cannabisnews.com: Seeking Redemption for a Drug Law





Seeking Redemption for a Drug Law
Posted by FoM on April 01, 2002 at 12:55:58 PT
By Stephen Burd
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education
Richard Diaz has been in and out of jail for most of his adult life. Now in his late 50s, the recovering drug addict is trying to turn things around. For four years, he has been studying at Long Beach City College, an experience he says is like having "the gates of heaven open." He has finally learned to read and write, and is preparing to become an alcohol and drug counselor.So Mr. Diaz's heart gave a lurch last year when he saw a question on a federal financial-aid application asking whether he had ever been convicted of a drug offense. If the answer was yes, he discovered, he could lose the federal grants he depends on to attend college. 
"I wanted to tear it up," he says. "I've been a loser all my life, and I didn't want to feel like a loser again."Unbeknownst to him, Mr. Diaz was never in danger of losing his financial aid. His last conviction occurred too long ago to count against him. But not everybody has been so lucky.More than 45,000 students have lost their federal financial aid this year because of a law, passed by Congress in 1998, that strips assistance from college students who have been convicted of possessing or selling drugs. College aid administrators say the law is an unfair roadblock to higher education for people, like Mr. Diaz, who broke drug laws in the past but are trying to remake their lives. Not only is the law denying aid to many students, college officials say, but it is also discouraging many thousands of others from pursuing a higher education because they think that their past misdeeds have made them ineligible for financial support.The plight of ex-offenders has been largely ignored by the news media and the national higher-education associations, critics say, because not many people like Mr. Diaz attend the country's elite private colleges or flagship state universities. But if the experience of an institution like Long Beach is any indication, the law is having a major impact at community colleges, particularly those in large urban areas, which draw many students who are seeking a fresh start."I thought our purpose here is to try and help pull people out of bad situations and help them make changes in their lives and give them better choices so that they won't end up back where they started," says Toni DuBois, financial-aid director at Long Beach City College. "But this law is saying, You messed up, so we're not going to help you."Even the law's author, Rep. Mark E. Souder, an Indiana Republican, is having second thoughts. He says he never intended his measure to deny aid to those who are seeking to "redeem" themselves by going to college. He has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would apply the financial-aid ban only to those who are convicted of drug violations while they are in college, not to those convicted before they enrolled.So far, no groundswell of support has emerged for Mr. Souder's new bill. College lobbyists and drug-reform activists question the congressman's motives and continue to call for the law's repeal. But since that seems highly unlikely anytime soon, some believe that Mr. Souder's bill may be the best chance to help those who have suffered the most because of the law. As Ms. DuBois puts it, "It seems like it would go a long way toward solving the problems we've experienced."The 1998 law denies federal financial aid to students who have been convicted in a federal or state court of possessing or selling illicit drugs. Eligibility may be suspended for one year from the date of a first conviction on a drug-possession charge, two years from the date of a second conviction, and indefinitely for a third. Students caught selling drugs lose eligibility for two years from the date of a first conviction, and indefinitely for a second. A student's eligibility can be restored if he or she satisfactorily completes a drug-rehabilitation program, or if the conviction is reversed or set aside.A student can also lose eligibility for aid by not responding to the question on the financial-aid application: "Have you ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?" In the 2000-1 academic year, 279,000 students left the question blank and received financial aid anyway. The Clinton administration allowed students who did not answer the question to receive aid, because of confusion over the question's wording. But in 2001, the Education Department revised the question to make it clearer, and Bush-administration officials decided that to carry out the law more effectively, they needed to enforce it more rigorously. This year, according to department statistics, more than 9,000 students lost their aid because they left the question blank.So far, the law isn't much of a factor at the country's elite colleges. On the carefully manicured grounds of Stanford University, for example, few students have even heard of it. "To get in here, you