the law currently denies anyone with a drug offense the possibility of financial aid. paroled murderers can get aid. rapists can too. drunk drivers can also. a kid busted with a joint in high school cannot.
I don't know the law and I am too lazy to look too deeply into it (imagine how lazy I'd be if I was smokin weed). But if this is true, it's almost funny. Most of us acknowledge the ridiculous cost of education. If you are not fortunate enough to be one of those kids who actually has the ellusive "college fund" can you even pay for it without aid? (I had the college fund). Would you need to save up for several years--cost yourself years worth up upward mobility and earning power while driving forklift and taking 10 years to graduate? All because you got caught with a dime bag in high school? And drug offenses are the only crime that has this prohibition? That's not about morality (or the rapists would not get loans). It's about the US's OCD-like villification of drugs. The thought must be that this is a deterrant either to young people doing drugs or to people bring drugs to campus. In the meantime, the jackass who beat the shit out of you in the high school bathroom and has an assault conviction just obtained financial aid. The kid who took a few hits a party that was busted just had his future jeopardized. Common sense is lacking.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
um thats not true. and if it was, then its ok since everyone is doing it?
College students are stealing music and movies constantly, there are people driving recklessly, cross walking ...
Some crimes are just less serious. So, I don't think commiting a crime is a good excuse for denying someone financial aid without any other reason. If you're just getting high all day watching Family Guy DVDs, which you downloaded from the internet, I agree, the money is better spent on someone who actually wants an education.
But if you smoked a joint once and got caught and there aren't any other problems (good grades, stayed out of trouble...) I think you should still get a chance.
we are talking about colleges here. which we have some of the best in the world.
but its crap regarding cost? meaning its too expensive? yea I agree.
Yes, colleges and yes, I think they're too expensive.
thats too bad. I'm glad I dont know you. people who admit they should be in prison, have no business walking the streets.
yeah well, supermax dui laws are a bitch. luckily, i got a few plea deals thanks to an attorney. and now i don't drink at all and havent in years. i also get large federal loans from the government to help me turn my life around and pay for school. becos... people can CHANGE.
thats too bad. I'm glad I dont know you. people who admit they should be in prison, have no business walking the streets.
Actually he never said he SHOULD be in prison, but that he WOULD be in prison. Assuming its drugs (from what I know), someone who has his life on track should NOT be in prison (but some are, unfortunately).
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
why should students with drug convictions get preferential treatment?
that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
what kind of a lesson is that teaching kids?
wow.
It's not preferential treatment, it's equal treatment.
While marijuana is illegal, it is not that serious of an offense. I'd imagine the percentage of this board that has at smoked at least once is >95%.
Now just imagine that you a good student. Honor roll and Vice President of your class. One day you are with your buddies and smoking for the first time. You get busted and booked. You can't afford to pay for college so you are forced to get a job. But you don't have a college education so you can't get a good job. You end up cleaning dishes at Olive Garden, working 40 hours a week for $7.50 while trying to raise a family. You do a good job and after 15 years you end up as assistant manager, now you are making $14.50 hurray! Little Junior is all grown up and now he wants to go to school but he can't because you still trying to pay off your mortgage with a $14.50 salary. All because you smoked a joint when you were 18.
You broke the law but the consequences are disproportionate to the crime.
Actually he never said he SHOULD be in prison, but that he WOULD be in prison. Assuming its drugs (from what I know), someone who has his life on track should NOT be in prison (but some are, unfortunately).
