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 did a little digging into the Higher Education Act:
In a minor victory for students, the committee approved an amendment to suspend financial aid to students only if they are convicted while receiving aid. The current law calls for the loss of aid for any conviction if the student is enrolled in college and receiving aid at the time of the conviction. A first time drug conviction, if the student is currently receiving aid, will still be met with a one year suspension of financial aid. A second conviction will result in two years with no financial aid and after a third conviction, the student will be ineligible to receive financial aid.
So the possibility of financial aid is not denied. Those convicted are punished with losing aid for one year and escalating upwards. It's not like they can never get financial aid ever again.
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.
so you think that it is perfectly reasonable to give federal money to a convicted child molester for college before we even consider giving it to a kid who got busted smoking pot in high school?
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.
you can do that with a 2-strike rule. you can fuck up once, but if you do it again, you get no aid. AND you make it for ANY crime. you want to be a criminal, it can cost you a chance at college. it should not be confined to just drug offenses. all crimes should be considered equally. you get one, you're on probation and you better not fuck up in school. you get one more and you're out. period.
I did a little digging into the Higher Education Act:
In a minor victory for students, the committee approved an amendment
"amendment" meaning "changed after public pressure due to ridiclous initial wording." sounds like they've taken steps in the right direction. my point, however, is not that they shouldn't be able to do this. i don't understand why it is tied only to drugs. the initial act forbid anyone with a drug conviction from ever getting aid. they've changed as they realized how stupid it is, good. but why only drugs? i say if you want to discourage behavior, then say any crime will cost you your aid. why are they only worried about breaking drug laws? how come the kid could steal a car and suffer no consequences for it? we have dumbshits at my school getting arrested weekly for arson and vandalism and whatnot. why should they get government money? i'd rather it go to the pothead sitting home munching after studying than the piece of shit who flipped my friend's car over after we won a football game.
This is absurd. If a student has a drug conviction, wtf should they get financial aid?
Just add this to the list of non deserving ones who get help for college when the decent, hard working, truly need and want it but can't afford it kids get overlooked because they don't fit a label, race or agenda.
This is just disgusting.
AND..furthermore..drugs should NOT be legalized!!!
"When you're climbing to the top, you'd better know the way back down" MSB
This is absurd. If a student has a drug conviction, wtf should they get financial aid?
Just add this to the list of non deserving ones who get help for college when the decent, hard working, truly need and want it but can't afford it kids get overlooked because they don't fit a label, race or agenda.
This is just disgusting.
AND..furthermore..drugs should NOT be legalized!!!
why should a convicted child molester get financial aid? they can. only drug offenses count for this. doesn't that seem a little bit absurd or askew?
the bitterness you feel towards blacks is palpable. i can see your concern or minorities (korean dog and thanksgiving murdered indians) only extends to those you don't think are robbing your lily white kids of their deserved free ride to college.
why should a convicted child molester get financial aid? they can. only drug offenses count for this. doesn't that seem a little bit absurd or askew?
the bitterness you feel towards blacks is palpable. i can see your concern or minorities (korean dog and thanksgiving murdered indians) only extends to those you don't think are robbing your lily white kids of their deserved free ride to college.
I don't believe I ever said a "convicted child molester" should get financial aid.
As for the rest of your comment. Grow up.
"When you're climbing to the top, you'd better know the way back down" MSB
"amendment" meaning "changed after public pressure due to ridiclous initial wording." sounds like they've taken steps in the right direction. my point, however, is not that they shouldn't be able to do this. i don't understand why it is tied only to drugs. the initial act forbid anyone with a drug conviction from ever getting aid. they've changed as they realized how stupid it is, good. but why only drugs? i say if you want to discourage behavior, then say any crime will cost you your aid. why are they only worried about breaking drug laws? how come the kid could steal a car and suffer no consequences for it? we have dumbshits at my school getting arrested weekly for arson and vandalism and whatnot. why should they get government money? i'd rather it go to the pothead sitting home munching after studying than the piece of shit who flipped my friend's car over after we won a football game.