have to be pretty high-achieving, and that means that you're probably less likely to get involved with drugs in the first place," says Mark Boucher, a junior and editor of The Stanford Daily. Stanford officials agree. Cynthia A. Hartley, the financial-aid director, says the law "has not had much of an impact here," but declines to provide specifics.Ellen Frishberg, the financial-aid director at the Johns Hopkins University, is more forthright: Not a single Hopkins student has lost financial aid because of the law, she says, and most students who get into the university have "stayed on the straight and narrow."In interviews on the campus one recent afternoon, a half-dozen Hopkins students say that there is plenty of drug use there and that, as at similar institutions, it is generally tolerated if it is done behind closed doors and in moderation. (Hopkins officials say they do not tolerate drug use on the campus, and do not hesitate to call in the Baltimore police if they suspect that students are breaking the law.)But those students are ambivalent about the 1998 law. For example, Brendan McQuillen, a junior, is troubled by it because he believes that students should be judged by their academic performance, not by what they do in private. "If you look around at colleges around the country, or even just at top colleges, you'll find a lot of very capable students who have experimented with drugs," he says. Still, Mr. McQuillen says the law is justified in some cases: "If someone on campus is selling $10,000 worth of cocaine a week, I might appreciate someone who says we shouldn't be giving this person money."A Devastating Blow The law's effects play out very differently at a place like Long Beach City College, a two-year institution 20 minutes outside of Los Angeles.At its Pacific Coast campus, the main administration building, which contains the financial-aid office, was converted from a junior-high school in 1949, and lockers still line the first-floor hallways. But the college's 28,000 students couldn't fit in less with their surroundings. Their average age is 30, and many of them are first-generation, low-income students who work full time and are raising families.It is not unusual to find students here who have spent time in prison, and are on parole, or just getting off. "It's kind of a natural flow for them to come here," says Ms. DuBois, the financial-aid director. "They can graduate in two years from here with vocational certificates or degrees that will help them get jobs that pay good money."Ex-offenders also find the California community colleges an attractive option because state residents who receive public assistance, as most of them do, can enroll in those institutions free. Still, the students rely heavily on federal financial aid to help them pay for basic expenses such as food, clothing, transportation, rent, and books for classes.So losing aid can deal a devastating blow. "If you can't eat, you can't study," Ms. DuBois says. "If you are worrying about where you're going to sleep tonight, I don't think you are going to be too successful in school."John, for instance, is studying refrigeration mechanics at Long Beach so he can become a longshoreman. He spent most of his 20s and early 30s as a fledgling musician, and he now tries to support himself by working odd jobs in construction. At 38, John, who asks that his full name not be printed, says he is more than ready to start earning a steady salary. "I'm not a kid anymore."He had taken a few night classes at Long Beach, but this year he decided to stop working and take a full course load. To support himself, he applied, for the first time, for financial aid.But in January, John received a rude awakening -- a letter from the Education Department saying that he would not be eligible for student aid this year because of a previous drug conviction. Last year, John was convicted of a misdemeanor for possessing marijuana. He spent one night in jail and was fined $100.John had not been worried when he saw the question on the student-aid application. "I've never been a felon," he says. "I just assumed it would be OK."John says he no longer drinks or does drugs, and just wants to concentrate on his studies. But without financial aid, he says, he will probably drop out and continue going from job to job."I'm teetering right now, teeter-tottering," he says. "I love my classes, but my bills are piling up."John is one of only about a half-dozen students at Long Beach City College who have lost their eligibility for student aid this year because of prior drug convictions.But Ms. DuBois says she believes hundreds of others who wanted to enroll at Long Beach this year did not because they thought they would be denied financial aid.About 475 of the 15,000 students who applied for federal aid this year to attend Long Beach left the question blank on their original applications. Ms. DuBois and her staff located slightly more than half of those applicants, helped them fill out a follow-up form, and found that in all but a few cases the students had not been in danger of losing their aid, because their convictions had occurred long enough ago not to be counted against them.Ms. DuBois has not tracked down 225 other applicants. Some may be attending Long Beach without financial aid, and others may have gone elsewhere. But Ms. DuBois believes that many were scared off by the question."What concerns me," she says, "is how many people have we frightened away who would have received aid had they followed through?"Mr. Diaz, the Long Beach student who wants to be a counselor, says the question on the application is especially harmful because it suggests that any prior drug conviction can doom one's chances of getting aid. An applicant can learn more-specific information only by filling out a follow-up form, which the Education Department sends to students who have left the question blank or acknowledged a past conviction.Mr. Diaz says he knows many former prison inmates who have taken one look at the application and given up on college because they don't think they will get student aid. "There's a whole bunch of people I know who want to go to college, who want to change," says Mr. Diaz. "But they're too scared because of that one question."Confrontations Ahead The controversy over the drug law has been dogging its author, Representative Souder. On an afternoon in February, he is attending a forum on student aid at the University of Saint Francis, in his home district in Fort Wayne, Ind. Learning that about a dozen activists from the group Students for Sensible Drug Policy have arrived at the event to confront him, he cuts short a speech and departs quickly. But outside, he is forced to square off with the activists in front of a group of reporters and television cameramen. He barely keeps his composure."This group has hounded me around the country with their mistruths and lies," Mr. Souder tells reporters as he heads for his car. "I'm not going to talk with people who advocate drug use."Shawn Heller, the group's national director, yells back, "You blame everybody but yourself for this law. The Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Education Department. You should be blaming yourself for this bad law."The drug law is expected to cause problems for Mr. Souder as he campaigns for re-election. He is facing a strong Republican challenger in the primary this spring -- Paul Helmke, a former mayor of Fort Wayne, who is much more moderate than Mr. Souder on social issues.The leaders of Students for Sensible Drug Policy vow to help defeat him. "We're hoping to have students go into the district, and we're hoping to get students in the district out to vote," says Adam Eidinger, a spokesman for the group. "This is an open primary, anyone who is registered can vote, and a few hundred votes could decide it."On the campaign trail, Mr. Souder remains unapologetic about the law he wrote. He says that students who receive federal assistance to attend college should not be using it to purchase drugs. He is unhappy, though, with how the Education Department has enforced the law. Mr. Souder says he never intended to make it harder for people to overcome their pasts. "It would be unbelievable for me, as an evangelical Christian, to believe that people can't repent and change their lives," he says.He has tried unsuccessfully to get officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations to change how they enforce the law. In February, he introduced a bill that would allow the Education Department to cut off aid only for those drug penalties that occur "during a period of enrollment for which a student is receiving grant, loan, or work assistance."Mr. Souder attached a similar provision to a larger bill two years ago, but the measure did not make it through the Senate. The congressman is more hopeful this year, as he has picked up a Democratic cosponsor, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks of New York.But the measure has not won support from college groups or student activists, who believe Mr. Souder is simply trying to insulate himself from further criticism of the law. They are pushing for a full repeal. "This is a terribly minor compromise, and it really will not address the big problem of students with drug convictions losing their financial aid," says Mr. Eidinger of Students for Sensible Drug Policy.A spokeswoman for Mr. Meeks says she thinks the students are being shortsighted. While Mr. Meeks favors overturning the law, says Melvenia Jefferson Gueye, the congressman's legislative director, he does not believe "a repeal of the statute is possible in the current political environment."Mr. Souder's bill, by contrast, has a good chance of passage, and it would deal with the most disturbing aspect of the law, Ms. Gueye says."The inappropriate application of the statute has to be stopped because it is having a devastating impact on people who are trying to turn their lives around," she says. "Congress did not intend to create a barrier to education for the least fortunate, but to ensure that federal taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately."For