Raise Your Voice - The HEA denies funding to students convicted of drug offenses

submitted by DirtyGreek on Friday, October 4 2002 at 2:04 PM

During the 2001-2002 school year, more than 47,700 students were denied access to federal college aid because of drug convictions, loans, grants, even work-study programs. This number doesn't account for people who didn't bother applying because they assumed they would be ineligible. The current academic year, the third in which the drug provision is in force and the second in which it is being fully enforced, is expected to see just as many young people forced out of school or they and their families plunged into financial hardship because of the HEA drug provision.

Students - do you really think it's fair for your classmates to be denied financial aid because of one transgression? For doing something that most of you do? Even if you have never used drugs, do you really think that using them should lead to your inability to attend college?

A bill in the US House of Representatives to repeal the drug provision, H.R. 786, had 67 co-sponsors, and ten members of Congress, who spoke at a press conference last May to call for the provision's full repeal, a stunning success.

This is a good start, but we need more support. PLEASE, if you think this bill is a terrible idea, go to
Raise Your Voice
to find out how you can help.

Let's bring sanity back to the system.

posted by CrazyBenni on Friday, October 4 2002 at 5:24 PM

Yes, I think it is fair. Just because most of you do it doesn't mean that it is not illegal and should not come with consequences. You know the risks involved when you choose to do the drugs (and if you don't, you could), but still choose to do them. If you want to do drugs, okay, but don't bitch about it when you get caught and are punished in accordance to pre-established consequences.

10/4/2002 5:29:39 PM

This is a serious issue, folks. Do what you can. Call, write, email.

10/4/2002 5:29:55 PM

The people who were denied funding shouldnt have gotten caught doing drugs. They should have known the consequences.

10/4/2002 5:30:24 PM

if one does something wrong, they should indeed suffer the consequences. it all sounds fair to me.

10/4/2002 5:42:09 PM

while i do think that people are warrented a second chance, aid should go to teh ones taht have a clean record first.

10/4/2002 6:01:38 PM

yeah, i agree with duff man

10/4/2002 6:05:51 PM

Indeed, if you want to try and change the drug restrictions then great do it, but the consequence is fair and unbiased. You have the money to buy drugs then you have the money to pay for college on your own, and if you don't, what are you doing, doing drugs?

10/4/2002 6:15:38 PM

I think that it is a good idea for the HEA to deny the crackheads money for their schooling. It only takes away funding for someone that has actually lived a clean life and obey the law. I do not feel sorry for the people convicted of drug offenses one bit.

10/4/2002 6:25:12 PM

The default rate on student loans is outrageous. Might as well get the funds to those who need it than to those who will waste it. If someone is dumb enough to break the law, then they need to learn to face the consequences.

10/4/2002 7:09:27 PM

my god, you people are evil

10/4/2002 7:18:38 PM

redneck bob

Quote :

"the consequence is fair and unbiased"

Its also fair and unbiased to cut off EVERYBODYS' fingers if they eat meat. If you eat meat, accept the consequences.

Quote :

"You have the money to buy drugs then you have the money to pay for college on your own"

college $12000
a single joint that can stop your financial aid: < $5

Are you fucking stupid?

[Edited on October 4, 2002 at 7:27 PM. Reason : ]

10/4/2002 7:24:53 PM

Eating meat is legal. You shouldn't be arrested for that unless the species is endangered.

10/4/2002 8:05:40 PM

Quote :

"You have the money to buy drugs then you have the money to pay for college on your own"

I don't know where you've been looking up current drug prices, but i'm pretty sure just about no one pays as much money for drugs as they do for college.... At least if you're going to be ignorant, biased, and mean, try and be correct, ok?

thanks

10/4/2002 8:52:34 PM

A trendy heroine habit can cost you a bit of cash, however.

10/4/2002 9:18:50 PM

i can understand why you feel that this is unfair. i cannot understand why everyone who disagrees with you is "mean, biased, ignorant", "evil", etc.

[Edited on October 4, 2002 at 9:49 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2002 9:49:00 PM

i don't agree with GB16 either.

10/4/2002 10:58:40 PM

Potheads of the world, unite!

How dare the government not pay for you to spend 4 more years smoking up!

Alright, alright, I really don't see what this paticular crime and student aid have to do with each other, but it's the government's money, and they can give it to whoever they want. Do you drug users think you're being singled out? WELL GEE, YOU PROBABLY ARE, and it's probably because this nation is sick of standing by while some of it's citizens burn their brains out, just like we require seatbelts because we were sick of seeing people needlessly kill themselves in cars. If the government sees this as an effective way to reduce drug use, more power to them.

Also, I don't see how you'd ever get sane politicians to rally with you on this cause. Imagine a politician saying, "Yea, man, those smokers and junkies are just getting a bum rap. Man, they didn't do nothing wrong." Yea right, it'd be political suicide. I'm all for open discussion of these issues, but I really don't think this is something the entire student body should rally behind(ie, putting it on the front page beside "we should all go to the unc game") This concludes my rant for the evening.

[Edited on October 4, 2002 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2002 11:19:55 PM

Quote :

"Students - do you really think it's fair for your classmates to be denied financial aid because of one transgression? "

Yes.

See what I mean about your whole legalization argument??? You want to smoke up and accept NONE of the consequences, if this isn't proof of that, I don't know what is.

10/5/2002 12:04:49 AM

I understand what has been said about accepting the consequences of actions. I don't think anyone really has a problem with that, per se, it's just that the consequence might be too severe or unfair.

For example, what if the City of Raleigh passed an ordinance making speeding more than 10 miles above the limit punishable by 20 years in prison? If you got punished that way, would you "bitch about [being]...punished in accordance to pre-established consequences"? Probably so, because the pre-established consequence is unfair.

But I do understand the argument that there is only a certain amount of money to go around, and if someone has to be left "out in the cold" in terms of financial aid, it should be the one that has a history of irresponsibility rather than responsibility.

On the other hand, the whole point of going to college is to get an education and better yourself, so you're not condemned to be in the lowest-paying jobs. If you're kept down, there is more incentive to go back to selling drugs just because you don't see there as being anything better out there.

So I'm kind of split on the whole issue.

But I'm not sure it's fair to say that people want to accept none of the consequences of their actions. Presumably prison time, fine, community service, probation, etc., are tools at the court's disposal in punishing the offender...assuming that the court doesn't go overboard in its sentencing, I would be willing to say that it's fair to impose those consequences.

