cannabisnews.com: Law Meant To Hold Students Accountable 





Law Meant To Hold Students Accountable 
Posted by FoM on January 11, 2002 at 09:41:05 PT
By Mark Souder
Source: Journal Gazette
Students who receive taxpayer-subsidized aid to go to college should be held accountable to follow our drug laws. Throughout South America, our nation is mocked because we complain to other countries about cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs coming across our borders while students here see minimal enforcement of drug laws at our nation's institutes of higher learning.Drug use is unacceptably high among all groups, but it has been a particular problem among college students. 
We have attempted to address drug use among other groups through both prevention and enforcement. Why not college students? We cannot have a double standard that demands enforcement of our drug laws for young people in the inner cities but not for those on college campuses.The administration's interpretation of the law is ridiculous. Contrary to the inference in your editorial (Jan. 3), my amendment was drafted by the lawyers who write all congressional bills and was reviewed by the lawyers of the congressional committee, as well as by multiple lawyers on my staff.According to the Bush administration, in response to my subcommittee's request for documents that formed the basis for the Department of Education's interpretation, there were zero documents justifying the Clinton administration's position. Apparently, a bureaucrat made up the position without debate or discussion, or else all e-mails, memos and the like were destroyed.There is disagreement among those who cover this issue about whether the Clinton administration wanted to deliberately scuttle the law (the conservative view), were trying to appear macho on drug enforcement (columnist Clarence Page's view), or were simply incompetent. The initial decisions by the Bush administration were made by holdover Clinton appointees. So were the final reviews.However, after meetings I had with Bush administration officials just before Christmas, the position of the Department of Education became clear: the Clinton administration had badly messed up and now the Bush administration was forced to devise a legal strategy to defend its position in court.Incidentally, the criteria the department used would also preclude the language proposed by Sylvia Smith in her Dec. 30 column because any reference to drug convictions in the past tense (which, by the way, is necessary) is too vague, in the department's view.Its position is also that everyone in America is a potential "applicant" at any time, not just those individuals who complete applications; thus, any narcotics violation counts because the person is a potential student. Obviously, this was not the intent of my amendment.The Journal Gazette may not like to hold students who receive taxpayer subsidies accountable for violating anti-narcotics laws, but most taxpayers do. I would think that the editorial board would at least be outraged by the interpretation - which the administration acknowledges was not the intent of Congress - of a law which was written by the same lawyers who wrote the rest of the Higher Education bill. If it weren't so potentially detrimental to students, this legal defense of the Clinton position would be laughable.Rep. Mark Souder, R-4th, is a member of Congress. He wrote this for The Journal Gazette.Newshawk: irok247Source: Journal Gazette, The (IN)Author: Mark SouderPublished: Thursday, January 10, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Journal GazetteContact: letters jg.netWebsite: http://web.journalgazette.net/Related Articles:Anti-Drug Law Hurts Some Students http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11647.shtmlFinancial Aid Bill Needs Revisionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11396.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #14 posted by freedom fighter on January 12, 2002 at 00:16:38 PT
Phew!
Mr. Souder, did you just defaced in your pants?Phew!Mr. Souder! I suggest you to check this link below..ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by i420 on January 11, 2002 at 19:40:38 PT
WWW.OUSTSOUDER.COM
Throughout South America, our nation is mocked because we complain to
   other countries about cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs coming across our borders while
   students here see minimal enforcement of drug laws at our nation's institutes of higher learning.

No they are mocking you for passing stupid laws like this while they public is busy buying up these drugs which goes to show just what the "will of the people is"Drug use is unacceptably high among all groups, but it has been a particular problem among college students
Oh and just by who's standards ??? Yours??? Do you even have a clue what the people really are trying to tell you.
We have attempted to address drug use among other groups through both prevention and enforcement. Why not
   college students? We cannot have a double standard that demands enforcement of our drug laws for young
   people in the inner cities but not for those on college campuses.
Hell no we can't have a double standard can we but double jeopardy is just fine and dandy, huh.
The Journal Gazette may not like to hold students who receive taxpayer subsidies accountable for violating
   anti-narcotics laws, but most taxpayers do.