I know. I almost did not post it. I kind of wanted to (not for you, but in general) point out the difference between WOULD and SHOULD be in prison...I was making a loose connection to all the non-violent drug offenders in prisons.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
I don't know the law and I am too lazy to look too deeply into it (imagine how lazy I'd be if I was smokin weed). But if this is true, it's almost funny. Most of us acknowledge the ridiculous cost of education. If you are not fortunate enough to be one of those kids who actually has the ellusive "college fund" can you even pay for it without aid? (I had the college fund). Would you need to save up for several years--cost yourself years worth up upward mobility and earning power while driving forklift and taking 10 years to graduate? All because you got caught with a dime bag in high school? And drug offenses are the only crime that has this prohibition? That's not about morality (or the rapists would not get loans). It's about the US's OCD-like villification of drugs. The thought must be that this is a deterrant either to young people doing drugs or to people bring drugs to campus. In the meantime, the jackass who beat the shit out of you in the high school bathroom and has an assault conviction just obtained financial aid. The kid who took a few hits a party that was busted just had his future jeopardized. Common sense is lacking.
it's true. i've been arrested for drunk driving three times. i didn't have to say a word about any of them on my grad school loan applications. there were TWO questions about drug convictions. the first was do you have any, the second was whether or not you were aware that not answering or lying on that question could get you arrested. and one of my arrests was as a minor, so i broke TWO laws... drinking, and then driving on top of it. the pot smoker broke one.
but I do apologize. if you battled back and are doing good for yourself. thats awesome
i know. i took no offense. my point was only that why should i be so lucky just becos i was blessed with parents who could afford to get me not just two, but THREE chances to turn myself around? and we're going to say a kid busted with simple possession once should never get even one chance to turn that around? the only kids that can wiggle out of a drug charge are the ones who could afford to pay for college anyway. all this does is worsen the cycle of drug abuse in inner cities. they can't get a lawyer so they get the pot charge. they cant afford school becos of it, so they know they can't get a decent job. so they've got no reason to clean up and know the best money they can make at that point is dealing. it spreads. there is no forgiveness with this ridiculous policy. me, i fucked up time after time, but becos im a white suburban kid with a decent family income, im still clean. sucks for the poor folks. the kids who mess up once cannot ever make it right. and the kids who wouldn't make right aren't going to college anyway. so this policy does nothing but fuck over decent people who were less than perfect growing up.
did you ever drink in high school? or your first 2 years at college? that's breaking the law. should we revoke all of those students' financial aid?
It's not preferential treatment, it's equal treatment.
While marijuana is illegal, it is not that serious of an offense. I'd imagine the percentage of this board that has at smoked at least once is >95%.
Now just imagine that you a good student. Honor roll and Vice President of your class. One day you are with your buddies and smoking for the first time. You get busted and booked. You can't afford to pay for college so you are forced to get a job. But you don't have a college education so you can't get a good job. You end up cleaning dishes at Olive Garden, working 40 hours a week for $7.50 while trying to raise a family. You do a good job and after 15 years you end up as assistant manager, now you are making $14.50 hurray! Little Junior is all grown up and now he wants to go to school but he can't because you still trying to pay off your mortgage with a $14.50 salary. All because you smoked a joint when you were 18.
You broke the law but the consequences are disproportionate to the crime.
the fact that it is illegal is exactly the point. partaking in any illegal activity comes with consequences. although i do have some degree sympathy for those caught in the wrong place, wrong time scenario, absolutely, it is still not feasible nor fair to expect those with drug convictions to be given 'special' aid.
smoking that joint at 18 was junior's choice. if he was on the honor roll he should be smarter than that.
the fact that it is illegal is exactly the point. partaking in any illegal activity comes with consequences. although i do have some degree sympathy for those caught in the wrong place, wrong time scenario, absolutely, it is still not feasible nor fair to expect those with drug convictions to be given 'special' aid.
smoking that joint at 18 was junior's choice. if he was on the honor roll he should be smarter than that.
but it's a double standard. you ARE giving special aid to people convicted of any other crime on the books. drug possession is the ONLY one that matters for federal aid. like i said, you can kill somebody or rape children, and you still get aid. this isn't about special aid. it's about singling out one crime and punishing it out of any sense of reasonableness or proportion. it's ridiculous.
It's not preferential treatment, it's equal treatment.
While marijuana is illegal, it is not that serious of an offense. I'd imagine the percentage of this board that has at smoked at least once is >95%.
Now just imagine that you a good student. Honor roll and Vice President of your class. One day you are with your buddies and smoking for the first time. You get busted and booked. You can't afford to pay for college so you are forced to get a job. But you don't have a college education so you can't get a good job. You end up cleaning dishes at Olive Garden, working 40 hours a week for $7.50 while trying to raise a family. You do a good job and after 15 years you end up as assistant manager, now you are making $14.50 hurray! Little Junior is all grown up and now he wants to go to school but he can't because you still trying to pay off your mortgage with a $14.50 salary. All because you smoked a joint when you were 18.
You broke the law but the consequences are disproportionate to the crime.
The thing is is that if you want a college education and can't get financial aid you can always go to night school or work for an employer who pays for education. There are other options. I mean you are totally playing up the doomsday scenario there.
Besides, I still have problems with this statement from the original post of the thread:
"Since the Senate passed HEA reauthorization without repealing the Aid Elimination Penalty, it is imperative that constituents send a strong message to members of the House that denying financial aid for college does nothing to deter drug use in schools, and only causes more drug abuse."
So are they saying that if you are denied financial aid, you are more likely to abuse drugs? Is there some sort of study or hard evidence to back this up? I'm not really sure that I can buy that because wouldn't it be tougher to finance a drug habit if you didn't receive the money for financial aid. Or are they trying to say that everyone who has their financial aid cut just drops out of school and becomes a drug abuser?
The thing is is that if you want a college education and can't get financial aid you can always go to night school or work for an employer who pays for education. There are other options. I mean you are totally playing up the doomsday scenario there.
Besides, I still have problems with this statement from the original post of the thread:
"Since the Senate passed HEA reauthorization without repealing the Aid Elimination Penalty, it is imperative that constituents send a strong message to members of the House that denying financial aid for college does nothing to deter drug use in schools, and only causes more drug abuse."
So are they saying that if you are denied financial aid, you are more likely to abuse drugs? Is there some sort of study or hard evidence to back this up? I'm not really sure that I can buy that because wouldn't it be tougher to finance a drug habit if you didn't receive the money for financial aid. Or are they trying to say that everyone who has their financial aid cut just drops out of school and becomes a drug abuser?
They're saying that there's a higher incidence of criminal activity among those who didn't get a college education. If someone is eligible for financial aid, chances are they need that financial aid in order to attend college. Take that away, and yes, that person is more likely to commit further crimes - including abusing drugs.
but it's a double standard. you ARE giving special aid to people convicted of any other crime on the books. drug possession is the ONLY one that matters for federal aid. like i said, you can kill somebody or rape children, and you still get aid. this isn't about special aid. it's about singling out one crime and punishing it out of any sense of reasonableness or proportion. it's ridiculous.
the war on drugs efforts in this country are and always will be a top priority. although unrealistic at times, i agree, it is an issue that i don't ever see the government backing down on.
They're saying that there's a higher incidence of criminal activity among those who didn't get a college education. If someone is eligible for financial aid, chances are they need that financial aid in order to attend college. Take that away, and yes, that person is more likely to commit further crimes - including abusing drugs.
True, but isn't that assuming the worst in people? I had a few friends who lost their financial aid and got jobs to make up that money they lost and finished school. Assuming that people who lose their financial aid will turn to committing crimes and live a life of abusing drugs is a stretch to me.
My problem with this doom and gloom scenario is that there are various ways to finance a college education which do not include any assistance from the federal government.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
True, but isn't that assuming the worst in people? I had a few friends who lost their financial aid and got jobs to make up that money they lost and finished school. Assuming that people who lose their financial aid will turn to committing crimes and live a life of abusing drugs is a stretch to me.
I just think that it's poorly worded.