Well the original Higher Education Act was enacted in 1965 so any change to it would be an amendment. The drug provision was an amendment proposed in 98 and enacted in 2000. In 2006, the amendment was changed so that financial aid could only be revoked if you were on it at the time of conviction. Prior to that high school convictions or convictions prior to being on financial aid automatically disqualified you.
As of a USA Today article from April of 2006, 1 out of 400 students or .25% who applied for financial aid were rejected for a drug conviction.
People also need to realize that this does not mean the person cannot go to college. It just means they are not able to receive financial aid. It is possible to go to college without financial aid, you know.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
People also need to realize that this does not mean the person cannot go to college. It just means they are not able to receive financial aid. It is possible to go to college without financial aid, you know.
no no no the government MUST help me go to college.. they MUST pay for it... they MUST bail me out when I sign a mortgage which I know I can't afford... they MUST help me rebuild my house which I knowingly built on a flood plain.... the government has to protect me from my stupidity or ignorance
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 don't believe I ever said a "convicted child molester" should get financial aid.
As for the rest of your comment. Grow up.
but by accepting the higher education act and its ridiculous double standards, you are. the act single out only those with drug convictions and denies them aid. that means a kid who makes a mistake and gets busted with weed in high school is denied aid. a kid who commits statutory rape or murder can get a loan as soon as he's out of prison. good law eh?
but by accepting the higher education act and its ridiculous double standards, you are.
this is not true at all. by accepting this law, he accepts that kids who do drugs shouldn't get financial aid. my guess is that he would support a similar law for violent crime offenders as well.
this is not true at all. by accepting this law, he accepts that kids who do drugs shouldn't get financial aid. my guess is that he would support a similar law for violent crime offenders as well.
then if it matters to him so much, why isnt he advocating for one? personally, i'm far more concerned about my tax money going to hard criminals. speaking as a student who struggled with drug abuse (not even just the casual dabbling some of these kids undoubtedly are engaging in) and managed to still graduate (gasp!) and become a productive member of society, drugs are at the bottom of my list of concerns.
Well the original Higher Education Act was enacted in 1965 so any change to it would be an amendment. The drug provision was an amendment proposed in 98 and enacted in 2000. In 2006, the amendment was changed so that financial aid could only be revoked if you were on it at the time of conviction. Prior to that high school convictions or convictions prior to being on financial aid automatically disqualified you.
i assume you mean drug convictions? my concern is still the double standard. like drug use is the ONLY thing we should be concerned about our students doing. personally, if you're going to say criminals shouldn't get federal aid, why is it only drug convictions that count? i'm a hell of a lot more worried about vandals, thugs, and thieves than kids smoking some grass.
then if it matters to him so much, why isnt he advocating for one? personally, i'm far more concerned about my tax money going to hard criminals. speaking as a student who struggled with drug abuse (not even just the casual dabbling some of these kids undoubtedly are engaging in) and managed to still graduate (gasp!) and become a productive member of society, drugs are at the bottom of my list of concerns.
I think you are one of the lucky ones. besides its more of a (for lack of a better word) moral issue. for congressmen, its hard to justify the message they send by taking this law away. kids in high school are more likely to try drugs then murder and rape people. maybe that why the law is written the way it is. sure I agree it should be re-written, but there should be some sort of deterant from kids doing drugs, and this is one of them.
no no no the government MUST help me go to college.. they MUST pay for it...
It is in the government's interest (a people's government, at least ostensibly) to do what it can to further the education of it's citizens, as this increases our ability to deal in the highly competitive world stage.
they MUST bail me out when I sign a mortgage which I know I can't afford...
Nice qualifier there. Then, by your rationale, the government should bail people out when they sign mortgages they don't know they can't afford? Well, that's just about everyone who signs a mortgage they ultimately can't afford. People rarely bankrupt themselves intentionally.
they MUST help me rebuild my house which I knowingly built on a flood plain.... the government has to protect me from my stupidity or ignorance
Flood plains guaranteed safe by that same government. Say you buy a new car, drive it around for a few weeks, and the engine explodes through no fault of your own as you and your family are cruising at 65 down the highway. Your wife dies, and your infant's skin will never grow back the same way again. Wouldn't you want some sort of restitution from the people that designed the car they told you was safe?
