cannabisnews.com: Don't Reward Convicts Don't Reward Convicts Posted by FoM on April 25, 2002 at 08:44:47 PT By Bob Schaffer Source: USA Today It's heartbreaking, the great number of Americans summarily rejected every year in their application for federal student aid, especially when their only deficiency is that their family's income is just a few pennies above the eligibility limit.Too bad, says the government. After all, grants are scarce, and rules are rules. Those denied aid must often abandon their academic dreams or attend cheaper schools. The situation screams for congressional hearings on the exorbitant cost of tuition, the paucity of student aid, perhaps the unfairness of arbitrary income caps, but no. Liberals in America have identified worthier victims whose sob stories of rejection are, to them, even more heart wrenching and pitiful: drug convicts.Of course, criminals deserve a second chance. They just shouldn't expect the rest of society — the society whose laws they brazenly violated — to give them generous subsidies, especially when these gifts come at a cost to law-abiding taxpayers.The question of whether Americans should resume subsidizing drug offenders requires a perspective banished from most university campuses and editorial boardrooms. First, college is not an entitlement, and federal student-aid grants are gifts, rather generous ones, at that.Second, drug abuse is always immoral and always dangerous. And it is always illegal.Third, whether drug convicts are treated fairly in comparison to murderers and rapists is simply irrelevant to the majority of America's hard-working taxpayers whose wages make their own kids ineligible, by tiny margins, to receive the aid in question.Fourth, no one is denied an education under the existing law, which underscores the offender's personal choice and judgment. An abuser's impulse to do drugs must be weighed against his risk of being caught, forfeiting (only for a year) the federal gift.Fifth, public money goes only so far, and subsidizing convicted drug abusers means there will be less money for everyone else. Rewarding drug convicts with precious cash subsidies trivializes the perils of drug abuse, sabotages America's war on drugs and supports the same worldwide drug trade that costs Americans billions of dollars and claims millions of lives.Rep. Bob Schaffer, R-Colo., is a member of the House Education Committee.Source: USA Today (US)Author: Bob SchafferPublished: April 25, 2002Copyright: 2002 USA Today a division of Gannett Co. Inc.Contact: editor usatoday.comWebsite: http://www.usatoday.com/Related Articles:Anti-Drug Law Backfires http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12636.shtmlFund To Help Convicted Drug Users, Sellers http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12543.shtmlWho Is Responsible for Students Losing Education?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12432.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #18 posted by Jose Melendez on April 26, 2002 at 09:19:20 PT circular logic It's dangerous because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's dangerous, even though it's exponentially less dangerous than most legal drugs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by greenfox on April 26, 2002 at 08:42:31 PT More forced treatment "Second, drug abuse is always immoral and always dangerous. And it is always illegal."OK, I see. It's dangerous because it's illegal because it's dangerous because it's illegal. Makes perfect sense. These f*cking republicans make me so mad, I wish they would go somewhere, get cancer, and die. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by RavingDave on April 25, 2002 at 22:37:30 PT Excuse Me While I Puke I'm sorry, but I don't remember that this legislation singled out federal grants specifically. I was under the impression that a conviction would make a student ineligible for any type of federal aid. Yet, Mr. Schaffer acts as though these students (sorry, I meant convicts) are taking free money from the pockets of other students.First of all, in all my years of college I don't remember ever being turned away for federal aid. I wasn't aware that there were some students being told, "Sorry, there's just no more money." How lucky I must consider myself that I somehow managed to get aid every year. Second, I had to repay every dime of the aid I received. I paid it back with interest, as well. My interest rate averaged about 8.5%. Although not hefty, this was not a small rate either for $30K worth of loans. Did you catch that last word, Mr. Schaffer? Yes, even loans are being denied to students who have already been punished for their crimes.Sure, you may say that they are still receiving free money, in that the interest on these loans is deferred until after graduation. But I say that that is a very cheap investment for our country - an investment in our own future. And instead of investing wisely in reformed-criminals-turned-model-citizens, you instead choose to create enemies and further the police state. How do you sleep at night? [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Jose Melendez on April 25, 2002 at 13:28:00 PT: please post I have a Xerox copy in my files of the report to the Communist Central Committee on that decision, and the Communists made exactly the same argument that American Republicans are making now. These