Assuming that all people who lose their financial aid will turn to committing crimes is a stretch. However, statistics are what they are. The incidence of criminal activity is greater among those who don't have a college education.
Why single out those committing victimless crimes? Hell, we're doing more than just singling them out - we're pushing them into committing more serious crimes.
Assuming that all people who lose their financial aid will turn to committing crimes is a stretch. However, statistics are what they are. The incidence of criminal activity is greater among those who don't have a college education.
Why single out those committing victimless crimes? Hell, we're doing more than just singling them out - we're pushing them into committing more serious crimes.
Or you're giving them a wake up call. It's called personal responsibility. There are two sides to looking at this - you're saying we're pushing them into committing more serious crimes. I'm saying that when they lose their financial aid, they need to prioritize their life. If they want to put in the extra effort, they can overcome their mistake or if they want to become part of a statistic they can take the easy way out.
Assuming that all people who lose their financial aid will turn to committing crimes is a stretch. However, statistics are what they are. The incidence of criminal activity is greater among those who don't have a college education.
But how many of those included in statistics weren't going to college to begin with?? How many didn't finish high school and how many didn't even go to high school?? Don't try to tell me that just because you don't go to college you end up living a life of crime. I didn't graduate with a college degree and I live a comfortable life, and have never committed a crime.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Or you're giving them a wake up call. It's called personal responsibility. There are two sides to looking at this - you're saying we're pushing them into committing more serious crimes. I'm saying that when they lose their financial aid, they need to prioritize their life. If they want to put in the extra effort, they can overcome their mistake or if they want to become part of a statistic they can take the easy way out.
It's more like Enforced Morality than it is Personal Responsiblity. Now, I don't want to make any assumptions about who you are - but I have a pretty accurate mental picture of the people who yell about personal responsibility. They're often not in danger of falling into the traps that they love seeing set for others.
But how many of those included in statistics weren't going to college to begin with?? How many didn't finish high school and how many didn't even go to high school?? Don't try to tell me that just because you don't go to college you end up living a life of crime. I didn't graduate with a college degree and I live a comfortable life, and have never committed a crime.
I, I, I. This isn't about individuals and how they live their individual lives. In fact, it's far from it. It's about blanket assumptions made on groups. Saying that all people who don't go to college will turn to crime isn't an accurate assumption, and I mentioned that. However, saying that all people (and let's face it, we really mean all poor people) who smoke pot aren't deserving of college aid because - I don't know, they smell funny - isn't a good policy either.
I, I, I. This isn't about individuals and how they live their individual lives. In fact, it's far from it. It's about blanket assumptions made on groups. Saying that all people who don't go to college will turn to crime isn't an accurate assumption, and I mentioned that. However, saying that all people (and let's face it, we really mean all poor people) who smoke pot aren't deserving of college aid because - I don't know, they smell funny - isn't a good policy either.
Get the grade, get the aid.
hmm middle class suburban kids don't smoke pot huh??? I guess you'll say that they just don't get caught smoking it right.... come on.
federal financial aid has nothing to do with grades.. it's based on need. If you want grade based aid that's where the universities and colleges come in, and the government isn't limiting what colleges can give you with or without a marijuana conviction.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
I never wanted, or even had any urges to do drugs until I started college. 7000 dollars in debt later, not to mention endless amounts of stress and the overall feeling that I'm being fucked in the ass without lube, drugs don't seem so bad now.
hmm middle class suburban kids don't smoke pot huh??? I guess you'll say that they just don't get caught smoking it right.... come on.
The GOB Bluth "Come On" argument doesn't really work on me. As soulsinging pointed out - it's not that middle class suburban kids don't smoke or don't get caught. It's that they can afford to get out of it. And, again judging by soulsinging's posts, they can afford to get out of it more than once.
federal financial aid has nothing to do with grades.. it's based on need. If you want grade based aid that's where the universities and colleges come in, and the government isn't limiting what colleges can give you with or without a marijuana conviction.
