How can the statement, "Its newness does not make it safe." be simply false? This is especially questionable when followed by "...because of its newness not much research has been done in regards to its effects and dangers." If your operational theory is everything ingestable is safe to ingest until proven otherwise, you simply won't be around long.

I second everything Knowledge Is Power wrote. I strongly suspect that the administration pushed for the Thresher to publish this article, and dictated much of the content. It's very sad that Rice University could host a groundbreaking forum on drug law reform just this March and then turn around and be so close-mindedly ignorant as to insist on putting out blatantly false information.

I do not like this proposal. When the President's Cup was taken away from us last year, there was a lot of anger towards GSA. That anger was misplaced, since it was the IMS Office, not GSA, who was responsible for that whole debacle. GSA had the most points; they won the Cup fair and square, and if it hadn't been for IMS' error, we would have come in second without the uproarious vitriol.

The GSA does have certain inherent advantages: they are older, and often in their physical prime; they are generally at Rice longer (often 5-7 years), which means if they get a couple of great athletes, they'll be around for even longer than our 4 years at Rice; they have a larger pool to choose from (though in reality, the pool of grad students involved in sports is quite small... we all see this when we face the same 10 people in every sport.)

Still, they're just as likely as any college to have an excellent core of athletes that fuel them to championships in every sport. And just like any college with such athletes, their run at the top will likely last a few years at the most.

But so what if they have a great group of athletes for a long stretch (sometimes spanning our entire time at Rice)? Why don't we let it motivate us to do better? I hate GSA, but I let that manifest itself in the "I want to beat their guts out on the court/field" kind of way, not the "get them out of our league" kind of way. When you do defeat them (see: women's basketball), victory is that much sweeter.

Rise to the occasion, undergrads.

The ignorance in this article makes me question the intelligence of Rice's administrators, the author of this article and the editor that allowed this article to be published. First of all as the comment above stated DMT is not a methamphetamine it's true name it dimethyltryptamine. Yes I see "meth" in both names but they are not even similar substances. I can get past this mistake as I presume or at least hope that the author and editor of this article have never taken Organic Chemistry.

Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is actually closely related to seratonin and melatonin (N-acetyl-5-methoxytryptamine...OH NO! Another methamphetamine!). Like seratonin and melatonin, DMT is a naturally occurring compound that is found in not only plants but humans alike.

"Everyone believes this is a dangerous drug," Hutchinson said. "Its newness does not make it safe." This statement is simply false. 25i-NBOMe is an unscheduled drug and because of its newness not much research has been done in regards to its effects and dangers. Yes, there have been some isolated incidents of teens overdosing on 25i in Virginia and eventually being hospitalized. But substances like Alcohol and even Vitamin C can have unfavorable effects on humans when consumed to the point of overdosing.

I am not arguing for or against the legality of 25i or other drugs such as DMT. But it's important for everyone to understand the facts about these substances before making misinformed judgments about these substances. Furthermore, it is especially important that news agencies do their due diligence in researching their topics before brazenly stating fiction as fact.