[Edited on October 5, 2002 at 12:30 AM. Reason : add]

10/5/2002 12:28:46 AM

We live in a society governed by laws. The laws are not always right and just but they are laws none the less. There are posted speed limits on all of NC's roads. I know that if I break them, I might get caught, and if I get caught I will have to pay a lot of money and maybe lose my licence. I KNOW the CONSEQUENCES of my actions. I don't agree with the speed limit but I know what happens if I break it. Just as I know what happens if I threaten someone, make comments about terrorism in a GA Shoney's, for not turning in an assignment, anything that is against the laws that our society has adopted to govern itself. I happen to agree with the pot legalizers. I think that banning pot is as futile a move as prohibition was, but none the less, it is done and is a law and those who choose to break the law MUST be willing to accept the punishments and if being denied funding for a college education is the deterant chosen then so be it. Personally, I don't think that smoking pot is worth losing my financial aid, therefore I do not smoke it.
As for my comments about the cost of drugs, indeed I do not know how much they cost. You put the cost of a joint at roughly $5. Say you smoke one joint a day every day that is $1825 which is what I pay for tuition roughly. If you are on harder shit I imagine it is much more and if you're habit is more than 1 joint per day then you are looking at higher price too. Are YOU fucking stupid? Not to mention, there is a deeper philosophical point, if you can't do the time (lose your aid) don't do the crime.

10/5/2002 12:41:08 AM

So you would not object then to being imprisoned for 20 years for speeding, if the consequence was announced ahead of time? What if the penalty were death? Is there any limit to what you would accept; any point at which you would say "This penalty is grossly unfair"?

10/5/2002 1:10:10 AM

smc

Quote :

"How dare the government not pay for you to spend 4 more years smoking up!"

How dare they not pay you to spend 4 years watching tv. Its called free time, the time you arent working, and its none of their business what you do then.

Quote :

"Do you drug users think you're being singled out? WELL GEE, YOU PROBABLY ARE, and it's probably because this nation is sick of standing by while some of it's citizens burn their brains out, just like we require seatbelts because we were sick of seeing people needlessly kill themselves in cars."

Just because you're sick of seeing people do something doesnt mean you have the right to stop them from doing it.

Quote :

"Also, I don't see how you'd ever get sane politicians to rally with you on this cause. Imagine a politician saying, "Yea, man, those smokers and junkies are just getting a bum rap. Man, they didn't do nothing wrong." Yea right, it'd be political suicide."

The libertarians get more votes every election and they say just that.

maugan

Quote :

"See what I mean about your whole legalization argument??? You want to smoke up and accept NONE of the consequences, if this isn't proof of that, I don't know what is."

The consequences of smoking up are health related only. The other stuff is harassment.

wolfpack2k

Quote :

"But I do understand the argument that there is only a certain amount of money to go around, and if someone has to be left "out in the cold" in terms of financial aid, it should be the one that has a history of irresponsibility rather than responsibility."

Drug use is not irresponsibility. How can you justify stopping financial aid for a student with a 4.0 gpa who smoked a single puff of marijuana and giving it to a student with a 2.5? Theres irresponsibility, but its the people who make drug policy.

Quote :

"On the other hand, the whole point of going to college is to get an education and better yourself, so you're not condemned to be in the lowest-paying jobs. If you're kept down, there is more incentive to go back to selling drugs just because you don't see there as being anything better out there."

How did the discussion change from USING drugs to SELLING?


I dont do drugs. I dont agree with many laws. I had no input in their creation and have no power to change them. I see the government and police as terrorists. I will do everything I can to avoid the "consequences" if I disobey the terrorists.

10/5/2002 1:40:34 AM

Quote :

"On the other hand, the whole point of going to college is to get an education and better yourself, so you're not condemned to be in the lowest-paying jobs. If you're kept down, there is more incentive to go back to selling drugs just because you don't see there as being anything better out there. "

I seriously appreciate you being honest and fair with these comments. Thanks for being one of the few sane people to argue in here so far.

10/5/2002 3:44:08 AM

You don't get people to join your side by implying their insanity.

10/5/2002 9:51:58 AM

Quote :

"Yes, I think it is fair. Just because most of you do it doesn't mean that it is not illegal and should not come with consequences. You know the risks involved when you choose to do the drugs (and if you don't, you could), but still choose to do them. If you want to do drugs, okay, but don't bitch about it when you get caught and are punished in accordance to pre-established consequences."

This is just puerile, snot-nosed whining.

Just because an action deserves consequences, does not mean these consequences are right. If there were a federal law enstating mandatory castration for drug users, would you say "Yes, I think it's fair. Actions should have consequences!"

Get over yourself.

If you really think drug laws should accomplish their stated goal, which is to improve society, then how can you justify removing one of the main means of getting OFF drugs and moving on to a more productive life? Namely, education. If one is convicted of an offense, that's MORE reason, not less, to give that person a hand up.

Drug laws don't exist in a vacuum. They do not exist to blindly punish offenders without respect to some longer-term goal. Otherwise, the war on drugs was pre-destined to fail, because it simply has no goal worth achieving.

Quote :

"But I do understand the argument that there is only a certain amount of money to go around, and if someone has to be left "out in the cold" in terms of financial aid, it should be the one that has a history of irresponsibility rather than responsibility."

I don't find this argument very convincing, because the law doesn't apply any subjective notion of what is a "history of irresponsibility."

Case in point: George W. Bush. He had a DWI over fifteen years ago (or something to that effect). Would you say he has a "history of irresponsibility?" Or rather, would you say that he has a history of irresponsibility so severe that it should preclude him from the presidency now?

Since when does one action characterize one's life as a "history of irresponsibility?" I would think the proper measure would be net responsibility, not some bit-switch, zero-or-one "responsible or not responsible" based on one action.

If the law said, for instance, "one convicted of a [serious] drug offense within the last 2 years," that would be perfectly reasonable. It would have the desired effect, because it would serve to keep people out with a recent history (recent enough to preclude any serious reform) of serious drug use. And I say serious, because the government keeping kids out for smoking pot, while at the same time citing the vast number of pot-smoking teenagers in its drug propaganda, is at least vaguely hypocritical; i.e., "we care about the children as long as it's in a drug ad."

Let this provision die. There's really no cogent argument for the provision, in its current form. I would be open to a reasonable compromise on the text, but it's unforgivable and asinine as it stands.

10/5/2002 12:29:50 PM

it's fair!!! finally, something that makes sense

10/5/2002 1:01:30 PM

GOD, i'm so glad you're on my side, smoker

i'd hate to have you against me! thanks for wording it the way i can only dream to

10/5/2002 1:20:17 PM

However it was worded, it was still ridiculous. Eloquent bullshit, gotta love it.

10/5/2002 3:02:34 PM

^^

If you have a productive comment to make, I'd love to hear it.

Or are you just going to whine?

10/5/2002 3:13:12 PM

Whine? Sounds like you're apart of the whining community. The laws are in place. The people that are bitching are the whiners. If you want financial aid, don't do drugs. Or at least don't get caught doing them

10/5/2002 3:29:05 PM

^^

Or repeal the nonsensical law. That's an option, too, you know.

(or did you forget that we have a legislature?)

10/5/2002 5:28:23 PM

Quote :

"(or did you forget that we have a legislature?)"

um...yeah. they're the ones that make the laws. the ones that people are supposed to follow.