Mr. Diaz, the dream of becoming an alcohol and drug counselor lies right around the corner. "With my skills, my background, and my education, I'll have all the tools I need to be the best counselor I can be," he says. "I'll be able to reach out, and maybe save someone's life."Mr. Diaz is proud that he will be able to make "a positive contribution." But he says he would not have been able to get where he is now without the government's help, and Long Beach City College's.He shudders when he thinks what would have become of him had his past offenses ruined his chance to start his life anew."I'd probably still be drinking and using drugs," he says. "And when you're in that scene, it's only a matter of time before you end up back in jail."Note: With thousands of students losing financial aid because of past convictions, even the policy's author wants to change it.Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, The (US)Author: Stephen BurdPublished: April 5, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Chronicle of Higher EducationWebsite: http://chronicle.com/Contact: letters chronicle.comRelated Articles:College Students Take New Tack http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12355.shtmlApplaud Souder's Efforts To Fight Drug Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12330.shtmlStudents To Protest Souder's Drug Policyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12078.shtml 
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #13 posted by Dan B on April 02, 2002 at 14:22:15 PT:
Chronicle of Higher Ed
It is nice to see that this issue is being discussed at all in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a publication read by anyone looking for a job in higher education (including professors, administrators, staff, etc), by anyone in higher education looking to hire new personnel, and anyone in higher education who wants to stay abreast of current developments in higher education--in short, just about everyone in higher education. If we can get this issue on the forefront for those in higher education, perhaps we can then raise the level of the drug war debate across the country. At any rate, it is nice to see it there, flawed as it is.Case in point that it's flawed: On the carefully manicured grounds of Stanford University, for example, few students have even heard of it. "To get in here, you have to be pretty high-achieving, and that means that you're probably less likely to get involved with drugs in the first place," says Mark Boucher, a junior and editor of The Stanford Daily. Stanford officials agree. Cynthia A. Hartley, the financial-aid director, says the law "has not had much of an impact here," but declines to provide specifics.Give me a break! Do those jokers at Stanford really believe that their school, which is (by the way) in very close proximity to UC Berkeley, does not have a drug problem simply because rich kids and people who do well on their SATs get in? Get real. Where there are high-techy brainiacs, there will also be pot--and plenty of it. I'd bet the folks at Stanford are glad that their administration has so much faith in their abstinence. Maybe the folks in charge would be willing to extend their faith such that nobody is ever investigated for pot on Stanford's campus, eh?Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on April 01, 2002 at 17:51:27 PT
Jose
I don't think you scare the antis away. What kind of argument can they come up with to make an impact like yours? They don't want to debate what is unwinnable in my opinion.We get our share of people who are mean spirited but they just don't want the laws to change I think. I've seen it enough times to recognize it by now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Tigress58 on April 01, 2002 at 17:10:37 PT
Good Point p4me
"Millions of reformers have not taught Congressmen that MJ is medicine. If millions of messages cannot teach Congress a simple fact, why waste money on the less important players in our national well-being."You just stated Congress is unteachable and unreachable. No one will disagree with you. So why are those Congressmen still in Congress? Congress is not a career position, it is a Public Service position considered "at will employment." Those are our tax dollars, not theirs. When we voted for them, we hired them to perform our will, not theirs.I would like to add that I am a non-traditional student over the age of 40. When I was in my 30's, I applied every year for finacial aid and was turned down every year, including the year I had a gross income of $8,000. I had my 1st child at age 37, and received more finacial aid than I could spend, some of it went back to the fund. This sends a strong message to young females - have a baby and you will get college funding. Real bright laws our Congress has instituted.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Jose Melendez on April 01, 2002 at 17:04:32 PT:
cool
glad to be of service. Sorry if I keep scaring away the antis, there do not seem to be many that are willing to truly debate us...
