark Warthen '10, but I have had several personal interactions with Brian Shea '10, Andrew Lohse '12, and Phil Aubart '10. Before I get into that, I should mention that there was another drug bust last year, around this time - and not nearly as much hubbub about it on campus. </p>
<p>The reason for this lack of commotion last year was the fact that the students were not informed upon by another student. Shea '10, as previously discussed here, is actually a really nice kid. I’ve been in his presence drunk (perhaps under the influence of other drugs) and I have interacted with him when he was working for the on campus dining service, as many students here do. Lohse '12 is a bit of a brat, and I do not have much respect for him. Aubart '10 is insufferable, plain and simple. He also works for the campus dining service (at another location) and hardly, if ever, even makes eye contact with customers. In the few times that I have been to parties at SAE (I am in a different house on campus) I have seen Phil behind the bar feeding drinks to freshmen girls. I was not surprised as he denied other people drinks and simply “sketched” on a girl in particular.</p>
<p>It seems to me that his ideals of “honor” and other such virtues extend into his life only when convenient for himself, not for the sake of others. As such - it is common knowledge that he was not liked by his fraternity brothers. I have a strong hunch that the reporting that he done on his brothers is not (simply) because he felt it was the “right” course of action, more that it allowed him some avenue to express his frustration/anger at being unaccepted by his peers.</p>
<p>In glancing over this thread I noticed a discussion about the jurisdiction of the police, etc. in fraternity houses and I just thought I would clarify that SAE is not owned by the college (there are only two fraternities owned by the college on campus) and furthermore, they own the land on which a portion of the Baker/Berry library stands.</p>
<p>And as a last message in regards to the police involvement - budget concerns seem to be hurting Hanover Police, a small, smug force fat off the wallets of privileged students of Dartmouth, who have been unable to solve the only violent crime in the area in a LONG time. (For those wondering, the crime was a robbery of a burrito store off campus.) As such, there are strong stirrings of rumors of indictments being brought against two sororities and four fraternities on campus - tomorrow. Allegedly SAE is not among them, but the “Animal House” frat, Alpha Delta, is.</p>
<p>I suppose for full disclosure I should state that I do not believe that drug control laws prohibit drug use, which I recognize as a definitely destructive habit, but merely provide revenue/solid conviction rates for law enforcement and foster too much foreign interference by the US into other sovereign states. These same states have an incentive to illegally supply a rich country like the US with a desired good and profit from it in a nefarious and violent manner.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting. Could you supply some facts?</p>
<p>If Dartmouth doesn’t own the SAE building, does S&S have any jurisdiction over it? In other words, could S&S answer a call about purported cocaine use at S&S or would it have to call H-Po because SAE is off campus? </p>
<p>How much time elapsed between the arrival of S&S and/or H-Po and the trashing of Aubart’s “stuff?” I’m unclear whether Warthen & friends got angry and trashed his stuff a couple of days later or whether the drug bust provoked an immediate reaction against Aubart right then and there. To be truthful, I kind of wonder if in the middle of a party H-Po showed up and arrested folks and their friends who had probably been drinking themselves got angry and did some foolish things or whether the vandalism took place when everyone was stone cold sober and had had time for reflection. </p>
<p>I also got the impression from a message board that Aubart wasn’t the only one who was annoyed about the cocaine use around the SAE house. Aubart IS, of course, the one who contacted S&S, but some of the posts make it sound as if there were other brothers in the house who were annoyed because the coke users insisted on using in open areas of the house during parties. Is that true…or not? </p>
<p>Finally, someone posted that about 20% of Dartmouth students use coke. I know zilch about drug use there, but is that an accurate number…or more likely a coke head who wants to make it seem like what he’s doing isn’t really that big a deal?</p>
<p>Here’s the argument that my DH makes in favor of legalizing drugs: the dealers would have to pay taxes. Here’s the reason why it’s illegal: the US govt makes more money in drug arrests than it does if drug dealers paid taxes. It’s not about legalizing something that’s harmful, it’s all about money.</p>
<p>It certainly is unfortunate that one of their “brothers” was so unliked. The frat brothers didn’t have to accept him, did they? They’d probably never do something so “uncool” like turn in a "brother’, but Aubart isn’t like them. By now, they should have known better that he’d do something like this.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You’ve made a value judgement on Aubert. Would you care to make a value judgement on Warthen, Shea and Lohse using in the common area after being asked not to?</p>
<p>According to the legal document that I posted, DSS procedures are to simply confiscate small amounts of drugs and only report larger amounts to the police. Is this common knowledge among students? Would it be reasonable to assume that this would be what Aubert would expect to happen?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Aubert is off to Duke Law. I assume that any student would be pretty happy about
that. He already warned these students in the past about their behavior so he could
have just called DSS on them the first time if he only wanted to be vindictive.</p>
<p>Aubert also seems to be pretty active with the veterans group there. It’s pretty
easy to find his writings on the web and I didn’t find that his writing was of the
“rail against society” type that you would expect from a social outcast. There are
people that are socially awkward and I would imagine that coming out of the
armed forces into a college environment would make for a huge lifestyle change.
In fact, an article that I read about the veterans group stated that one of the
purposes of the group was to help those from the armed forces adjust to college
life.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not in New Hampshire. We don’t have a sales tax. The state runs the liquor stores which is why you’ll find very few liquor stores in the state outside of the state-run stores. Lots of folks come up from Massachusetts because liquor is so inexpensive in New Hampshire. If drugs were legal, the state would probably do the selling.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We are the US government.</p>
<p>We vote in and out politicians that make the laws.</p>
<p>If we collectively want different laws, then we just have to make the political changes necessary to do so.</p>
<p>Regarding the published “facts” in this case: Keep in mind that right now they are merely allegations. According to the news source, both the facts that led to the arrest of the men, and the facts concerning the harassment of Aubart (spitting, urination on his door and a broken pong table that he made), were supplied by Aubart in an affidavit. None of those facts have yet been proven to be true.</p>
<p>I do believe that S&S was able to come into the house itself. Remember - a BROTHER called them in, and therefore I have no idea why S&S’s actions would be “inadmissible.”</p>
<p>Regarding the specific time between retaliation and Phil being moved out - I really have no idea, I would imagine it happened within a day. The Dartmouth posted updates in pretty rapid succession.</p>
<p>As for the degree of how pervasive cocaine use is at Dartmouth…I would say slightly less than 20%. Probably more than 10%, though. My sample is probably not a true sample of the Dartmouth population, so it is probably less. There is a decent percentage of students who do not even drink, for example.</p>
<p>I have not heard rumors that Phil was one of many frustrated by the cocaine use, but it would not surprise me since cocaine is a dangerous drug. Do you mind me asking which message board you heard this on?</p>
<p>In reply to limabeans: I don’t know what DH means, but that argument is not too far off from how I think it would go - but I really am not qualified to make that prediction seriously. BCEagle91’s retort in regards to NH/MA tax differences doesn’t really make sense to me in a macro sense. Federally, the tax revenue should be equal. True - New Hampshire state residences perhaps bear a greater negative externality by living in the state where people will be most likely to go to for their cocaine habit, but again, I can’t make that call.</p>
<p>A value judgment for the “SAE Three” themselves does not seem appropriate. What they did was stupid - and will have to face serious repercussions. That does not mean that makes what Phil did any better.</p>
<p>I will assume DSS is Dartmouth Safety and Security - most students just call them S&S. While the “letter of the law” may dictate one course of action, I believe that the action the officers will, nine out of ten times, take is what they decide to do.</p>
<p>As for your opinion of the psyche of Phil Aubart, I will humor you, just because it is always fun to try to peg people into holes for what they do and the reasons for what they do. I would counter by saying that he doesn’t identify himself as a “social outcast” - he is a veteran of the military, after all and a member of a fraternity and has gained admittance to at least two institutions of higher education. He probably places the blame of his lack of acceptance at SAE on his brothers, not on himself. Furthermore, when fraternities offer bids to sophomores (or juniors and seniors, for that matter) they sometimes do not know the pledges that well and “take a gamble” on them and are sure that they will come out of their shells, etc. Which is highly just and not unlikely. Perhaps SAE took that chance on Aubart and things just did not go well. Most people who find they do not really fit in with their fraternities tend to marginalize themselves in those houses by not hanging out there often.</p>
<p>edit: Bay raises a very good point and although it would not surprise me if everything reported has since been true, the majority of the story comes from Aubart’s lips.</p>
<p>Thanks to the following voices of reason for (in my opinion) thoughtful, intelligent posts. I couldn’t agree more! I do not believe that this is a “victimless crime.” Cocaine is a serious drug and this behavior affects the whole Dartmouth community in one way or another.</p>
<h1>13 Atomom</h1>
<p>People break the law–and the one who reports it is the bad guy?</p>
<p>How about NOT doing illegal stuff? Not like they didn’t know it was illegal. . .</p>
<h1>15 Acollegestudent</h1>
<p>I cannot believe what people are saying. It’s not about the drug-user’s well being (unless you are their family, I suppose). I am very glad someone reported them. Maybe it will make other people think twice about doing it, and maybe there would be less of a drug culture on college campuses if more people did it. If I were ever in this position, I would absolutely report them to the police. Good for the guy who reported them.</p>
<h1>35 Jonri</h1>
<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>
<h1>36 Sax</h1>
<p>Please. Cocaine is a drug, it’s addictive and it’s illegal. How can you begin to justify this?</p>
<h1>62 coureur</h1>
<p>No, they were ruining their lives all by themselves. The problem here is not the cops or turning the dopers in to the cops. The problem is the cocaine and the guys who were bringing it on campus and using it.</p>
<h1>90 Xiggi</h1>
<p>. . . Shouldn’t people who support the role of fraternities on college campuses be as interested in closing the rotten apples as much as the observers who consider the abusers a cancer and a perennial risk for influencable young persons?</p>
<p>There are differences between using pot occasionally and using stronger drugs. There are differences between drinking socially and binge drinking. There are differences between pledging and hazing. It so happens that some won’t or can’t understand those not so subtle differences. </p>
<h1>95 Youdon’tsay</h1>
<p>I’ve dipped in and out of this thread and am really surprised to see people so quick to defend the cocaine users and use words like “snitch” against the law-abiding guy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow! Am I being naive, or this that figure remarkably high?</p>
<p>Naive…</p>
<p>Dartmouth12 - Are you saying that 1 in 5 (to 10) Dartmouth students use cocaine? I have a REALLY hard time believing that. If that were true than it’s about time some light is shed on this issue.</p>