Well the journal has a better idea of what most taxpayers want than you do. How do you know what the taxpayers want your meetings with your constituents are held at inconvenient times with little or no advance notice of your impending visits with the public.
You ignore comments wrote in our newspapers and letters sent to your office. I have heard not one good comment wrote by a constituent in your support in our newspapers. You and your drug-free cronies sit in a house of worship in judgement of god's creatures. Who are you to judge us and decide what is morally correct for the people. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Dark Star on January 11, 2002 at 17:58:36 PT
Hoisted on his own Petard
Dark Star does not like personal attacks, so let's generalize a bit:Politicians like this are so constipated, they need an enema before they get out of bed.God save us from legislators that fail to consider the implications of their bad laws. Such prevarications are akin to the Nuremberg defense.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by mayan on January 11, 2002 at 17:16:49 PT
Accountable?
Who needs to be held accountable? I can't wait till the students hold the lawmakers accountable!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by CorvallisEric on January 11, 2002 at 16:58:47 PT
Souder
I'm actually having fun watching this guy squirm. The tortured analysis to prove that it's all the fault of - surprise! - the other party. And all the effort he has to put into this instead of the his real business generating joe-six-pack sound bites.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Dan B on January 11, 2002 at 11:48:22 PT:
You're Welcome, FoM!
I though you might want to post it here. Who knows, CBS might actually have some real reporting on Colombia!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by goneposthole on January 11, 2002 at 11:38:10 PT
Didn't read this one
The author(?) is an idiot and does not merit attention . Just another dumbass politician, he is.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by E_Johnson on January 11, 2002 at 11:12:49 PT
The law is supposed to constitute accountability 
The law is supposed to constitute accountability. These damned drug warriors are defeating the very rule of law in our society, although most of them are simply too stupid to realize it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 11, 2002 at 10:28:08 PT
Dan B 
Thanks Dan! I got it posted!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by observer on January 11, 2002 at 10:23:24 PT
Government Power Formula
We have attempted to address drug use among other groups through both prevention and enforcement. Why not _______? We cannot have a double standard that demands enforcement of our drug laws for young people in the inner cities but not for those in/on ________.Isn't this simply a formula for bureaucrats to do anything they wish to anyone they want?One of the telltale signs of a society slipping toward tyranny is the expansion of the definition of what constitutes a crime. . . . The premise of the drug prohibitionists is exactly the same as those who wish to outlaw cigarettes: the state has the right to forbid an individual to take any action which is deemed harmful to him by the state, not just drugs, but anything which might be harmful to you -- the state has the right to dictate what actions you may take -- the state may forcibly prevent you from following your own judgment. . . . The spread of drugs in this country has been a bonanza for statists. And contrary to their pious, public statements, they would be sorely disappointed if drugs magically disappeared, overnight, from our streets. A problem like this is a statist’s dream: it is an opportunity to extend and tighten, virtually without opposition, the state’s tentacles around that ever-contracting circle of individual freedom. Like termites eating the supporting joists of a house whose owner is unaware of the coming collapse of its floors, statists are laying waste to the crumbling foundations of liberty in the name of "doing something" about drugs while most Americans remain unaware of the coming collapse of their freedom. http://www.fatalblindness.com/CHAPTER_9.htm#9 
Fatal Blindness
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on January 11, 2002 at 10:20:54 PT
Lotsa love for ya, Mark, you midwestern *$%#^ #$!
"Students who receive taxpayer-subsidized aid to go to college should be held accountable to follow our drug laws."Mr. Souder is absolutely right. I want to earmark my tax money to go only to binge-drinkers, Fraternity date-rapists, shoplifters, vandals, people who litter, cheaters, and the violent ones who beat up people in bars.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dan B on January 11, 2002 at 10:18:30 PT:
Yep, It Was Interesting . . .
. . . if not very informative. What is interesting is that a mainstream news show with older demographics (as compared to most TV programs--including most other TV news programs) is telling the truth about Colombia. This is sure to get middle America to at least consider what their tax dollars are paying for. I hope that the program itself is as straightforward as the press release.Regarding this article (above), I agree with Robbie. Souder is a fool, and the fact that he is defending his folly (and the folly of all those lawyers he alludes to) is a sign of even greater folly. Is there no limit to foolishness? Of course, there are many other words I could substitute for "fool," "folly," and "foolishness," but I'm sure you can supply those terms on your own. There is a no profanity policy here.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dan B on January 11, 2002 at 10:08:24 PT:
60 Minutes Story
Check out this 60 Minutes story on how ineffective and harmful dropping herbicides on coca plants in Colombia is. May prove to be interesting reading. I'm going back to read the rest of it now.http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,323944-412,00.shtmlDan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Robbie on January 11, 2002 at 09:54:50 PT
Personally, Mark
I think you should rot in hell.Do not pass Go, do not collect $200 worth of Financial Aid. Go directly to hell.If you have any honor you will sponsor legislation that kills your first Bill, and then resign your position in disgrace.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment