Q. Director Walters, Do you think it is a sensible drug policy to strip financial aid from college students with drug convictions? Seeing as how there are already minimum GPA requirements to receive aid, only good students are being affected by this policy. Do you think it makes sense to interrupt the academic careers of these hardworking students who are trying so hard to become productive taxpaying citizens? Thanks for your thoughts
Director Walters: Thanks for your question. You’re a bit late though. Last month, President Bush signed legislation that enables students who weren't in college and receiving federal aid at the time of their drug conviction to apply for federal financial aid. I should note, however, that according to the Department of Education, 98 percent of students who answered ‘yes’ to the question regarding a drug conviction were still eligible for federal aid after completing a form explaining the details of their convictions. This issue was used as a minor distraction by drug legalization groups to promote their political agenda of legalizing marijuana.
While I appreciate the Czar addressing my question, he failed to actually answer it, and lied in the process. As you might be able to tell, I specifically worded the question to ask about the reformed Drug Provision, which only affects people who were convicted while in college - but he took the opportunity to brush that aside and patronize me anyway.
The Drug Czar completely pulls the 98 percent number out of the same place he conjures up most of the things he says - his ass. Actually, according to Department of Education statistics, only 65 (not 98) percent of those who initially indicated they had a drug convictions on their 2004-2005 financial aid form ended up changing their answers on the follow-up form to make themselves eligible.
And Walters's most ridiculous line is his last one. Does he really mean to say that the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the Association for Addiction Professionals, the National Education Association, the NAACP, the Presbyterian Church, and more than 250 other prominent organizations are trying to promote a political agenda of legalizing marijuana?
What a loser this guy is.
11 comments:
I'm glad to see that the Good Ol' Drug Czar is very, very afraid of the "political" movement afoot to legalize marijuana.
After all, where does the government get off to tell an adult that they do not have the right to choose marijuana as their recreational intoxicant of choice. Thomas Jefferson would be very displeased and would probably say so in writing! However, George Washington would probably take up arms!
Marijuana prohibition is RETARDED!! Tons and tons of people smoke weed and will continue to do so. It is time to put an end to this madness.
After pot is legal, I will be the first to stand with the Drug Czar to help discourage the use of more dangerous and carcinogenic drugs like cocaine, herion and amphetamines.
Anonymous,
I absolutely agree with the first part of your comment. It is certainly time to put an end to the madness that is marijuana prohibition.
However, I would never join arms with the drug czar to wage war on people who use socially-unacceptable drugs. In your argument against marijuana prohibition, you ask, "where does the government get off to tell an adult that they do not have the right to choose marijuana as their recreational intoxicant of choice." Why not ask: Where does the government get off to tell an adult that they do not have the right to choose to put ANYTHING that they want into their body, so long as they are not harming anyone else??
Are you saying that the government's job is to protect me from myself? And if I did have a drug problem, are you saying that I should be thrown behind bars?
The reason why many of these drugs are so dangerous in the first place is prohibition itself. The drugs are unregulated, which means that there is little to no quality control, and they are sold to (and sold by) children. And since prohibition has made these drugs worth their weight in gold, there is absolutely no way to stop a thriving black market.
Anonymous: Cocaine, heroin, and amphetamines may not be your drugs of choice (they certainly aren't mine), but that is no excuse to demonize those who use them, and to support a failed prohibition that has made our society less safe. The only solution is to seek alternatives to the failed so-called War on Drugs.
I'm confused. In Tom's post he said that the czar lied because he said that the anti-HEA provision movement was NOT part of a movement to legalize marijuana. And now in the comments you say that he's "afraid of the political movement afoot to legalize marijuana."
Which is it? Was the czar lying or not?
sorry ignore the "NOT" in my previous post. That makes sense now...:)
A major propaganda weapon of the DrugWarriors has always been 'guilt by association' Favor drug law reform? You must be one of them damn druggies!
Whether you use or not is of no consequence; you must be silenced by being associated with a hated stereotypical group.
A friend of mine has produced a which details exactly how this and other propaganda techniques used by DrugWarriors work. It is based upon a little known but extraordinarily candid US Government study called Themes in Chemical Prohibition authored by William L. White and published by, of all organizations, the NIDA, which has been anything but a friend of drug law reform. To read it is to learn the playbook of the prohibs. I strongly suggest that anyone who seeks to corner these prohibs in debate to read that report and then go to the Website beforehand. As the old saying goes, 'to eb forewarned is to be fore-armed'.
Oops. sorry. HTML tags got messed up
The White study
The DrugSenseBot DrugWar Propganda Website
Trying again...
DrugSense DrugWar Propaganda Page
Can anything be done to make this comment insertion block bigger?
yeah, he lied.
but it wasn't about a blow job, so it's ok.
Thanks to Kaptinemo for "The White Study", that was extremely informative reading.
I appreciate it.
Post a Comment