I'm sorry, but this "Government shouldn't do anything but kill and imprison" bullshit I hear time and again really pisses me off.
I think you are one of the lucky ones. besides its more of a (for lack of a better word) moral issue. for congressmen, its hard to justify the message they send by taking this law away. kids in high school are more likely to try drugs then murder and rape people. maybe that why the law is written the way it is. sure I agree it should be re-written, but there should be some sort of deterant from kids doing drugs, and this is one of them.
i am lucky. but i am only lucky becos i was given second and third chances denied those who cannot pay for them. i rather doubt the kids being hurt by this law are even aware of the law, so it deters nothing.
i am lucky. but i am only lucky becos i was given second and third chances denied those who cannot pay for them. i rather doubt the kids being hurt by this law are even aware of the law, so it deters nothing.
you are assuming they dont know. but im betting parents do. and parents will let their 16 or 17 year old kids that if they get caught with drugs they risk losing the chance to go to college. (or at least get aid from the government)
i am lucky. but i am only lucky becos i was given second and third chances denied those who cannot pay for them. i rather doubt the kids being hurt by this law are even aware of the law, so it deters nothing.
When they fill out an application for financial aid, question 31 is have you ever had a drug conviction.
So they should be aware of what they are filling out in their own application.
From the FAFSA website:
This question cannot be left blank.
Answer No to this question if:
* You have never had a conviction for possessing or selling illegal drugs
* The conviction was not a state or federal offense
* The conviction occurred before you were 18 years of age and you were not tried as an adult
* The conviction was removed from your record
* The offense that led to your conviction did not occur during a period of enrollment for which you were receiving federal student aid (grants, loans, and/or work-study)
If you answer Yes, then use the drug conviction worksheet to determine your eligibility. Past convictions do not automatically make you ineligible for student aid.
Even if you are not eligible for federal student aid, complete and submit your FAFSA because you may be eligible for state or school financial aid.
Even if you are not eligible for federal student aid, complete and submit your FAFSA because you may be eligible for state or school financial aid.
that was in an older version of America...it seems that FEDs and HOMELAND security department has their fingers in everything....Chances are if you fail to meet federal financial aide criteria, then your state will banish you as well... (california and prop 215 is great example)
I wonder how long it will take all those agencies that warehouse humans to recieve an allocation for substancea abusers...
for instance people who get out of the "joint" receive monies from Dept Vocational REhab for training, and welfare people have a carta blanc array of support...perhaps financial aide $ will be allocated by different agencies...like the military or justice...
maybe the FEDs are restructuring our academic industry to appeal to the new sense of militaryism, nativists atmosphere...no more free thinking..."we can't have that"....''peace and love to all
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
marijuana should be legal...
Drink and drive, we'll still pay for you to go to school. Smoke some weed, sit on your couch, pig out, no college for you!
you know, when folks try to compare the legalities of pot vs. alcohol they usually end up making a pretty strong case for prohibition, not for the legalization of marijuana.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
you know, when folks try to compare the legalities of pot vs. alcohol they usually end up making a pretty strong case for prohibition, not for the legalization of marijuana.
ya, cause prohibition is so effective. :rolleyes:
I agree tho, I don't like the comparisons to alcohol. There are enough reasons for legalizations to not bother with it. As in most situations, the negative sales pitch is ineffective. (tho I don't think pjtaper's comment was the standard, "alcohol is worse" speech - just a mention of harsher crime). There are legit retorts to every pro-war on drugs statement that don't involve alcohol. Besides...caffeine is a more accurate comparison.
Anyways....I'm off topic, and my views have already been covered, so...ya...carry on...
See the problem is drugs ruin lives because of addiction, so does the abuse of alcohol. Unfortunately the most of the youth today has no respect for the actual cost of higher education. keep in mind that not all financial aid gets repaid. I odnt know abou tyou but my taxes are high enough. I do not need addicts recieving my money then allowing drugs to get in ther way of school there b wasting my money. If somebody is gonna waste my money its gonna be me. If congress can promise some way of having the government reimbursed for those who drop out, perhaps drug testing, something as to ensure that my money is not being wasted then I would be ok with this ammendment. It is a very touchy subject but anybody who deserves to be recieving a higher educations knows that marijuana fills brain cells with fat, alcohol ruins your liver, and all the really dangerous stuff can ruin your whole body and would relize that no high is worth destroying your body.
"He that can have patience can have what he will." -Ben Franklin
Comments
I did a little digging into the Higher Education Act:
In a minor victory for students, the committee approved an amendment to suspend financial aid to students only if they are convicted while receiving aid. The current law calls for the loss of aid for any conviction if the student is enrolled in college and receiving aid at the time of the conviction. A first time drug conviction, if the student is currently receiving aid, will still be met with a one year suspension of financial aid. A second conviction will result in two years with no financial aid and after a third conviction, the student will be ineligible to receive financial aid.
So the possibility of financial aid is not denied. Those convicted are punished with losing aid for one year and escalating upwards. It's not like they can never get financial aid ever again.
- 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
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
so you think that it is perfectly reasonable to give federal money to a convicted child molester for college before we even consider giving it to a kid who got busted smoking pot in high school?
you can do that with a 2-strike rule. you can fuck up once, but if you do it again, you get no aid. AND you make it for ANY crime. you want to be a criminal, it can cost you a chance at college. it should not be confined to just drug offenses. all crimes should be considered equally. you get one, you're on probation and you better not fuck up in school. you get one more and you're out. period.
they don't, as i described earlier. or even if they get caught, they get off with a decent lawyer.
"amendment" meaning "changed after public pressure due to ridiclous initial wording." sounds like they've taken steps in the right direction. my point, however, is not that they shouldn't be able to do this. i don't understand why it is tied only to drugs. the initial act forbid anyone with a drug conviction from ever getting aid. they've changed as they realized how stupid it is, good. but why only drugs? i say if you want to discourage behavior, then say any crime will cost you your aid. why are they only worried about breaking drug laws? how come the kid could steal a car and suffer no consequences for it? we have dumbshits at my school getting arrested weekly for arson and vandalism and whatnot. why should they get government money? i'd rather it go to the pothead sitting home munching after studying than the piece of shit who flipped my friend's car over after we won a football game.
i have no opinions either way...what God decides is good enough nowadays..
i forgot to say thank you...peace and love and thanks for caring enough to put yourself on the line either way...
be happy, is all i wish.....sending highest of regard....
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
This is absurd. If a student has a drug conviction, wtf should they get financial aid?
Just add this to the list of non deserving ones who get help for college when the decent, hard working, truly need and want it but can't afford it kids get overlooked because they don't fit a label, race or agenda.
This is just disgusting.
AND..furthermore..drugs should NOT be legalized!!!
why should a convicted child molester get financial aid? they can. only drug offenses count for this. doesn't that seem a little bit absurd or askew?
the bitterness you feel towards blacks is palpable. i can see your concern or minorities (korean dog and thanksgiving murdered indians) only extends to those you don't think are robbing your lily white kids of their deserved free ride to college.
As for the rest of your comment. Grow up.
Well the original Higher Education Act was enacted in 1965 so any change to it would be an amendment. The drug provision was an amendment proposed in 98 and enacted in 2000. In 2006, the amendment was changed so that financial aid could only be revoked if you were on it at the time of conviction. Prior to that high school convictions or convictions prior to being on financial aid automatically disqualified you.
As of a USA Today article from April of 2006, 1 out of 400 students or .25% who applied for financial aid were rejected for a drug conviction.
http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v06/n476/a02.html
This law really does not seem like that big of an issue to me.
- 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
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
no no no the government MUST help me go to college.. they MUST pay for it... they MUST bail me out when I sign a mortgage which I know I can't afford... they MUST help me rebuild my house which I knowingly built on a flood plain.... the government has to protect me from my stupidity or ignorance
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
but by accepting the higher education act and its ridiculous double standards, you are. the act single out only those with drug convictions and denies them aid. that means a kid who makes a mistake and gets busted with weed in high school is denied aid. a kid who commits statutory rape or murder can get a loan as soon as he's out of prison. good law eh?
this is not true at all. by accepting this law, he accepts that kids who do drugs shouldn't get financial aid. my guess is that he would support a similar law for violent crime offenders as well.
then if it matters to him so much, why isnt he advocating for one? personally, i'm far more concerned about my tax money going to hard criminals. speaking as a student who struggled with drug abuse (not even just the casual dabbling some of these kids undoubtedly are engaging in) and managed to still graduate (gasp!) and become a productive member of society, drugs are at the bottom of my list of concerns.
i assume you mean drug convictions? my concern is still the double standard. like drug use is the ONLY thing we should be concerned about our students doing. personally, if you're going to say criminals shouldn't get federal aid, why is it only drug convictions that count? i'm a hell of a lot more worried about vandals, thugs, and thieves than kids smoking some grass.
I think you are one of the lucky ones. besides its more of a (for lack of a better word) moral issue. for congressmen, its hard to justify the message they send by taking this law away. kids in high school are more likely to try drugs then murder and rape people. maybe that why the law is written the way it is. sure I agree it should be re-written, but there should be some sort of deterant from kids doing drugs, and this is one of them.
Nice qualifier there. Then, by your rationale, the government should bail people out when they sign mortgages they don't know they can't afford? Well, that's just about everyone who signs a mortgage they ultimately can't afford. People rarely bankrupt themselves intentionally.
Flood plains guaranteed safe by that same government. Say you buy a new car, drive it around for a few weeks, and the engine explodes through no fault of your own as you and your family are cruising at 65 down the highway. Your wife dies, and your infant's skin will never grow back the same way again. Wouldn't you want some sort of restitution from the people that designed the car they told you was safe?
I'm sorry, but this "Government shouldn't do anything but kill and imprison" bullshit I hear time and again really pisses me off.
i am lucky. but i am only lucky becos i was given second and third chances denied those who cannot pay for them. i rather doubt the kids being hurt by this law are even aware of the law, so it deters nothing.
you are assuming they dont know. but im betting parents do. and parents will let their 16 or 17 year old kids that if they get caught with drugs they risk losing the chance to go to college. (or at least get aid from the government)
When they fill out an application for financial aid, question 31 is have you ever had a drug conviction.
So they should be aware of what they are filling out in their own application.
From the FAFSA website:
This question cannot be left blank.
Answer No to this question if:
* You have never had a conviction for possessing or selling illegal drugs
* The conviction was not a state or federal offense
* The conviction occurred before you were 18 years of age and you were not tried as an adult
* The conviction was removed from your record
* The offense that led to your conviction did not occur during a period of enrollment for which you were receiving federal student aid (grants, loans, and/or work-study)
If you answer Yes, then use the drug conviction worksheet to determine your eligibility. Past convictions do not automatically make you ineligible for student aid.
Even if you are not eligible for federal student aid, complete and submit your FAFSA because you may be eligible for state or school financial aid.
- 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
very simple to make substance abuse an epidemc, think how many coffers that fills...
did we hear the outcome of a vote?
peace....
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
I wonder how long it will take all those agencies that warehouse humans to recieve an allocation for substancea abusers...
for instance people who get out of the "joint" receive monies from Dept Vocational REhab for training, and welfare people have a carta blanc array of support...perhaps financial aide $ will be allocated by different agencies...like the military or justice...
maybe the FEDs are restructuring our academic industry to appeal to the new sense of militaryism, nativists atmosphere...no more free thinking..."we can't have that"....''peace and love to all
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
thanks for all that you do...!!!!
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
you know, when folks try to compare the legalities of pot vs. alcohol they usually end up making a pretty strong case for prohibition, not for the legalization of marijuana.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
I agree tho, I don't like the comparisons to alcohol. There are enough reasons for legalizations to not bother with it. As in most situations, the negative sales pitch is ineffective. (tho I don't think pjtaper's comment was the standard, "alcohol is worse" speech - just a mention of harsher crime). There are legit retorts to every pro-war on drugs statement that don't involve alcohol. Besides...caffeine is a more accurate comparison.
Anyways....I'm off topic, and my views have already been covered, so...ya...carry on...
Now this is just ridiculous...
how can you expect marijuana to call its congressman??