Narcosoft.com - Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on April 01, 2002 at 17:02:24 PT
Jose
Thanks that's it! It must have been a repeat and they didn't repost it. I should have figured that it was one that was already aired. Thanks again!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Jose Melendez on April 01, 2002 at 16:59:15 PT:
PI: part II
Bill: Then we'd have enough tax money to finance whatever we wanted.Besides that --Ian: Another thing for the lobby to keep us all fighting the drugs is the representatives of the alcohol industry.Bill: Of course it is.The Partnership For a Drug-Free America is a lobbying arm of the liquor and prescription drug industry, which does not want competition for getting high.That's their thing.That's how they make money.Ian: If you go to dance party, nobody drinks alcohol, they all drink water, and they're taking drugs.So how you can we get them back on to the drink?[ Laughter ][ Cheers and applause ]Bill: Yeah.Right.That's exactly right.Jamie: What dance parties are you going to, Ian?Ian: All sorts.I'll tell you later on.Bill: Wow, a guy with a "Sir" in front of his name at a rave.That's cool.But what I've never understand is marijuana, of course, has never killed anyone. I mean, if you're judging this by how many people die, alcohol, tobacco -- we all know this -- oxycontin.Doctors screwing up kill 100,000 people a year.Marijuana, always zero.Why is that -- why is that the great Satan? I just don't understand?[ Applause ]Kim: We don't know the inside of what the situation was of Prince Harry, and maybe he saw some other behavior in him that he didn't like, and he just wanted to take the measure to prevent anything from getting further, to scare him a little bit.Bill: I don't know if you saw this in the tabloids recently, but they have a picture of Julia Roberts, I'm not telling tales, it's in the tabloids.There she is on her lunch break with her boyfriend.She's got a hair net on, she's obviously making a movie.There she is rolling one.Jamie: Julia Roberts? Wait, what is she rolling? Bill: What is she rolling? What do you think she's rolling? There she's rolling one.There she's passing it.There she's smoking it.And then they're giggling.[ Laughter ]And here's Charlize Theron, another friend of mine, she worked for the animal causes.She's smoking out of a bong apple.Jamie: Whoa.Bill: God bless her.I mean, unless she's smoking apples --[ Light laughter ]Now here are America's sweethearts.Why are they criminals? They seem to be able to do their job.They seem like nice people.No one wants to be against Julia Roberts, do you? What is the problem?Kim: I think what you're talking about is someone who, Prince Harry, who was third in line for the throne.They have an image to uphold.He was doing something -- whether you agree with it or not --he was doing something that was illegal, and I think they needed to do something to make an example of him.Ian: Well, he was also drinking alcohol illegally.You didn't mention that in your introduction.And he was not sent down to Alcoholics Anonymous to stop him drinking.Bill: Right. Ian: Prince Charles clearly approves of drinking, he drinks himself.So he is making a distinction between smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol.Now, which would you rather him be in the presence of, somebody who's had a lot to drink or a lot to smoke? [ Laughter ]Do you want to get hit over head or do you want to have the guy fall asleep? Bob: If we're talking about hypocrisy, also, I mean, how many people are we really stopping from smoking marijuana by having it be illegal?I mean, do you notice people having a hard time finding marijuana?[ Light laughter ]Bill: But there are hundreds of thousands of people who are in jail.Bob: That's what I'm saying.You can get it if you want to.It's a complete hypocrisy.And there are people whose lives are just gone away.Listen, if it's illegal, then make it a misdemeanor.So go to jail for six months.Ian: You continue to make the link between cannabis and hard drugs by making them both illegal.If cannabis was a seen to be a recreational drug like tobaccoor alcohol, then, perhaps, fewer and fewer people would be led on to the --Bill: Maybe if it would kill a few hundred thousand people, we could get it legalized.Maybe that's what we got --people have to start dropping dead from pot.
[ Laughter ]There's the answer.Okay, we got to take a break.We'll be right back.[ Cheers and applause ]/blockquote>
Narcosoft.com - technology with substance
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Jose Melendez on April 01, 2002 at 16:57:39 PT:
is this it?