[Edited on October 5, 2002 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2002 5:32:47 PM

^^

I don't think anyone is arguing that people shouldn't follow the law. Why do you keep bringing this up?

You really have two choices, here:

Choice 1: argue that the current law is just. This entails more than saying "it's the law, follow it." Slavery was a law, too. That doesn't mean it should've stayed on the books for very long.

Choice 2: continue your infantile trolling.

Take your pick; but any post that doesn't directly address my (and others') points about the merits of the law is just wasted space, here; because that's the debate that's taking place on capitol hill, not your bullshit, ostrich-head-in-the-sand, rubber-stamping of anything Congress decides to pass on a given year.

10/5/2002 5:39:11 PM

^^
your logic is sound but your tactics are not.

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO ATTACK THE SAME PEOPLE YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE??

this in a nutshell is why time and again drug reform doesn't happen...when a concerted, planned effort to protest a law is needed (much like what DirtyGreek was trying to do) and the cause hits a setback, people like you start coming in with the "you're such fucking dumbasses, just change the law."

find some maturity and find some planning and maybe some day you will get your wish to smoke all day and get paid for it.

[Edited on October 5, 2002 at 6:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2002 6:06:33 PM

Quote :

"WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO ATTACK THE SAME PEOPLE YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE??"

What makes you think I'm trying to convince you of anything? I don't really give a damn what you think.

This is a public forum. That means the public reads it; not just the participants in this thread.

And if my "logic is sound," and you've yet to post anything but one-line trolls and tired reiterations of the same point, plus this new personal attack on me, who do you think leaves a better impression on the third parties who read this thread?

Quote :

"this in a nutshell is why time and again drug reform doesn't happen...when a concerted, planned effort to protest a law is needed (much like what DirtyGreek was trying to do) and the cause hits a setback, people like you start coming in with the "you're such fucking dumbasses, just change the law.""

Yes, fucking dumbasses like me who post six full paragraphs explaining in detail my reasoning for opposing the law. This is compared to brilliant Einsteins such as yourself, who post sporadic one-liners on the thread and then have the audacity to call me a troll.

Quote :

"find some maturity and find some planning and maybe some day you will get your wish to smoke all day and get paid for it."

What makes you think I'm some pro-marijuana activist?

I oppose this law solely because it's unjust, period. It doesn't affect me, in the least.

[Edited on October 5, 2002 at 6:41 PM. Reason : foo]

10/5/2002 6:38:49 PM

Quote :

"You don't get people to join your side by implying their insanity."

I've got a copy of How to Win Friends and Influece People around here somewhere. I keep meaning to find time to read it.

10/5/2002 6:53:57 PM

Quote :

"And if my "logic is sound," and you've yet to post anything but one-line trolls and tired reiterations of the same point, plus this new personal attack on me, who do you think leaves a better impression on the third parties who read this thread?"

probably neither. the last post wasn't a personal attack on you, it was an attack on your angry, overly emotional rhetoric.

Quote :

"Yes, fucking dumbasses like me who post six full paragraphs explaining in detail my reasoning for opposing the law. This is compared to brilliant Einsteins such as yourself, who post sporadic one-liners on the thread and then have the audacity to call me a troll."

out of the six paragraphs, a solid third of it was personal attacks of your own. "snotty, puerile, whiny", etc.

i also never called you a troll. arguments where you hypocritically belittle people and put words in other peoples mouths are pretty pathetic and overshadow what would otherwise be a solid argument.

Quote :

"What makes you think I'm some pro-marijuana activist? I oppose this law solely because it's unjust, period. It doesn't affect me, in the least."

please.

10/5/2002 7:03:05 PM

Quote :

"probably neither. the last post wasn't a personal attack on you, it was an attack on your angry, overly emotional rhetoric."

It wasn't a personal attack on me? Is that right?

Let's look at your post, then.

Quote :

"people like you start coming in with the "you're such fucking dumbasses, just change the law.""

"people like me?" I think that's a directed at me, personally. Perhaps I'm misreading.

Quote :

"find some maturity and find some planning and maybe some day you will get your wish to smoke all day and get paid for it."

Now you're telling me to "find some maturity," which I do believe is a personal attack on my maturity. Then you imply that I want to smoke pot all day.

Quote :

"out of the six paragraphs, a solid third of it was personal attacks of your own. "snotty, puerile, whiny", etc."

That was the first sentence, and I do believe it was:

Quote :

"This is just puerile, snot-nosed whining."

"this" being the post he made, and not the poster.

Now, let's examine my post, paragraph by paragraph for personal attacks:

Paragraph 1 I've already addressed.

Paragraph 2:

Quote :

"Just because an action deserves consequences, does not mean these consequences are right. If there were a federal law enstating mandatory castration for drug users, would you say "Yes, I think it's fair. Actions should have consequences!""

I'm not entirely sure this would count as a personal attack. In fact, I think it's general commentary on law and justice.

Quote :

"Get over yourself."

I suppose this could be construed as a personal attack, but I was offering it more as advice.

Quote :

"If you really think drug laws should accomplish their stated goal, which is to improve society, then how can you justify removing one of the main means of getting OFF drugs and moving on to a more productive life? Namely, education. If one is convicted of an offense, that's MORE reason, not less, to give that person a hand up. Drug laws don't exist in a vacuum. They do not exist to blindly punish offenders without respect to some longer-term goal. Otherwise, the war on drugs was pre-destined to fail, because it simply has no goal worth achieving."

Now, maybe it's just me, but I think this is also just polemic on the war on drugs and its intentions.

Quote :

"I don't find this argument very convincing, because the law doesn't apply any subjective notion of what is a "history of irresponsibility.""

Ok, I don't find the argument convincing. Is that personal attack?

Quote :

"Case in point: George W. Bush. He had a DWI over fifteen years ago (or something to that effect). Would you say he has a "history of irresponsibility?" Or rather, would you say that he has a history of irresponsibility so severe that it should preclude him from the presidency now?"

Relating the law to Bush. Is that a personal attack?

Quote :

"Since when does one action characterize one's life as a "history of irresponsibility?" I would think the proper measure would be net responsibility, not some bit-switch, zero-or-one "responsible or not responsible" based on one action."

Discussion of what constitutes a history of irresponsibility. Any personal attacks here?

Quote :

"If the law said, for instance, "one convicted of a [serious] drug offense within the last 2 years," that would be perfectly reasonable. It would have the desired effect, because it would serve to keep people out with a recent history (recent enough to preclude any serious reform) of serious drug use. And I say serious, because the government keeping kids out for smoking pot, while at the same time citing the vast number of pot-smoking teenagers in its drug propaganda, is at least vaguely hypocritical; i.e., "we care about the children as long as it's in a drug ad.""

What I consider a reasonable alternative to the law (note that I don't even fully oppose such a measure, and am willing to compromise). Where's the personal attack?

