Marijuana and college students - please call your Congressman

124

Comments

  • Solat13
    Solat13 Posts: 6,996
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
    - Busted down the pretext
    - 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
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    It doesn't say anything about not receiving aid for smoking it. It says you won't receive aid if you're convicted.
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    QuarterToTen wrote:
    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?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Solat13 wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    chromiam wrote:
    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.

    they don't, as i described earlier. or even if they get caught, they get off with a decent lawyer.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Solat13 wrote:
    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.
  • melodious
    melodious Posts: 1,719
    SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:
    i say ....tell the little pot heads to get a fucking job and pay for their own education......

    but thats just me.......
    ah,,,,, you are still tootin' the same horn, so good to see that some things and philosophies hold very tight...

    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....
    all insanity:
    a derivitive of nature.
    nature is god
    god is love
    love is light
  • MahoganySouls
    MahoganySouls Posts: 357
    Here we go again.

    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    MahoganySouls wrote:
    Here we go again.

    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.
  • MahoganySouls
    MahoganySouls Posts: 357
    soulsinging wrote:
    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
  • Solat13
    Solat13 Posts: 6,996
    soulsinging wrote:
    "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.

    http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v06/n476/a02.html

    This law really does not seem like that big of an issue to me.
    - Busted down the pretext
    - 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
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    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.
  • chromiam
    chromiam Posts: 4,114
    know1 wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    MahoganySouls wrote:
    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?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Solat13 wrote:
    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    chromiam wrote:
    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.
    chromiam wrote:
    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.
    chromiam wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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.

Categories