Fair enough. Now, if I merge this with your previous point, it seems like it really is an effort to keep the poor out of college. Any excuse, I guess, and pot seems as good of one as any.
MJ should be legal for many reasons. However if you smoke it all the time you'll fuck up your life.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
I don't know the law and I am too lazy to look too deeply into it (imagine how lazy I'd be if I was smokin weed). But if this is true, it's almost funny. Most of us acknowledge the ridiculous cost of education. If you are not fortunate enough to be one of those kids who actually has the ellusive "college fund" can you even pay for it without aid? (I had the college fund). Would you need to save up for several years--cost yourself years worth up upward mobility and earning power while driving forklift and taking 10 years to graduate? All because you got caught with a dime bag in high school? And drug offenses are the only crime that has this prohibition? That's not about morality (or the rapists would not get loans). It's about the US's OCD-like villification of drugs. The thought must be that this is a deterrant either to young people doing drugs or to people bring drugs to campus. In the meantime, the jackass who beat the shit out of you in the high school bathroom and has an assault conviction just obtained financial aid. The kid who took a few hits a party that was busted just had his future jeopardized. Common sense is lacking.
College students are stealing music and movies constantly, there are people driving recklessly, cross walking ...
Some crimes are just less serious. So, I don't think commiting a crime is a good excuse for denying someone financial aid without any other reason. If you're just getting high all day watching Family Guy DVDs, which you downloaded from the internet, I agree, the money is better spent on someone who actually wants an education.
But if you smoked a joint once and got caught and there aren't any other problems (good grades, stayed out of trouble...) I think you should still get a chance.
Yes, colleges and yes, I think they're too expensive.
naděje umírá poslední
yeah well, supermax dui laws are a bitch. luckily, i got a few plea deals thanks to an attorney. and now i don't drink at all and havent in years. i also get large federal loans from the government to help me turn my life around and pay for school. becos... people can CHANGE.
Actually he never said he SHOULD be in prison, but that he WOULD be in prison. Assuming its drugs (from what I know), someone who has his life on track should NOT be in prison (but some are, unfortunately).
It's not preferential treatment, it's equal treatment.
While marijuana is illegal, it is not that serious of an offense. I'd imagine the percentage of this board that has at smoked at least once is >95%.
Now just imagine that you a good student. Honor roll and Vice President of your class. One day you are with your buddies and smoking for the first time. You get busted and booked. You can't afford to pay for college so you are forced to get a job. But you don't have a college education so you can't get a good job. You end up cleaning dishes at Olive Garden, working 40 hours a week for $7.50 while trying to raise a family. You do a good job and after 15 years you end up as assistant manager, now you are making $14.50 hurray! Little Junior is all grown up and now he wants to go to school but he can't because you still trying to pay off your mortgage with a $14.50 salary. All because you smoked a joint when you were 18.
You broke the law but the consequences are disproportionate to the crime.
I apologized.
now i feel like a dick for undercutting your joke
but I do apologize. if you battled back and are doing good for yourself. thats awesome
I know. I almost did not post it. I kind of wanted to (not for you, but in general) point out the difference between WOULD and SHOULD be in prison...I was making a loose connection to all the non-violent drug offenders in prisons.
it's true. i've been arrested for drunk driving three times. i didn't have to say a word about any of them on my grad school loan applications. there were TWO questions about drug convictions. the first was do you have any, the second was whether or not you were aware that not answering or lying on that question could get you arrested. and one of my arrests was as a minor, so i broke TWO laws... drinking, and then driving on top of it. the pot smoker broke one.
You're all so nice, you sticking up for me, speedy for you...
naděje umírá poslední
i know. i took no offense. my point was only that why should i be so lucky just becos i was blessed with parents who could afford to get me not just two, but THREE chances to turn myself around? and we're going to say a kid busted with simple possession once should never get even one chance to turn that around? the only kids that can wiggle out of a drug charge are the ones who could afford to pay for college anyway. all this does is worsen the cycle of drug abuse in inner cities. they can't get a lawyer so they get the pot charge. they cant afford school becos of it, so they know they can't get a decent job. so they've got no reason to clean up and know the best money they can make at that point is dealing. it spreads. there is no forgiveness with this ridiculous policy. me, i fucked up time after time, but becos im a white suburban kid with a decent family income, im still clean. sucks for the poor folks. the kids who mess up once cannot ever make it right. and the kids who wouldn't make right aren't going to college anyway. so this policy does nothing but fuck over decent people who were less than perfect growing up.
did you ever drink in high school? or your first 2 years at college? that's breaking the law. should we revoke all of those students' financial aid?
the fact that it is illegal is exactly the point. partaking in any illegal activity comes with consequences. although i do have some degree sympathy for those caught in the wrong place, wrong time scenario, absolutely, it is still not feasible nor fair to expect those with drug convictions to be given 'special' aid.
smoking that joint at 18 was junior's choice. if he was on the honor roll he should be smarter than that.
but it's a double standard. you ARE giving special aid to people convicted of any other crime on the books. drug possession is the ONLY one that matters for federal aid. like i said, you can kill somebody or rape children, and you still get aid. this isn't about special aid. it's about singling out one crime and punishing it out of any sense of reasonableness or proportion. it's ridiculous.
The thing is is that if you want a college education and can't get financial aid you can always go to night school or work for an employer who pays for education. There are other options. I mean you are totally playing up the doomsday scenario there.
Besides, I still have problems with this statement from the original post of the thread:
"Since the Senate passed HEA reauthorization without repealing the Aid Elimination Penalty, it is imperative that constituents send a strong message to members of the House that denying financial aid for college does nothing to deter drug use in schools, and only causes more drug abuse."
So are they saying that if you are denied financial aid, you are more likely to abuse drugs? Is there some sort of study or hard evidence to back this up? I'm not really sure that I can buy that because wouldn't it be tougher to finance a drug habit if you didn't receive the money for financial aid. Or are they trying to say that everyone who has their financial aid cut just drops out of school and becomes a drug abuser?
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
the war on drugs efforts in this country are and always will be a top priority. although unrealistic at times, i agree, it is an issue that i don't ever see the government backing down on.
True, but isn't that assuming the worst in people? I had a few friends who lost their financial aid and got jobs to make up that money they lost and finished school. Assuming that people who lose their financial aid will turn to committing crimes and live a life of abusing drugs is a stretch to me.
I just think that it's poorly worded.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Why single out those committing victimless crimes? Hell, we're doing more than just singling them out - we're pushing them into committing more serious crimes.
Or you're giving them a wake up call. It's called personal responsibility. There are two sides to looking at this - you're saying we're pushing them into committing more serious crimes. I'm saying that when they lose their financial aid, they need to prioritize their life. If they want to put in the extra effort, they can overcome their mistake or if they want to become part of a statistic they can take the easy way out.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
But how many of those included in statistics weren't going to college to begin with?? How many didn't finish high school and how many didn't even go to high school?? Don't try to tell me that just because you don't go to college you end up living a life of crime. I didn't graduate with a college degree and I live a comfortable life, and have never committed a crime.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Huh?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Get the grade, get the aid.
hmm middle class suburban kids don't smoke pot huh??? I guess you'll say that they just don't get caught smoking it right.... come on.
federal financial aid has nothing to do with grades.. it's based on need. If you want grade based aid that's where the universities and colleges come in, and the government isn't limiting what colleges can give you with or without a marijuana conviction.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
By the way, I don't do drugs.
But you are realizing this law as it stands undercuts this sort of rebounding, right?
Fair enough. Now, if I merge this with your previous point, it seems like it really is an effort to keep the poor out of college. Any excuse, I guess, and pot seems as good of one as any.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")