Quote :

"Let this provision die. There's really no cogent argument for the provision, in its current form. I would be open to a reasonable compromise on the text, but it's unforgivable and asinine as it stands."

My conclusion: let's repeal it, or consider a more reasonable amendment. Any personal attacks here?

Now, I may not be a "real" engineer, having graduated in Computer Science, but I have taken my share of math classes. The text to which you refer constitutes one sentence. As far as my math background is concerned, one sentence / roughly six paragraphs << one third. And as I've noted before, that sentence is really directed towards the original post, as opposed to the poster himself.

So, er, methinks you're just bullshitting, and didn't even read my post.

Quote :

"i also never called you a troll. arguments where you hypocritically belittle people and put words in other peoples mouths are pretty pathetic and overshadow what would otherwise be a solid argument."

I know you never called me a troll. And you very well shouldn't, because I'm not the one trolling, now am I?

10/5/2002 7:43:07 PM

"I see quote boxes. They're everywhere."

10/5/2002 8:00:21 PM

smoker

Quote :

"I don't think anyone is arguing that people shouldn't follow the law."

I am arguing that. A stupid pointless law shouldnt be obeyed, and you should be pissed if the government punishes you.

10/5/2002 8:01:24 PM

*clap, clap*

well done. i have no answer for that. what hope do i have in an argument against someone who would nitpick their own grandmother?

10/5/2002 8:02:05 PM

^^

(InsaneMan)

Yes, but you're insane.

(oops, better not say that, might be a "personal attack")

[Edited on October 5, 2002 at 8:03 PM. Reason : foo]

10/5/2002 8:02:10 PM

Quote :

"what hope do i have in an argument against someone who would nitpick their own grandmother?"

So calling your bullshit is "nitpicking" now. Nevermind what's right or wrong, as long as it makes you feel better.

10/5/2002 8:03:27 PM

Quote :

"I seriously appreciate you being honest and fair with these comments. Thanks for being one of the few sane people to argue in here so far."

Yes, this from the same guy who spent his first year on TWW whining about how everyone should be "open-minded" like him. Now it's "if you don't agree with me, you're fucking nuts."

At least you seem to be dropping the charade of unbiased acceptance of all viewpoints in favor of the pressing issue, which is to make sure that stoners who are STUPID ENOUGH to get caught get a piece of the cash pie.

10/6/2002 10:27:23 AM

Quote :

"A stupid pointless law shouldnt be obeyed"

Haha, thats so pathetic that it's almost funny. A law is a law there chief. It does not grossly affect anyone's rights and it simple solidifies the wrongdoing in using an ILLEGAL substance. If you are one of those that just HAS to fry their brain, then move to Amsterdam.

10/6/2002 11:36:55 AM

Raise Your Voice, eh? Don't mind if I do! I think I'll write a letter to my representative telling him/her that this is an issue not worth fighting for.

10/6/2002 4:07:07 PM

okay this is stupid why help people that break the law sometimes i wonder what in the hell people are thinking when they start a cause. I hate PETA people but you don't see me trying to start a cause to not let them in school people that started this are probably ones that would benifit from it. Yall FUCKED up deal with it

10/6/2002 5:02:00 PM

Okay let's examine the facts:
1) In America doing drugs is illegal.
2) In American everyone is guarenteed a right to a free public education up through high school.
3) Beyond high school, education is a privilege.
4) If you really want to gain that privilege then you should realize that there are SACRIFICES you may have to make.
5) It is not the responsibility of the government to bear the burdens of paying for college education. When the government does come in and help a student with financial assistance, it too is a privilege.

Based on these facts, I must say that I think it's the right thing for Uncle Sam to not give someone financial aid whose done drugs. What's right and wrong is not determind by what most people do." That's ridiculous. In fact, it really pisses me off to no end to know that there ARE in fact students who are drug users who have their education funded by the government when there are other non druggie students who need an education just as badly but for whatever reason didn't have the luck to get the funding.

Hell, for all I care, kick the druggies outta school for good. We don't need 'em.

10/6/2002 5:51:48 PM

drugs or college. one or the other is what it looks like.

10/6/2002 6:17:41 PM

How do we write and say that we think the HEA needs to keep money away from crackheads?

[Edited on October 6, 2002 at 8:39 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2002 8:38:27 PM

Quote :

"At least you seem to be dropping the charade of unbiased acceptance of all viewpoints in favor of the pressing issue, which is to make sure that stoners who are STUPID ENOUGH to get caught get a piece of the cash pie."

This argument is astoundingly silly.

I think what you miss is that everyone, no matter what their record, pays for higher education. You talk about this "cash pie"--financial aid isn't some handout so people can go to school for free. It allows people access to an institution for which they pay a significant chunk of their taxes.

Which then negates Vet2B's equally silly "fact":

Quote :

"4) If you really want to gain that privilege then you should realize that there are SACRIFICES you may have to make."

Such as 30+ percent of one's income, regardless of whether they go to school or not?

The only logical reason to keep a drug- or other convict out of academics is to avoid disruptions. But drug users, regardless of their preferences or history, who are capable of academic performance _deserve_ it for the same reason as anyone else: they pay for it.

But I suppose it's really wasted on college kids who don't pay much in taxes that government programs come out of everyone's pockets. Even if a drug user doesn't recieve financial aid, it's going to someone else, from their purses.

[Edited on October 6, 2002 at 11:11 PM. Reason : foo]

[Edited on October 6, 2002 at 11:13 PM. Reason : bar]

10/6/2002 11:10:40 PM

all i think is that alcohol and cigarettes are worse than pot. why? b/c theyve been proven to kill. peroid.

10/6/2002 11:31:53 PM

we should have random drug testing on campus :-) They should be able to pull you off to the side stick you and test you right there... if you have any drugs in your system your funding should be taken away and given to me...

just an idea :-)

10/6/2002 11:35:28 PM

ok, yeah, illegal actions should have consequences. even if i dont think the action should be illegal, it is, and therefore people who break that law are subject to consequences.

but drug conviction already has consequences, such as jail time and fines, etc. that's enough. my question is this: does the HEA have provisions that deny funding to people convicted of any other types of criminal offenses, like DWIs for example? if not, the drug provision is extremely unfair because of its arbitrary and discriminatory nature.

i disagree with this measure because it seems to apply to everyone across the board. if drug use is to be a criterion for determining financial aid eligibility (and i don't think it should be), it should at least be considered on an individual basis. while there may be some addicts that are beyond help and would not benefit from a college education, there are also many people who are eager to learn even though they have one conviction on their record which they have overcome. and there are plenty of drunks and general slackers who aren't any more deserving of financial aid than those convicted of drug offenses.

also, if drug use is going to be considered when processing FAFSAs, there needs to be a distinction between marijuana and harder drugs. it doesn't make sense to lump them all together.


one good point made on that website: this provision only hurts the poor. people who can afford to pay for college themselves dont need financial aid, so they can still go to college even if they have drug convictions.

of course, rich parents might stop paying for their kid's education if drug use becomes a problem...and that's a good analogy for what the government is doing. but the difference is that the parents would hopefully start paying tuition again if they see that their kid is turning things around and overcoming the problem. the government does not do that.

(yeah, i realize that probably every factor used in determining eligibility only affects the poor since rich people dont need financial aid...but that helped set up my analogy)


now, another thing we need to remember is that the overall purpose of the higher education act is and should be to make college available to many people who would otherwise not be able to afford it. but this one provision was inserted simply to keep people from doing drugs. it igores the original purpose of the act. by denying drug users access to education, we are actually encouraging them to continue drug use instead of giving them a way out. things like this are why the drug war agenda is so narrow minded and misguided.

10/6/2002 11:51:53 PM

Quote :

"now, another thing we need to remember is that the overall purpose of the higher education act is and should be to make college available to many people who would otherwise not be able to afford it. but this one provision was inserted simply to keep people from doing drugs. it igores the original purpose of the act. by denying drug users access to education, we are actually encouraging them to continue drug use instead of giving them a way out. things like this are why the drug war agenda is so narrow minded and misguided."

Or worse, we're just forcing them to keep paying for a system they can never take advantage of, which also serves to make them poorer.

If people really believe, as has been stated here, that drug users should not have access to "limited" government funds, without regard to the fact that they contribute to those funds by law, then perhaps we should also deny drug users access to roads. After all, there's limited space on roads, and drug users committed a crime!

You've really hit the nail on the head, which is that "committing a crime" really has nothing to do with access to education. Punishment should be related to the crime in some sensical way.

10/7/2002 12:03:21 AM

yeah, that too...good point

10/7/2002 12:13:53 AM

Quote :

"If people really believe, as has been stated here, that drug users should not have access to "limited" government funds, without regard to the fact that they contribute to those funds by law, then perhaps we should also deny drug users access to roads. After all, there's limited space on roads, and drug users committed a crime!"

eh, I don't think drug users should not have access to "limited" funds... But you have to break down what the funds are used for... I would say they should not be given access to any student loans, because of credit risk and difficulties getting a job with a drug history... I'd give certain work-study programs a shot... I'd say federal grants should take drug convictions into the decision making process, but shouldn't eliminated solely on that offense...

10/7/2002 3:23:41 AM

I think the ruling is perfectly fair and I agree I think aid should go to those who havent fucked up before they give it to someone who might flunk out after a year from wasting their time on drugs or something

10/7/2002 11:55:23 AM

I would be interested to know how many of you that say that this punishment is "fair" also did not support G33 in our own Student Senate.

10/7/2002 12:12:00 PM

Of course it is acceptable to deny these people funding. What the hell are people giving the aid supposed to think? They give a student money to go to school so that he or she has more money to buy more drugs? Face it. You broke the law. You took the risk. YOU FUCKED YOURSELF!

Btw. I disagree with that comment in the begining that stated that most students do it anyways. I have lots of friends all over campus and have yet to find one of them that does so little as smoke weed.

10/7/2002 1:14:07 PM

Quote :

"I would be interested to know how many of you that say that this punishment is "fair" also did not support G33 in our own Student Senate."

yeah, it probably would be a close relation...

i personally don't think drug convictions should prohibit you for representing people, people have the right to vote for whoever they choose... it should be public knowledge though...

but when it comes to financial decisions with federal money, then it definitely needs to be taken into consideration...

10/7/2002 1:34:13 PM

breaking the speed limit or driving recklessly is against the law too...should the government deny funds to those that have broken those laws?

just because you get arrested for a joint, or paraphernalia even once when you are 18 doesnt mean you should be denied the privelege of higher education...you pay for those charges in the courts or in jail, community service, whatever.

i know lots more people that drive drunk than do drugs...but those people get to keep their aid

10/7/2002 1:39:26 PM

Wow, I'm surprised there aren't more "but I was born with the right to smoke dope!" arguments on this thread. I can't believe there are college students who have a sane outlook on this whole issue.

Quote :

"now, another thing we need to remember is that the overall purpose of the higher education act is and should be to make college available to many people who would otherwise not be able to afford it. but this one provision was inserted simply to keep people from doing drugs. it igores the original purpose of the act. by denying drug users access to education, we are actually encouraging them to continue drug use instead of giving them a way out. things like this are why the drug war agenda is so narrow minded and misguided."

Oh, I love this. You think going to college is a way for "Tyrone Da Crack Deala" to get a decent job and stop "having" to sell drugs? I've got news for you... he was never going to get into college in the first place! It's not like this act would prevent him from doing anything related to college anyway...

Look. It's up to the government to decide who to give this money to and their choice is to non-drug users. This seems like a "positive" way to discourage drug use. Instead of sending you to prison for a couple years they'll just take away any financial aid you might have coming your way. Certainly does make you think twice about doing drugs, doesn't it? That's the point.

Oh, and I don't buy this whole "minor transgression" BS. I really don't think that a large number of people get caught smoking weed on their first try. Rather, it probably won't happen until you've developed quite a habit and are doing it on a regular basis. Hence, getting caught implies that you have a history of smoking weed. And if you do get caught the first time -- hey, you knew what could happen, so why did you do it anyway?

I love all you activist-type college students who think drug laws are totally unjust. Here's a clue: if you really want to carry out this whole "civil disobedience" thing you need to be willing to break the law flagrantly and be willing to accept the consequences. If all you do is talk about how bad it is, tough shit.

10/7/2002 3:33:53 PM

the record for replies to a story is 95 i think, this has 64 now

10/7/2002 6:04:18 PM

*thank you, thank you - no flash photography please*

Well, let's continue it. I love this debate, and I think it's a REALLY serious issue.

10/7/2002 7:23:02 PM

Quote :

"eh, I don't think drug users should not have access to "limited" funds... But you have to break down what the funds are used for... I would say they should not be given access to any student loans, because of credit risk and difficulties getting a job with a drug history... I'd give certain work-study programs a shot... I'd say federal grants should take drug convictions into the decision making process, but shouldn't eliminated solely on that offense..."

Credit risk?

The whole point of student loans is that they IGNORE credit risk. How much credit did you have coming into college?

Quote :

"Oh, I love this. You think going to college is a way for "Tyrone Da Crack Deala" to get a decent job and stop "having" to sell drugs? I've got news for you... he was never going to get into college in the first place! It's not like this act would prevent him from doing anything related to college anyway..."

On the flip side, how is the reformed crack user ever going to do anything with his life if he doesn't go to college?

Quote :

"Look. It's up to the government to decide who to give this money to and their choice is to non-drug users. This seems like a "positive" way to discourage drug use. Instead of sending you to prison for a couple years they'll just take away any financial aid you might have coming your way. Certainly does make you think twice about doing drugs, doesn't it? That's the point."

Uh, except that the disincentive is retroactive. It applies to all convicts of drug use, not just to those who will be arrested in the future.

Which really makes it an even worse law, because it's ex post facto. We ban ex post facto laws from the criminal code, so our legislators have found another way to bring one into effect. It's not as though pot smokers in the '80s could say "gee, better watch out for that future HEA amendment."

I might also add that, as a self-proclaimed ex-pot user, you are extremely hypocritical. If you really believe in this law, then you should abidicate your financial aid. Otherwise, you're essentially taking a "do as I say" attitude towards rule of law.

Quote :

"Oh, and I don't buy this whole "minor transgression" BS. I really don't think that a large number of people get caught smoking weed on their first try."

Or, in your case, on the fifth, sixth, seventh, ...

Quote :

"Rather, it probably won't happen until you've developed quite a habit and are doing it on a regular basis. Hence, getting caught implies that you have a history of smoking weed. And if you do get caught the first time -- hey, you knew what could happen, so why did you do it anyway?"

The bastion of morality speaks to us from on high. Naysayers beware!

Quote :

"I love all you activist-type college students who think drug laws are totally unjust. Here's a clue: if you really want to carry out this whole "civil disobedience" thing you need to be willing to break the law flagrantly and be willing to accept the consequences. If all you do is talk about how bad it is, tough shit."

::yawn::

Yea, this is a great point. Except for one minor thing:

This whole thread is not about civil disobedience. It's about changing the law through legislature.



[Edited on October 7, 2002 at 7:36 PM. Reason : foo]

10/7/2002 7:35:02 PM

*sits back and watches as smoker defeats my opposition for me *

10/7/2002 7:40:16 PM

just dont get caught and u have nothing to worry about.

10/7/2002 8:42:22 PM

Quote :

"*sits back and watches as smoker defeats my opposition for me *"

Or not.

Smoker4 "The Devil's Advocate" vs. xienze part 23:

Quote :

"On the flip side, how is the reformed crack user ever going to do anything with his life if he doesn't go to college?"

By choosing to be a crack dealer he already understands and accepts the possibility that he will be "labeled" for life should he be caught somehow. If he's not caught, then there is some hope. Otherwise, he knew well ahead of time that he would become a convicted felon if he were to be caught. With that, he understands that convicted felons live as sort of "second-class citizens", i.e., many people would be unwilling to hire him for a job. In this case, not only will he have a hard time finding a job, but he won't get any financial aid. Maybe he wasn't aware of the financial aid part ahead of time, but surely he knows that convicted felons have a harder time getting along in life. Too bad. Should've thought about that before dealing drugs.

Contrary to liberal belief, you don't have to sell drugs to work your way out of the ghetto.

Quote :

"Uh, except that the disincentive is retroactive. It applies to all convicts of drug use, not just to those who will be arrested in the future."

So now those who are stuck can warn future generations not to engage in drug use lest they lose their financial aid! Double bonus!

Quote :

"I might also add that, as a self-proclaimed ex-pot user, you are extremely hypocritical. If you really believe in this law, then you should abidicate your financial aid. Otherwise, you're essentially taking a "do as I say" attitude towards rule of law."

Two things:

I don't get financial aid.
I never got caught.

Therefore, since I've quit, I never will be caught. So I say keep it coming! It's not gonna affect me either way. Sorry pal, no hypocrisy here . I learned the error of my ways before this ever became an issue.

-----

Before I go, I'd just like to throw in my two cents on the whole "why do you need financial aid if you're already supporting a drug habit?" point -- it's a good one, BTW. Take a look at cigarette smokers. Say you buy a four dollar pack of cigarettes every day. Over a year, that adds up to the better part of a semester's tuition. Now, say you have a sixty dollar per week dank habit. Over the course of a year, that adds up to about two semester's worth of tuition. So really, would you need that financial aid? If you just dropped the drug habit you'd find yourself being able to afford tuition without it! Amazing!

10/7/2002 9:54:59 PM

Quote :

"Credit risk? The whole point of student loans is that they IGNORE credit risk. How much credit did you have coming into college?"

None, but since I didn't have a drug offense on my record, it would probably be easier for me to get a job and repay a student loan...

I'd disagree with the whole point of student loans is to IGNORE credit risk. I'd say its to give a student a lower interest and longer term loan then they would be able to get otherwise... But its still a loan intended to be repayed, and negative credit and criminal history do affect loan risks...

10/7/2002 10:17:24 PM

Quote :

"In this case, not only will he have a hard time finding a job, but he won't get any financial aid. Maybe he wasn't aware of the financial aid part ahead of time, but surely he knows that convicted felons have a harder time getting along in life. Too bad. Should've thought about that before dealing drugs."

Well, it sounds to me like you just believe in this whole dogmatic nonsense as a self-fulfilling prophecy. This argument is totally self-defeating. You're saying that society should undertake to ruin these people's lives to the maximum possible extent, because that's what your dogmatic position would lead them to--it's what they should expect.

If you believe, then, that the justice system's penalties exist only to punitive ends, and not to reform individuals, then this stance is fine. Let's treat convicts as second-class citizens to the maximum possible effect.

But when they're repeat offenders because they can't get an education or climb the social ladder in any sense, don't be surprised.

Quote :

"Contrary to liberal belief, you don't have to sell drugs to work your way out of the ghetto."

Liberal belief? Liberal belief? Get a clue, pal. The view that ghetto life leads to taking the powerful incentive of drug marketing has been developed by the one of the most prominent conservative economists of the last century, not to mention the grandfather of modern conservatism, himself (Friedman and Buckley, in case you're wondering).

That people take incentives, and that environment molds attitudes are, I think, some obvious truths. But when it comes to you and your anti-drug tirades, it's time to bury the ostrich head in the sand and pretend that we all live in a vacuum, with the same inputs to our moral decisions.

Quote :

"So now those who are stuck can warn future generations not to engage in drug use lest they lose their financial aid! Double bonus!"

Great! And we can re-enact ex post facto laws. Let's bring back double jeopardy, too!

18th century dogmatic justice, here we come! Courtesy of xienze, the magnificent and moral (who has been known to smoke up, though he never was caught, thank Heavens)!

Quote :

"Therefore, since I've quit, I never will be caught. So I say keep it coming! It's not gonna affect me either way. Sorry pal, no hypocrisy here . I learned the error of my ways before this ever became an issue."

You're missing the point. Your crimes were an issue the minute you committed them. Are you saying that if you aren't caught, you don't deserve the punishment?

Maybe if your stance is civil disobedience--which it most clearly is not--this is a reasonable position, but as one who is so vehemently anti-drug, and even more so anti-drug user, I'd have to say this just snaps your position in two. You don't believe in justice; that's just plain and clear. There's no justice in committing a crime that you really believe to be a crime, and then dismissing the punishment because no one caught you. It's not only unjust to believe that, it's just plain immature.

And that you didn't recieve financial aid only makes you look even sillier; you're moralizing from afar, now, and from a morally untenable position.

Quote :

"Before I go, I'd just like to throw in my two cents on the whole "why do you need financial aid if you're already supporting a drug habit?" point -- it's a good one, BTW. Take a look at cigarette smokers. Say you buy a four dollar pack of cigarettes every day. Over a year, that adds up to the better part of a semester's tuition. Now, say you have a sixty dollar per week dank habit. Over the course of a year, that adds up to about two semester's worth of tuition. So really, would you need that financial aid? If you just dropped the drug habit you'd find yourself being able to afford tuition without it! Amazing!"

Which is ignoring the fact that this law doesn't apply to drug users, it applies to the convicted--who may or may not actually use drugs, currently.

I'm perfectly willing to accept denial of financial aid to current drug users, but to the guy who was convicted in 1985? That's just preposterous.

Quote :

"I'd disagree with the whole point of student loans is to IGNORE credit risk. I'd say its to give a student a lower interest and longer term loan then they would be able to get otherwise... But its still a loan intended to be repayed, and negative credit and criminal history do affect loan risks..."

One more time: there is no credit check with a student loan.

The government subsidizes most student loans by acting as the implicit cosigner on them.

Your credit does not matter with a loan, because the government has infinite credit. And when the loan isn't repaid, the private sector banking institutions still get their money.

There is no credit risk. Period. None. Nada. Zilch. The government has power of coercion to extract money from you. If the loan isn't repaid on time, it doesn't matter, because the point of the loan isn't to profit. With a private sector institution, problematic loan repayments are an issue because they affect the institution's revenue stream. The government effectively has no such problem, because they have guns and wage garnishing.

In short: relating a student loan to credit risk is pointless. A student loan is simply not the same animal as a normal, for-profit loan, and the lenders do not take your credit--negative or otherwise--into account when doling out the money.

10/8/2002 1:25:50 AM

Quote :

"Well, it sounds to me like you just believe in this whole dogmatic nonsense as a self-fulfilling prophecy. This argument is totally self-defeating. You're saying that society should undertake to ruin these people's lives to the maximum possible extent, because that's what your dogmatic position would lead them to--it's what they should expect."

I'm not saying society should try to treat the convicted poorly, just that it does. It's human nature. Do you think changing prisons into reform centers is going to change the fact that a convicted child rapist is looked upon differently by his peers? You'd have an easier time changing the weather. Get over it. There are things you can do -- in any culture -- that will dig you into a hole you can't climb out of.

Quote :

"Liberal belief? Liberal belief? Get a clue, pal. The view that ghetto life leads to taking the powerful incentive of drug marketing has been developed by the one of the most prominent conservative economists of the last century, not to mention the grandfather of modern conservatism, himself (Friedman and Buckley, in case you're wondering)."

Yeah yeah, but the point is, the whole "he had to sell drugs!" bit is thrown around by liberals all the damn time. Of course the easiest way to make money in the ghetto is to sell drugs, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. Yes, it really is possible to be poor and go to college (the fact that colleges are falling over themselves to enroll poor blacks should tell you that)... it's not the path of least resistance, however.

Quote :

"That people take incentives, and that environment molds attitudes are, I think, some obvious truths. But when it comes to you and your anti-drug tirades, it's time to bury the ostrich head in the sand and pretend that we all live in a vacuum, with the same inputs to our moral decisions."

Look, regardless of what your "inputs" are, you know that selling drugs isn't a wise decision to make and that it carries with it consequences. So, either you don't care about the consequences or you "think" that there's no other way to make money. Which is it?

Quote :

"Great! And we can re-enact ex post facto laws. Let's bring back double jeopardy, too!"

Nice hyperbole, but you realize that this act has nothing to do with convicting someone of a crime retroactively or trying someone for the same crime twice. It's simply denying someone money based on their criminal record. This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with job hiring. Convicted felons have a hard time getting a job because, honestly, would you let a "reformed" child rapist babysit your kids? No. Would a bank ever hire a "reformed" bank robber? No. Along those lines, the government has decided that they don't want to give convicted drug users financial aid. Oh well, better luck next time.

Quote :

"You don't believe in justice; that's just plain and clear. There's no justice in committing a crime that you really believe to be a crime, and then dismissing the punishment because no one caught you. It's not only unjust to believe that, it's just plain immature."

Oh, and I suppose you'd feel better about my position if I told you that I believed that I wasn't committing a crime at the time? That's certainly the excuse you guys use.

It's simple. At the time, I believed it was an unjust law. Now that I don't do it anymore, I don't think the same way about it.

Quote :

"And that you didn't recieve financial aid only makes you look even sillier; you're moralizing from afar, now, and from a morally untenable position."

Well damn. You've certainly got me now. First you said that receiving aid makes me hypocritical, now you say that not receiving aid makes me unable to comment on the issue! Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

Just because this issue doesn't have the potential to affect me doesn't mean that I can't be in favor of it.

Quote :

"Which is ignoring the fact that this law doesn't apply to drug users, it applies to the convicted--who may or may not actually use drugs, currently."

Like hell it doesn't apply to drug users. Drug users are potential convicts. DirtyGreek and the rest of the TWW stoners are quaking in their boots over this issue because they realize that they'll be fucked over something as pointless as regular drug use.

Quote :

"I'm perfectly willing to accept denial of financial aid to current drug users, but to the guy who was convicted in 1985? That's just preposterous."

Please, I call bullshit. You're opposed to the whole idea of denying financial aid to convicted drug users. What's an acceptable timespan to you? Convicted within ninety days? Well that's not proof of anything! They might not be doing drugs anymore!

10/8/2002 8:55:57 AM

Drugs are illegal, while they are people have to live with their consequences of doing an illegal act. Nobody forced you to smoke weed. Nobody forced you to do anything. Sure you can say they are mostly harmless, drinking and driving can be harmless to (im sure in most cases nobody gets hurt), but its the cases where people die, of suffere significant hurt is why these things are illegal. If you have a bunch of money to spend on drugs, do you really need the gov money for college?

10/8/2002 1:55:55 PM

Quote :

"There are things you can do -- in any culture -- that will dig you into a hole you can't climb out of."

that doesn't mean we should make it even harder to climb out.

10/8/2002 1:58:10 PM

quote boxes! eee! they're so many!
why is everyone getting angry when it is implied that drug offenders don't deserve aid by saying "well how else are they going to get out of their situation?"...it's their fault they're in any situation, and we can't go around feeling sorry for people who made stupid decisions when there are people who made good decisions who want the money too. we're "encouraging them to keep doing drugs?" ok? so? maybe they should finish rotting their brains before they get a chance to breed. social darwinism? gene pool cleansing? anyone?

10/8/2002 5:37:01 PM

I dont like drugs, but I do believe in second chances...although selectively. It should be done like this:
Anyone convicted of selling drugs: you get nothing.
Anyone who has used drugs: you should have to pass a drug test. Attending college is a fulltime job, and if someone is going to pay for you to go, they have every right to make you take a test. Now, if you pass the test and get funding, if you get into trouble with drugs again, your funding is cut off immediately. I think thats about as "fair" as it should get for the druggies.

10/8/2002 6:26:20 PM

Quote :

"Anyone who has used drugs: you should have to pass a drug test. "

The only problem with this is that there are so many ways around this nowadays. Stores LEGALLY sell products that will flush out your system. Wtf? The only thing those tests are good for are catching people without notice . . . but I can't see people who give financial aid showing up on your doorstep at any given time to collect a "sample".

10/8/2002 7:13:10 PM

hell yes. maybe now i can get a freeking grant sence all the druggies wont be getting all my college money to go buy drugs!!!

10/8/2002 7:56:47 PM

[Edited on October 8, 2002 at 7:58 PM. Reason : oops]

10/8/2002 7:57:46 PM

Quote :

"I'm not saying society should try to treat the convicted poorly, just that it does. It's human nature. Do you think changing prisons into reform centers is going to change the fact that a convicted child rapist is looked upon differently by his peers?"

But we aren't talking about convicted child rapists, now are we? We're talking about drug users. Considering that society is perfectly willing to accept past drug users (Hell, even many current ones), this whole paragraph is bogus and largely irrelevant.

And to boot, you've defeated your own point. This measure isn't a societal taboo. It's a law, written into the books, the repeal of which has a rather large backing in the House of Representatives.

This "society hates criminals" line of argument is just a red herring. We aren't talking about society as a whole.

Quote :

"Look, regardless of what your "inputs" are, you know that selling drugs isn't a wise decision to make and that it carries with it consequences. So, either you don't care about the consequences or you "think" that there's no other way to make money. Which is it?"

More ostrich-head-in-the-sand. So it's an unwise decision. Yes, sure, it's an unwise decision for people with wisdom.

Basically, the drug war amounts to pushing the incentives of a lucrative black market on the most ignorant people in America. Not only the most ignorant, the poorest. You think some kid with an illiterate, welfare mom, half of whose peers have gone to jail, is going to see the long-term consequences of selling drugs? Do you not even believe in the effects of parenting and community on one's personal morals?

This is just good, old-fashioned tunnel vision. You're ascribing your own life experience to everyone else; nevermind the mitigating circumstances.

Should these people be thrown in jail for breaking the law, despite their circumstances? Sure. Does that mean they should be denied long-term reform? NO!

Quote :

"Nice hyperbole, but you realize that this act has nothing to do with convicting someone of a crime retroactively or trying someone for the same crime twice. It's simply denying someone money based on their criminal record. This sort of thing happens all the time, especially with job hiring. Convicted felons have a hard time getting a job because, honestly, would you let a "reformed" child rapist babysit your kids? No. Would a bank ever hire a "reformed" bank robber? No. Along those lines, the government has decided that they don't want to give convicted drug users financial aid. Oh well, better luck next time."

Uh...ok, so, your paragraph went more or less like this:

"Nice hyperbole. Here's some of my own."

I don't think I need to sit here and explain to you why refusing to allow a child rapist to babysit my kids is different than giving a pot smoker financial aid. My free time is more valuable than that, and I certainly hope any third party can see the obvious, patent idiocy here.

Furthermore, I brought up double jeopardy as a parallel to the anachronism of justice you're presenting here. The law IS ex post facto. It's just done in an underhanded way.

Quote :

"Oh, and I suppose you'd feel better about my position if I told you that I believed that I wasn't committing a crime at the time? That's certainly the excuse you guys use."

Who's "you guys?"

Quote :

"It's simple. At the time, I believed it was an unjust law. Now that I don't do it anymore, I don't think the same way about it."

Ok. That doesn't excuse you.

If a murderer kills someone thinking it's an unjust crime and then changes his mind, should he turn himself in? Or is morality just all about the moment with you?

Quote :

"Just because this issue doesn't have the potential to affect me doesn't mean that I can't be in favor of it."

You're right. I didn't say you couldn't take a stance; far be it from me. I just said you look silly doing so, especially when you obviously lack any real convictions.

Quote :

"Like hell it doesn't apply to drug users. Drug users are potential convicts. DirtyGreek and the rest of the TWW stoners are quaking in their boots over this issue because they realize that they'll be fucked over something as pointless as regular drug use."

Ok. It doesn't apply exclusively to current drug users. Now will you address my point?

Quote :

"Please, I call bullshit. You're opposed to the whole idea of denying financial aid to convicted drug users. What's an acceptable timespan to you? Convicted within ninety days? Well that's not proof of anything! They might not be doing drugs anymore!"

Don't tell me what I'm opposed to or not.

I would even be fine with a probationary period where the convict has to pay for a semester, and would recieve aid retroactively for doing well. Since I think the best evidence of reform is academic performance; and if one does drugs and still performs, then it's really not the school's business.

(since, after all, there are plenty of kids at NCSU who don't do drugs and can't seem to hold up a 2.0 GPA)

10/8/2002 8:09:28 PM

Quote :

"DirtyGreek and the rest of the TWW stoners are quaking in their boots over this issue because they realize that they'll be fucked over something as pointless as regular drug use"

This really ISN'T about me. If I got caught with drugs, i'd worry alot more about the legal punishments than this. This is my idealistic "caring about the rest of the people" sense that's pushing me here - it isn't fair and even if it didn't apply to me, I'd still be against it.

10/8/2002 9:34:01 PM

<--- For it!

10/9/2002 12:49:07 AM

Maybe people should save their drug money and spend it on schooling so they won't need special funding. If they choose to do drugs and get caught that is their problem. I am a firm believer in saying no to drugs, but I also believe in second chances. Perhaps they should do some sort of system where they could randomly drug test you, if you pass you keep the funding if you fail then you get cut off. But then again....that would jsut be wasting someone's hard earned money to drug test someone who will probably do it again. I may be stereotyping here, but if you haven't done drugs by now, chances are you wont' ever try them...so the people who are getting caught probably have a drug use problem.

Bottom line is dont' do drugs and then you wouldn't have to worry about this.

[Edited on October 9, 2002 at 2:10 AM. Reason : funding..not fucking...how did I mistype that!?!?!? freudian slip maybe!>!> ]

10/9/2002 2:01:50 AM

^^^ So True

10/9/2002 2:53:58 PM

85 now you guys are almost there

10/12/2002 1:13:16 PM

looks like you guys fell short

10/16/2002 11:36:40 PM

thank god i've graduated.

10/23/2002 2:37:20 PM

why didnt you guys go for the highest?

10/27/2002 11:23:29 PM

YOU people have way too much time on your hand. How about grab some books and study. Geez, what major are you guys in. I am just wondering b/c some of you are almost finished with their books in here.

11/19/2002 11:10:32 AM

they had alot to say

1/15/2003 8:58:13 AM