FoM:Are you sure about the date?Here is what I found so far:Transcript for Thursday, January 17, 2001   Kim Serafin  Bob Balaban  Jamie Kennedy  Ian McKellanBill: Good evening.Welcome to "Politically Incorrect." Here is our panel for tonight.Over here, the newly mature Jamie Kennedy.Award-winning? You won an award?Jamie: No.Bill: Okay, I thought that was a lie -- for the two "Scream" movies.Jamie: Oh, Blockbuster Award.But it was chipped.Bill: "Three Kings," "Bowfinger" and now you have a new show Sundays at 8:00 on the WB called "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment." Good for you.Okay.Bob Balaban, I saw you on a very funny "Seinfeld" rerun recently.You are, of course, also an actor and a producer.Most recently of the very acclaimed drama "Gosford Park." Welcome aboard.Kim Serafin, you've been here before.You are a commentator on MSNBC.And, of course, you also have worked on Rudy Giuliani's Twin Towers Fund.And, of course, over here we have Sir Ian McKellan.I'll remember that, Sir.Oscar-nominated actor and, of course, you are currently Gandolf the Grey in "The Lord Of The Rings." How about that? Give a hand to this panel.[ Cheers and applause ]Okay.Now, we have a British person here today, so I thought we would talk about Prince Harry.He has been in the news. He was on the cover of "People" this week because he got caught smoking pot.[ Light laughter ]Which, you know, this kid is just obviously a whisker away from losing it all.And his father, Prince Charles, who has lost it all, took him down to a heroin clinic to see, like, hard-core addicts.Which I think is so preposterous.It just shows that in Britain, they do what we do here in America when a kid smokes pot.First of all, lie.Start with the lies immediately, that heroin is just one step away from the joint.[ Laughter ]Kim: Don't you think, though, this was maybe just a savvy PR strategy, because the royal family has certainly been through its scandals and trials and tribulations, so he saw an opportunity to gain some PR points? By doing this, you see that the British public has been very supportive of and very sympathetic.And the British press, which are certainly very ruthless --Bill: So PR is more important than --Kim: No, I think he helped out his son in the meantime, but at the same time, he scored some PR points.Bob: No, I think he was getting brownie points for the royal family in an attempt to appear cooler, you know? Perhaps.Bill: "Cooler"?Kim: He could have assigned a 24-hour guard to guard Prince Harry, but instead he did something very adult, he said, "Why don't you go for two hours and sit and talk with someone who, if you continue to abuse drugs, that would be the extreme you would get to." It's a preventative measure.Jamie: Harry, he was tired of William getting all that press for being the sexy one.[ Light laughter ]So he needed to do something.So he took a little toke.It happens.Ian: Well, let's get to the facts.This all happened a year ago when Prince Harry was 16.He's now 17.Bill: Oh, really?Ian: "The News Of The World," the tabloid scandal sheet that took it back to the palace and said, "What about this?" was told, "Go away and prove it to be a fact." They investigated it for one year, and now they have come up and proved it, and Prince Charles has had to admit it all happened.But, you know, in the U.K., it seemed very much, as in the contexts of the royal family's perpetual attempt to present itself as a thoroughgoing, normal, leading family of the country that sets the standards for the rest of us.
And Prince Charles does come out of it very well, because he's a father in a one-parent family bringing up two teenagers.He's not immune to the problems of other parents.94% of 15 to 16-year-old young people in the U.K. drink alcohol.Bill: To excess.Ian: 35% of them smoke pot.So Prince Charles is just like the rest of us, dealing with a familiar problem.And he's good, because he's true to the tolerance and caring and way over the top, I agree, in suggesting that if you smoke a joint, you're going to end up a heroin addict.That's ridiculous.Bill: Yeah.Kim: Yeah, isn't there something about preventative measures? Like, I remember when I was in elementary school, they used to do an assembly.They would have a police officer come in, and they would show you handcuffs, and they would show you the inside of a jail cell.Look, I grew up on Long Island, we didn't have a surge of people from the fifth grade at elementary school committing mass murder.Ian: Is it going to work? Is it really going to be preventative?Kim: I think it scares you a little.Why not?Why not take it to an extreme --Ian: When Prince Charles was Prince Harry's age, he was found drinking that disgusting drink cherry brandy.[ Laughter ]Age 16, in a bar near his school in Scotland.He still drinks alcohol, 35 years old, and I bet Prince Harry is still going to be smoking pot within five years' time, by which time it will have been decriminalized in the United Kingdom.Bill: Yeah, they said that 35 years ago, and it still hasn't happened.Ian: It's inching there.Police in areas of London --Bill: In Europe, yeah.Ian: I'm sorry, I beg your pardon.Bob: Think of all the gangsters that would be put of businessif we legalized marijuana.I mean, it would be terrible.They would go down the drain, these gangsters who go aroundselling it.
Narcosoft.com - technology with substance
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on April 01, 2002 at 16:18:59 PT
Jose a Favor
You have a good connection you said and can get more done then I can with my slow modem connection so could you get in touch by email with someone at Politically Incorrect and find out where the transcripts are for the 25th of March. They skipped it and it was great. It was about Cannabis and Prince Harry and legalization.Thanks if you can and it's ok if you can't. No problem.http://abc.abcnews.go.com/primetime/politicallyincorrect/episodes/2001-02/325.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on April 01, 2002 at 15:53:58 PT:
shortfalls
 He has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would apply the financial-aid ban only to those who are convicted of drug violations while they are in college, not to those convicted before they enrolled.So, if in August you got busted with a joint, everything is OK, but get busted with the same joint in September, and you can kiss your financial aid goodbye. Too bad you did not just commit any violent crime... in that case, your government will pay for your tuition. I'm glad I told them they could shove their money, I'd rather earn my own education.My stepmother once told my little brother that he would never use Algebra in real life. I reminded her that she had just a few months prior made a million dollar math error when she was working for the State of Massachusetts, and that if she had used algebra, the error would have been obvious before she mistakenly approved it. There is a lesson there, for those who keep pretending marijuana is dangerous: Eventually, the lie becomes obvious to all.
Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Dark Star on April 01, 2002 at 14:11:38 PT
Just Desserts
Dark Star is rarely vindictive, but Souder deserves to lose, and I hope he does. Our country cannot afford ideologues, particularly stupid fundamentalists who do not consider the inalterable effects of their ill-conceived legislation. Let him try to earn a living out of some other trough.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by p4me on April 01, 2002 at 13:36:51 PT
the big picture
This topic has appearred many times. I say there is an importance to this legislation because it acts as a muzzle on the college students and the government is very aware of what college kids can do when they take to chaining themselves to college lamppost and administrators doors. Just like the drug testing affects the prosperity of MJ users and the high prices have a way of impoverishing MJ users, Congress thinks that more laws will preserve prohibition. It could be that the college kids take to the streets in protest over this bill. I wish they would because of the irony of it all. Here in North Carolina they are talking about cutting the college term by two weeks to help with the budget shortfall. We have a billion dollar shortfall here in North Carolina. I still remember the 19.5 billion shortfall in California. College kids there may have some very short sessions next year. That is unless some reasonable person calls up the fact that California spends more on prisons than education and maybe they should work on changing that fact. Who and what are we trying to teach. Millions of reformers have not taught Congressmen that marijuana is medicine. If millions of messages cannot teach Congress a simple fact, why waste money on the less important players in our national well=being.VAAI
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on April 01, 2002 at 13:28:47 PT
No actually what it means is...
"To get in here, you have to be pretty high-achieving, and that means that you're probably less likely to get involved with drugs in the first place," And if you get busted for a little weed, then your rich or upper middle class white parents will hire a lawyer to make sure that your guaranteed trademarked GOLDEN FUTURE (tm) isn't harmed by your little mistake of judgment, and everyrone works out a way to puniush you without giving you a criminal record.But if you're black and poor and don't have a lawyer or a socially presumed GOLDEN FUTURE (TM) then you get a conviction to teach you that there are consequences for smoking weed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on April 01, 2002 at 13:23:00 PT
Second thoughts assume first ones
Even the law's author, Rep. Mark E. Souder, an Indiana Republican, is having second thoughts. He says he never intended his measure to deny aid to those who are seeking to "redeem" themselves by going to collegeNow how can a bill do something that the author didn't intend?I think the CHE is giving this man a real generous softball here, a free pass from personal responsibility.The man wrote the bill himself!!!!How in the hell can he claim it didn't do what he intended???IDIOT MORON INCOMPETENT LOSER COWARDany other words that could apply here?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment