Tell me. Why does an article on an "academic" site talk about "squelching"?

Squelching is what you do in gum boots when you step in mud.

You might want to reduce drug use. Or eliminate drug use.

But unless you make a sloppy mess of drugs or drug users and then try to walk in the mess you cannot "squelch" "drug use".

Note: The unfortunate use of the verb "squelch" came into vogue with ignorant people failing to recognise that "quash" has a very different meaning to "squash". (You can "quash" a conviction, but "squash" a cockroach. And then even more ignorant people talked about "squelching". I never thought I would live to see the day it was used as such on an academic site.

ME. I'll save the word to describe how I walk through a pig sty in wet weather wearing gum boots (or at a pinch across a water logged one-time lawn during floods).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/squelch

Webster's New World College Dictionary, fourth edition - squelch ... 3 "[Informal] the act of suppressing or silencing."

In the case of the headline,suppressing would be the proper use, of course.

Two students have DIED from drug use in the last couple of years, and Joker Jenny is concerned over the misuse of "squelch." Get your priorities straight, woman.

It sounds as if little has changed at Reed over the years. When I was a student at "another Portland liberal arts college" in the mid-80s, the only dealers I knew on our campus were Reed students. While my classmates certainly included many casual drug users, our peers at Reed were in another league altogether; the only one of my friends that I know used heroin was introduced to it (and supplied with it) by a student from Reed. It's sad they are actually losing people to this culture-- and time the college stepped in and put a stop to it as well.

There's a big difference between SDSU and Reed. No one at Reed is running guns and committing murders.

There are also significant differences between different drugs. I've never fielded anything about heroin, although if I did, I'd tell them to avoid it. But young people want to test themselves, and they want to fit in, and they want to "see what it's really like."

For some unknown reason, I have become someone that students on campus talk to about their psychedelic experiences. Mostly it's about psilocybin mushrooms and high end pot (students rediscover vaporizers as delivery systems).

The students discovering psychedelics I just listen to. After a few times listening, I'll make a remark or two. I'll try to refer them to a web site like www.maps.org in order to encourage them to look into the history and research use of these things. And when I get the chance, I'll talk to them about John Lilly, and refer them to his web site. Tht gets them laughing, but also thinking. (Ol' John was a cultural force, and he remained a well socialized, kind, well intentioned human being to the end. But he also called the white house to warn the president about the aliens from outer space.)

Talking about John gives an opening to let them implicitly absorb the message that while most people go through a phase and do just fine, staying in that phase can sometimes result in becoming a bit of a fruitcake. We can sometimes explicitly talk about how "tripping on something" doesn't mean it's true, and use it to develop critical thinking. Sometimes we can actually talk about reality testing.

Sometimes I'll talk directly, pointing out that when the drug experience becomes a necessity to chase, something they are stuck on, that's a sign to back off for a while. Talking about the Heffter Institute's work gives an opening to discussing what's going on in the brain under the influence, and then about how that affects people's lives.

Once in a while, I'll remind them that what they are doing is illegal, and they should be cautious.

I'm not sure exactly what I think about this article. On the one hand, it is tragic that students died of a heroin overdose. On the other, I know that students are going to keep doing drugs and generally the law enforcement response is worse than the disease. Students die from alcohol all the time and nobody remarks on it.

Is it better to have two students dead, and the rest sobered up? Or is it better to ruin the lives of scores with felony records that will keep them poor for the rest of their lives and drive a wedge between students, faculty and police?

A more effective method to prevent deaths is teaching them how to deal with an overdose of heroin. I learned from a housewife with two kids who ran away to NY to work at Fillmore East when she was 15 how to do it. I noticed a scar on her upper arm and she told me "That's where the junkies injected me with salt when I overdosed." Injection with concentrated salt solution, or jabbing a hole in the person's muscle (NOT INTO A VEIN) and pushing salt in, will usually bring an overdose around. It does two things, it raises blood pressure, and it sends an intense pain signal that wakes up the brain. It will leave a scar, but they'll probably live.

Students should also be taught that if there is a heroin overdose, they should get the person with their head down, and their legs up in between mouth to mouth resuscitation. That will keep circulation going to the brain, and keep vomit from entering the lungs.

Aside from that last ditch emergency treatment for heroin, the festival should have Naloxone available in injectable kits for use by monitors. The festival should also have equipment for keeping airways open, and teach students how to keep doing CPR for as long as necessary to keep the person breathing. The festival should have emergency personnel around who can deal with the problem.

A college campus is not an embassy that operates outside the law of the host city. I do not understand the need to be "wary of preserving their autonomy". It sounds like the law enforcement officials made a case that the problem was serious and offered assistance, rather than sending in a bunch of undercover cops without the knowlege of the administrator.

Sending out a message that the open drug use was no longer tolerated at the festival gives student dealers the chance to decide that it is not worth that felony conviction risk. It sounds like a great example on how the police can initiate a partnership with an administration.

BTW What is with the sniping about definitions and grammar on the comment pages here? It is the academic community equivalent to posting "First!!".

Reed College class of '96 here. Not that it matters but I also work as a mental health professional with a major public institution. I also keep in touch with alumni and was also the Reed College "Karma Czar" in 1994 (was in charge of the volunteer community security for Renn Fayre that year).

A couple misconceptions seem to be circulating in the comments here - one, of the two deaths people are referencing here, one was due to heroin use, the other was a suicide unrelated to heroin use. Second, the one confirmed heroin death was with a student who had a documented history of drug problems prior to entering Reed.

I personally do not for one second support the advance of the drug war into the walls of Reed College. One of the things that attracted me to Reed as a prospective student was the fact that the culture was one of openness, tolerance, and small-"L" libertarianism (embodied in the Honor Principle). The fact that drug use was open and tolerated merely was a visible symbol of this openness.

Also, studies have been done on the prevalence of drug use at Reed. Overwhelmingly, the drug of choice for Reedies is and always has been alcohol (a hard drug if there ever was one), and marijuana. Although more Reedies use marijuana than at other colleges, hard drug use was always frowned upon when I was there and there is no evidence I'm aware of that hard drug use (cocaine, heroin, etc.) is used in any greater numbers by Reedies than at other schools. Keep in mind - Reed is an *extremely* competitive school, rated #1 by the Princeton Review for it's academic rigor. It produces a higher proportion of PhDs among it's graduates than virtually any other college in the country. Do you really think that if Reed had some sort of intractible, serious drug problem that this wouldn't have demonstrated itself in terms of student performance?

The simple fact is that this is all about one thing - Reed's culture of laissez-faire tolerance towards drug use, the preference of the Reed body for sharing of information and celebrating alternative culture, this is all antithetical to the War on Drugs. It's not the fact that Reedies do drugs - other than the fact that they may smoke more pot than some, they don't - it's the fact that they don't have the proper attitude about it, e.g., one of paranoia, secretiveness, furtiveness, and of basically buying into the popular propaganda and hysteria about drugs and the Drug War.

I love my school. Yes, I indulged when I was at Reed. I also have a successful career and a family and while those days are behind me, I wouldn't change them for a minute because the experiences I had at Reed made me the person I am today. I really am quite sad at the prospect that this experience may be denied future students.

Gee, so that's the solution to the drug problem: rather than trying to discourage drug use by interdiction and criminalization of drug use - all those nasty people enforcing all those awful laws! - we just need to listen to drug experimenters and users with a kind and knowing air (like a benevolent uncle or aunt) and educate people how to do it better, including rendering first aid on people when they overdose. Didn't this sort of naivete pass away with the '60's, when it became painfully obvious that drugs like cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, and yes even marijuana (not to mention alcohol) can have life-altering effects that can play out in numerous destructive ways? But a lot of people seem mired in the adolescent thinking of that era.

The commonly-held attitude that "I indulged in illegal drugs and I turned out all right, so it's okay to indulge" is itself an expression of a disregard for the Law (with a capital L). That attitude represents a judging of the law by one's own standard, hence placing oneself above the law. In essence, such people decide, "I agree with this law, so I'll follow it. But this other law is stupid, so I won't obey it." In the case of civil disobedience, this can be a noble undertaking, but at least people engaging in civil disobedience submits to the law's penalty for their actions and so show a respect for the institution of the Law itself. Alternatively, if one doesn't like a law, he or she can work within the system to bring about change. But people who advocate and/or practice illegal drug use are simply exhibiting lawlessness - they don't like being told what to do so they're just not going to obey the law. Even if they turned out 'all right' (and how is that defined, anyway?), the end does not justify the means, and their disregard for the law tends to counteract the good that they do.

Fact correction - there indeed have been 2 heroin deaths @ Reed in the past year - 1 young man last year, and one this. There has also been a student death that some are calling a suicide this year (apparently this young woman was a vocal opponent of drug use @ Reed).

Altho' I don't have exact numbers, in my conversations with the counseling community, booze & MJ are present on most campuses, but Reed tends towards much harder drug use - including heroin, so 2 heroin deaths would reflect that higher use rate (no heroin deaths at other campuses).

In fact, Reed's reputation for drug use is such that there are numerous stories of students who specifically choose Reed for that drug culture, so there is self selection going on as well. The stories are highlighted in various college choice reference books, including those authored by students.

As the alumni from 'other' colleges in Portland attest - Reedies not only use harder drugs, they push them on others too (perhaps to feed the habit?)

My spouse was a Reedie in the 60s/70s, and never touched the stuff - but she was isolated in the sciences, and her cliche was focused on study, not outside experimentation. She has always bristled when I mention the drug reputation, so she has been a bit surprized at what appears to be a much greater drug culture @ Reed.

My child is now @ Reed, and a Housing Advisor, but she doesn't see this as a particular problem for her floor, or her circle of friends. However, she is also a serious student in the sciences, and (so far as we can tell) isn't interested in this kind of experimentation. She did a number of reports on various drugs in public school, and is well aware of the dangers (my spouse is an MD).

And yes, alcohol and other drugs are also problems -- prescription drugs being one newer example -- but heroin not only leads to deaths, but is illegal and intimately tied into the illegal drug trade.

So ... altho' the law enforcement effort may seem a bit heavy handed, the fact is that Reed's internal policy regarding drugs has not been sufficient to stem these deaths, but has confirmed that Reed is also a center for the illegal drug trade, and Portland is out to get the dealers & pushers.

I say hooray for the attorneys who put some not-so-subtle pressure on Reed's president to act like an adult with respect to dealing with illegal drugs on campus. Similar outbreaks of adult behavior on the part of college administrators are happening all over the country with respect to clamping down on binge drinking. This also is due to a realization that kids are dying from their so-called experimentation, and that the attitude of "I did it when I was young so it's okay for kids to do it now" doesn't carry a society very far.

I once taught at Reed College as a visiting professor. The place reeked of drugs, and not just of dope. I saw students shoot heroin in public, and one student offered to give me some--in exchange for a higher grade. By no means do all students do drugs, and most are sensible. But it amazed then--a few years ago--that the police never raided the campus. I assumed that some tacit understanding existed between the college and the police. Believe me: the college knew what was going on, but it chose to look the other way.

When a student committed suicide--not from drugs--the college, rather than acknowledging the death and mourning the loss, kept quiet.

What a place. Parents should think twice before sending their kids there. Other liberal arts colleges, at least as good, aren't pervaded by drugs.

RT

The Reed College Psychology department has performed studies on the subject of drug use at Reed college in the past, and has answered the question as to whether drugs are more in use at Reed or less.

I can't quibble with what the "counselling community" says (although I am part of that community, anyways), but again, while the number of Reedies who smoke pot is reportedly higher (no pun intended) than at other colleges, the drug use prevalence at Reed is routinely exaggerated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_College#Drug_use; refers to the "pluralistic ignorance project" study which was published while I was a student there).

Assuming two heroin-related deaths in 10 years (and I can't recall others before that) that still puts Reed significantly below the background rate of heroin overdose deaths in the surrounding Portland community. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

And, lastly, assuming that these two deaths represent some sort of trend, what, pray tell, will sending in undercover police, emphasizing law enforcement, what will that exactly accomplish? Keep in mind there is no evidence I'm aware of that despite the billions (if not trillions) of dollars the US has spent locking up drug users and drug dealers over the last hundred years that there has been any change whatsoever in the per capita use of heroin or cocaine. What we've succeeded in doing is making the trade in drugs more profitable, more lucrative, more violent, and driving it's use underground, and simply making it more dangerous. This is not debatable.

Bringing a lock-em-up, zero-tolerance approach to drug enforcement into the walls of Reed will invariably accomplish nothing more than producing arrests, likely of people trading or dealing in cannabis or other soft drugs, since those are overwhelmingly used by Reed students (as is the case with the population in general). Will this prevent future heroin deaths? Highly, highly doubtful. However, it will possibly prevent a number of college students from receiving federal financial aid, and possibly ruin several students' chances of having a reasonable shot at a productive career.

I use myself as an example because I think it bears thinking about - again, I indulged while I was at Reed, and I certainly enjoyed myself, and I would not change anything about my experiences at Reed. Since I graduated, I've earned my doctorate, now make a very nice salary, I have a growing family. I've worked hard to accomplish all of this. So, would I have been better off arrested or jailed? What would that have accomplished? Perhaps have given me the required attitude adjustment? That seems to be at it's core what this is about - since again, the law-enforcement emphasis being debated here will do nothing to prevent heroin-related deaths at Reed.

Myself, I certainly would have no problem sending my children to a place like Reed (e.g., a college with an established, top-notch reputation for academics) - regardless of the level of drug use there. If you're fearful for your children because other people do drugs, then you don't really have much faith in how you raised them, I would guess. Better you keep them at home to do online courses with University of Phoenix, so you can keep an eye on them. :-)

As a side comment: Reed is serving as an interesting microcosm for national drug policy. My interests in Reed are purely nostalgic - again, honestly, I had a whale of a time while I was a student, I worked hard, I played hard, but I never let my playtime interfere with what I was trying to do as a student. Which just seemed to me a sensible way to conduct myself. I enjoyed the friends I made (many of whom are lifelong) and since I enjoyed my time there so much and it was so productive and exciting, I really wouldn't want the school of my memory to change at all. If it does, and simply becomes like all other schools complete with campus cops, federalized drug policies, and et cetera, I will feel sad, but that's about the impact of it.

I think what this whole saga at Reed is really asking people to do (and I'm looking at all of the commenters here) is to ask some serious questions about how we're addressing the real problem of serious drug abuse and addiction in higher education (and in our country). Simply sending in more cops and doing more 'zero-tolerance' hasn't worked. We can't keep drugs out of our prisons, for God's sake, we certainly won't be able to keep them out of Reed College.

I'm all in favor of Reed and other schools making available counselling and treatment options for those that desire or need it, and for the culture to remain (as it was when I was a student) free of peer pressure to use, and one that emphasizes personal responsibility and academic excellence over all else. But again, I think for all of those here that support more cops, more arrests, more 'zero tolerance,' I really want you all to stop and ask yourselves what, exactly, that would accomplish in terms of preventing drug-use related deaths? I just don't see anything being thought through here - just some anger about the perceived privileged hippie kids and their dope getting away with things for too long and finally getting their comeuppance. I hope this is actually about concern for those who are actually in trouble with drug use - and not that.....