Perhaps the early years of Hyde may have had busts that consisted of lying, sex, and smoking, but in my days, students were getting busted for real drugs on more of a regular basis. In conversation, I learned about more drugs, like ecstasy, LSD, etc. I remember kids getting busted for huffing. There were lots of groups for alcoholics... It was hard to get through school without being accused of being an alcoholic...
Okay, in my day, from what I remember, it was alcohol, pot, hash, shrooms, maybe some acid if you were lucky or well-connected. Cocaine and heroin were generally only accessible by an older age bracket or those more deeply committed to the perceived state of teenage rebellion. Huffing and poppers were part of the scene too, I guess, but Ecstasy and Meth hadn't become available yet. Maybe that was the particular environs I grew up in; I have no doubt that other of my Hyde classmates had somewhat different backgrounds.
That said, from what I remember, the "big drug issues" at Hyde back then were mostly alcohol and pot. Joe's lectures/seminars/school meetings or wherever he would occasion to pontificate were primarily focused on those. AA lingo and slogans permeated everything. That's where I learned most of them. I'm guessing that
that aspect hasn't changed much. Some kids did go off campus to AA meetings in Brunswick back then, but it sounds like this extracurricular activity has been ramped way up these days. Do they still show that 1936 cult classic,
Reefer Madness, or, going a bit off-topic here,
Cool Hand Luke?
Even after graduating, it was common to hear of kids who did not make it, who died or got into major trouble as a result of drug use. The administration tacitly explained this by saying that Hyde prepared kids to have their lives together by age 30, or something strange like that. But what of the kids who don't make it? How much do people become negatively impacted when all of the delinquents congregate in one location and swap trade secrets? How many kids lost their innocence by being around such talk and dangerous activity? If your kid was a normal kid, would the typical Hyde kid be a good or bad influence?
By age 30? What a hoot! This is like Hyde School
simultaneously absolving themselves of any mishaps that occur or misdeeds committed in the first years post-Hyde,
as well as taking credit for normal growing up and biological and psychological development that occurs afterwards! Kinda arrogant, dontcha think?
Do you know of kids who died in their first several years post-Hyde? I guess if they didn't reach that 30-year mark, their "character development" hadn't "reached its full potential" yet, probably due to their "lack of commitment." Hence, Hyde School is not at fault. And if they're
past 30, then they've passed the warranty period. Sorry, outta luck here, it's all their own fault now, certainly not Hyde's.
Here's another thought, in response to your mention of the potential negative impact of adolescents "swapping trade secrets." What about the negative impact of being informed that "you have a problem," which may, in fact, be nothing more than teenage experimentation? Moreover, what about the negative impact of the
way that kind of moral judgment is meted out and remedial action is "taught" at Hyde School?
Personally, I think that by far the best "drug-education" a kid can get is a thorough
bias-free scientific introduction to how the various substrates affect one both physiologically and psychologically (and both pro and con). That way a kid can be forearmed with the knowledge to make an informed choice, and to experiment wisely, if he/she chooses to do so. That may well sound or even be naive on my part, but it worked for me.
It seems to me (an ignorant armchair psychologist) that as far as "unwise" experimentation goes, the primary underlying causal elements usually have to do with personal problems plus poor self-image, etc., and putting kids through a punitive emotional wringer filled with reasons for
more self loathing and disrespect only
delays said excess, it does not prevent it. It might even
make such endeavors even worse or more extreme than they might have been otherwise. After all,
now... they're due to "lack of character," a "bad attitude, "not reaching one's potential," being "a loser, not a leader," or whatever other florid permutations of similar concept that the ever-evolving Hyde lingo is of late... (Btw, what
is it of late, or at least, while you were there?)