are collective social resources being used for antisocial behavior. That was their argument. And now we have REPUBLICANS reproducing it!If it's not too difficult, please scan and email me a copy of that document. I'd love to post it on my site, and add the historical document to my collection... Email Jose [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Jose Melendez on April 25, 2002 at 13:21:00 PT: bull whether drug convicts are treated fairly in comparison to murderers and rapists is simply irrelevant to the majority of America's hard-working taxpayersLiar. Jose Melendez [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by aocp on April 25, 2002 at 13:14:15 PT irrelevant? Third, whether drug convicts are treated fairly in comparison to murderers and rapists is simply irrelevant to the majority of America's hard-working taxpayers whose wages make their own kids ineligible, by tiny margins, to receive the aid in question.Says you. You can't see the difference between holding back loans from those with drug convictions and those convicted of murder or rape? Actually, what you say above says you can, but you still call it "irrelevant"? You, sir, are a scoundrel. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by E_Johnson on April 25, 2002 at 12:18:09 PT The Red-Brown alliance comes to America? After the fall of Communism in Russia, the Russian political scene displayed an amazing formation -- a nearly unbreakable voting alliance in the Duma between Communists and Russian neo-Fascists and nationalists that soon came to be called the Red-Brown alliance. Their joint purpose was to prevent Russia from becoming a free country, to fight any and all reductions in the absolute power of the State.I'm starting to think that perhaps the increasing "bipartisanship" in the late 1990s between Republicans and Democrats over the Drug War could be part of the same political phenomenon. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by E_Johnson on April 25, 2002 at 12:10:15 PT Has anyone noticed the political cross-dressing? Is it just me, or since the fall of the USSR, have the Republicans started acting and thinking more and more like Soviet Communists and the Democrats have been flirting with Fascist reasoning and behavior? [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on April 25, 2002 at 12:08:51 PT Voting Rights People who have been charged with a marijuana offense should get their voting rights back? The laws against marijuana would surely be changed and quickly then. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by E_Johnson on April 25, 2002 at 12:05:50 PT Communists, Republicans and the New World Order Of course, criminals deserve a second chance. They just shouldn't expect the rest of society — the society whose laws they brazenly violated — to give them generous subsidies, especially when these gifts come at a cost to law-abiding taxpayers.After the brutal Soviet crackdown on the anti-Communist rebellion in Hungary in 1956, some Moscow State University students went out to the Izmailovsky flea market in Moscow (flea markets were profoundly illegal of course but filled with KGB informants, they made a good convenient place to entrap people looking for freedom) to stage a protest.Of course they were immediately informed upon and hunted down at their school and held accountable for their violation of the laws of the land.In a Communist country all schools are government schools, all finacial aid is federal financial aid, and Communists reporting to the Central Committee if Moscow made exactly the same argument as to why these students should be expelled from Moscow State.And the protesters were expelled, and their futures in Soviet society were utterly destroyed by that.I have a Xerox copy in my files of the report to the Communist Central Committee on that decision, and the Communists made exactly the same argument that American Republicans are making now.These are collective social resources being used for antisocial behavior.That was their argument. And now we have REPUBLICANS reproducing it!That, apparently, is our New World Order. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Ethan Russo MD on April 25, 2002 at 11:59:54 PT: Kaptin, Correct as Usual I am not an attorney, either, but many attorneys agree with your interpretation of double jeopardy, and despise the creeping totalitarianism that has enveloped this country as a result of the War on Drugs.End the War. Restore Freedom to America. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on April 25, 2002 at 11:45:18 PT: I am sure it's occured to you all... ...that the provisions which deny a convicted person the loans constitutes a violation of the 'double jeopardy' clause of the 5th Amendment:Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Now, I know, someone's going to say that the students aren't facing the kinds of threats that are mentioned. But there's something forgotten here:School loans are 'property'. Think about it. It's money derived from taxes...taxes taken at threat of imprisonment if you don't cough it up. One might make the case that they are community property; the loans are, in essence, a 'good'. A 'good' that is available to all who apply to receive them...so long as you have not been convicted of a drug 'crime' - like cannabis possession.According to the Fifth, you may not be tried twice for the same crime. And you may not have your life or property taken from you without due process. But punishing students by denying them school loans denies them access to that community property, theirs by right of being citizens and taxpayers - by de facto trying them twice for the same 'crime'.Surely, someone whose knowledge far surpasses mine in the legal field must have come up with the same conclusion. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by BGreen on April 25, 2002 at 11:31:51 PT Welcome, scott Welcome to Cannabisnews.com. There are many lurkers, like myself, who can't keep quiet and finally start posting.Many of us do respond directly to the authors and publications in regards to stories, good and bad, as well as writing letters to the editor and op-ed pieces.Feel free to continue to post, even if you're just agreeing with someone else's post. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on April 25, 2002 at 11:27:16 PT SEcond letter of the day Dear editors,Bob Schaffer says we shouldn't "reward convicts" by allowing them to go to college with federal financial aid. I thought that the American legal system was supposed to be self-contained in that a conviction and resulting sentence were supposed to constitute the punishment for the crime.What ever happened to the old concept of letting a person be once he or she paid his debt to society by accepting the punishment delivered by the court system?Schaffer wants to turn America into a Communist country where there is no end to the government's power to continue to heap arbitrary and unjudicated punishments on people long after they have been through the legal system and satisfied society according to the law.This higher education drug policy is not conservatism, this is old fashioned Communist social engineering, and it's profoundly anti-American at its heart. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by scott on April 25, 2002 at 11:18:01 PT Let him know what you think People, I am ashamed that this man comes from colorado. I will be sending a letter to make sure that he understands that I believe he is way off base here. I have seen a lot of good intelligent comments posted here, and many reflect my own views so closely that I have not posted before. However, I have not read any suggestions regarding direct communication with the authors of these misdirected, spiteful, and unenlightened pieces. I would suggest that if one feels strongly enough to post here, then take the time to contact the authors directly. Furthermore, contact the publisher of the peice as well because, unfortunately, publishers are more accountable to the public that purchases their work than politicians are to the voters that don't share their views. Congressman Bob Schaffer 212 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4676 Fax: (202) 225-5870 Home?!?: (970) 223-7805I don't know if that is his real home phone number or not, but it might be amusing to try it. Also, emails tend not to go through if your IP adress is not in his district. Schaffer's web site [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by krutch on April 25, 2002 at 10:12:16 PT: Idiot Bob Schaffer is an obivious moron. We shouldn't be surprised. He is a member of congress.He says:"drug abuse is always immoral and always dangerous. And it is always illegal"The morality of an act is a value judgement. We don't pay Mr. Schaffer to ram his values down our throats. I disagree that drug abuse is always dangerous, and I don't see how it is relevant to the argument. Sky diving is always dangerous. Nobody advocates denying otherwise qualified skydivers student aid. That drug abuse is always illegal is also delusional. The most widely abused drugs in the is country are prefectly legal.This is also nonsense:"Whether drug convicts are treated fairly in comparison to murderers and rapists is simply irrelevant to the majority of America's hard-working taxpayers whose wages make their own kids ineligible, by tiny margins, to receive the aid in question."I disagree. That the fact that someone who rapes or murders can get a grant while someone who commits a drug offense can not is very relevant to this discussion. It illustrates the unfairness of this law. These sanctions are designed especially for those convicted of drug crimes. They are unfair and they accomplish nothing. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by BGreen on April 25, 2002 at 09:33:29 PT Immoral? "Second, drug abuse is always immoral and always dangerous. And it is always illegal."Growing and consuming a plant that my God lovingly designed for me is the epitome of morality, whereas locking me up in a cage like an animal for it is as immoral an act as any person could perpetrate upon me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on April 25, 2002 at 09:11:50 PT Qualifying for aid The Taliban received 46 million dollars is May of 2001 to help stop the heroin trade.You must be a fully fledged terrorist organization opposed to the drug trade to be able to qualify for federal funding.When you apply for a student loan, inform them that you belong to a terrorist organization that opposes the drug trade, and you will qualify.It will be irrelevant if it is a terrorist organization that is at war with America, just as long as you oppose the drug trade. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment