I come from the Pacific Northwest, a region famous in certain circles for its marijuana culture. There’s even a town called Weed, California. Growing up in Portland taught me a lot of things about marijuana and the related lingo. It also taught me how to spot a pothead. So allow me to uncover the mysterious “bowl-packers” amongst us.

Observation Techniques: before you know what to look for, you should know how to look for it. Binoculars are only acceptable for use when in a crowd of eagle enthusiasts. Good observation means becoming part of the background. Pretend to read a book or listen to music. Practice listening. Soon enough, you will be able to see the clandestine ways of the elusive “ganja gang” here at Prin.

*Note: Oftentimes, a druggie will be convinced that what they’re doing will soon become legal, and somehow that makes it okay to do now. The fact of the matter is, marijuana is still an illegal substance and there really isn’t a justification for breaking the law.

So how do you know if your roommate is secretly “rolling fatties with Aunt Mari” behind your back? I have constructed a psycho-physio profile in order to more clearly identify and detain those that would “miasmize” our mental atmosphere here. If anyone you know fits the descriptions in the following categories, they are definitely “using” and should be reported immediately.

As with terrorists, profiling Potheads is notoriously difficult and counterintuitive. I have come up with a series of questions designed to expose the highly circumspect movements of the devious “doobie-folk.”

Section 1:  Family Background. Do they come from a stable or unstable family situation? Evidence shows that many “roach regulars” come from one or both of those familial circumstances. If you know anyone whose parents are either divorced or still together, they could be “on drugs” and might require closer observation.

Section 2: Financial Situation. Are they poor, middle class, or wealthy? Studies show that many drug users come from these three social strata. Due to differing levels of income, today’s user has many options from which to choose. The more potent weed, sometimes known as Maui Wauie, B.C. Bud, or the famous Purple Haze, is obviously more expensive and carefully guarded by the furtive druggie. Inferior reefer is cheaper—the lazy pothead (read: all) may refer to it as “ditch weed” or “Mexican sassafras.” If you hear someone mention any of these slang terms, immediately drop what you are doing and gasp really loudly so that they know they were overheard, then run away so that when they look for you they only see your stuff on the ground and you sprinting toward the School of Government.

Section 3: Appearance.  Potheads dress in a certain way. Everyone knows that. Taking a close look at someone’s appearance can tell you a lot about their after-hours entertainment. Let’s start with shoes. Anything made from hemp: absolutely a pothead. Flip-flops? Give them the boot. Converse? Duh. Uggs with leggings? Potentially, yes. Sneakers? They’re called sneakers for a reason, folks. Pretty much any kind of shoe is suspect, except whatever footwear I happen to be wearing.

Section 4: Style. Do they wear flannel? Vests? Jeans on a regular basis? Corduroys? Athletic shorts? Do they keep up with the latest fashions, or do they dress like they’re still in the 90’s? Do they wear t-shirts? Do they dress like they are going to school? According to my research, all these factors indicate recreational drug user.

Section 5: Spirituality. Spirituality is perhaps the most expedient indicator of someone’s involvement with drugs, and it’s easily measured, too. Do they regularly attend CSO or Church services? If so, cross them off your list of suspects; church means you’re clean. If someone rarely goes to church, chances are they’re “hotboxin’ with Kool and the Gang” on a regular basis. They probably skip church to go do it, too.

Section 6: Eating habits. I won’t spend much time with this; we all know potheads like to eat. Check for frequent convenience store usage, especially during the late-night hours.

Section 7: Taste in music. Potheads like music. Lots of music is a tell tale sign of a likely “baker.” Generally they listen to mellow tunes, especially reggae, but they have been known to dabble in other genres. Check your roommate’s iPod; if they have a lot of alternative rock, they’re probably “blazin’ with Maggie Thatcher” on the weekends.

Section 8: Personality. The superficial attributes of a pothead’s personality can vary, but they all share one fundamental addiction and it is this that will bring them down in the end. The Achilles’ heel of the Pothead always has been and always will be immensely helpful for identification—it is an addiction to instant gratification. Potheads want their pleasure here and now. They are impatient and will look for the easiest path to a sense of worth and enjoyment. Instant gratification is perhaps more insidious, and more harmful than the drug itself. If noticed, it should immediately be addressed and destroyed.

If anyone you know bears some resemblance to one or more of these categories, they probably own a bong and use it for purposes other than tasteful windowsill decoration.

Principia, let’s take a bite out of crime with McGruff the crime dog. Good luck spotting your first Pothead. They can be as elusive as the North American Freckle-Breasted Warbler, but that’s only because they’re paranoid.

In the Principia Pledge there are a few things that are mixed up together, offenses that people commit against others (and are illegal), like stealing, and things that people do that can hinder spiritual growth, like using drugs or engaging in sexual misconduct.

Principia needs to treat these groups of things differently. When people harm others, there should be punishment because these things harm members of the community. When people do things that might harm themselves but not others, there should be support and tolerance.

When I say “those who harm others,” I do not mean those who might damage the mental atmosphere of the institution. If we are going to remove people for damaging the mental atmosphere, we might as well remove everyone who has a word of dissent, myself included. Damaging the mental atmosphere is too vague a concept to justify the suspension or expulsion of individuals.

Christian Science is not a religion of rules. It makes statements about what is or is not conducive to spiritual growth. It provides suggestions and warnings. Apart from stating how the religious body of Christian Science ought to be maintained, as in the Church Manual, Christian Science does not have a rule book.

christiansciencearlington.com / photo

The Mother Church in Boston, MA

The Mother Church, or First Church of Christ, Scientist, does not say that in order to become a member one must be free of alcohol, drugs, or sexual misconduct as the Principia Pledge does. It leaves any exclusion of people by these or similar criteria up to branch churches.

Principia College is not, however, a branch church, and the institution’s social conservativism does little to “serve the cause of Christian Science.” Instead, we should embrace the encompassing attitude of the Mother Church.

For example, Christian Scientists who do not wish to get married but do wish to live with partners are not welcome at Principia, nor are homosexual couples, whether they live together or not. Should we really be marginalizing these Christian Scientists on the basis of sexual misconduct, even if they may not be sexually active at all?

Sexual harassment, DUIs, stealing, vandalism, assault, etc: these are the things that people should be suspended or expelled for, because these are things that hurt people in the community.

When Principia suspends or expels unmarried couples for living together or gay couples for being gay, it is essentially saying that such people are not good enough Christian Scientists to be at Principia, even though the Mother Church does not take such a position.

People should not be removed from Principia on spiritual grounds, because Principia is not properly equipped to decide who is or isn’t a good enough Christian Scientist. 

I think that having high standards in our community is important, and like many, I agree with most of Principia’s standards, if not their mode of implementation. Principia should remain a dry campus, as many colleges are; sex should be taken seriously; and people should be encouraged to rise above material sense to the best of their abilities. However, I also think we should spend more time advocating our standards and less time enforcing them if we really want to serve the cause of Christian Science.

It is not rules and enforcement that makes people develop a stronger sense of moral courage, it is the spreading of ideals. This has been shown very clearly through social research and is explained in this lecture.

Warren Curkendall / illustration

I think there is one idea from Science and Health that is also particularly relevant here: 327:22

“Fear of punishment never made man truly honest. Moral courage is requisite to meet the wrong and to proclaim the right. But how shall we re-form the man who has more animal than moral courage, and who has not the true idea of good? Through human consciousness, convince the mortal of his mistake in seeking material means for gaining happiness. Reason is the most active human faculty.”

If we really want to foster ethical behavior, we have to encourage people to think for themselves and come to the obvious conclusion that Principia’s high standards are rational. Suspension and expulsion should be reserved for when individuals harm other people, not for when they harm themselves spiritually. Things like living together, being a gay couple, using drugs or alcohol off campus, and sexual misconduct are not things that harm other people.

Since “[f]ear of punishment never made man truly honest,” we should encourage moral courage through reason rather than suspicion, suspension, or expulsion. Principia should be a loving community, not a judgmental one. It simply cannot be both. 

Principia is a representative of the Christian Science movement in its entirety. Its level of tolerance should reflect that cosmopolitan aim.

In fact, if Principia really wishes to serve the cause of Christian Science, it should lift the ban on non-Christian Science students’ attendance. If we are afraid to interact with others openly, how are we supposed to go out into the world as effective Christian Scientists?

Principia’s standards, being founded in something substantial, should not be threatened by lack of enforcement. They should not be threatened by interaction with non-Christian Scientists.

If non-Christian Scientists dare to attend a school filled with Christian Scientists, I say let them. Let them see what we are and what values we hold. Let them see that we are not scary and that we think critically in order to make ethical decisions rather than simply holding the fear of punishment overhead.

We can be an intentional community without being an exclusive one.