tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post114493538464980907..comments2024-01-05T09:33:41.964-05:00Comments on Dare Generation Diary: And the loser is...Garret Overstreethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09591273708913985060noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1145939270759975412006-04-24T23:27:00.000-05:002006-04-24T23:27:00.000-05:00I'd like to see SSDP replace the loans and scholar...I'd like to see SSDP replace the loans and scholarship money denied to students over drug offenses under the HEAAEP. <BR/><BR/>In ten years, when these students are successful young adults, you would have a powerful message: drugs didn't ruin our lives. <BR/><BR/>With a program like that, you might finally convince people that drugs, particularly marijuana, aren't the scourge they're often made out to be. Sure, the drug won't cause addiction, but most people see marijuana users as like The Onion's famous columnist, Jim Anchower. And that kind of person is not seen as a wise investment for educational loans.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11893004786521022849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1145889997443469222006-04-24T09:46:00.000-05:002006-04-24T09:46:00.000-05:00Great report. Bet you were laughing when you real...Great report. Bet you were laughing when you realized Indiana proved the most effected by Souder's law.<BR/><BR/>One question, though. Does the report compare the total number of denied applicants since 2000 to total number of FAFSA applications since 2000? I assume so, but didn't catch it in the report.<BR/><BR/>Again, good job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1145572621791728512006-04-20T17:37:00.000-05:002006-04-20T17:37:00.000-05:00800lb, there's another reason for the government's...800lb, there's another reason for the government's brazeness about violating the Hatch Act. <BR/><BR/>In short, the GAO has granted license to the ONDCP to <I>lie.</I> <BR/><BR/>The entire DrugWar is based upon a twisting of the original meaning of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. If the root of the tree is bent, then we can expect nothing but further twists to trunk and branches, and that is what has happened to the Hatch Act regarding governmental entities propagandizing the public while using public resources to do so.<BR/><BR/>Congressman Dr. Ron Paul has <A HREF="http://www.mpp.org/WarOnDrugCzar/complaints/gao_complaint.html" REL="nofollow">challenged</A> the GAO on this, and received this <A HREF="http://www.mpp.org/pdf/GAO_response_0304.pdf" REL="nofollow">reply</A>. <BR/><BR/>It becomes obvious after a little thought that with all three branches of the government under Republican control, such a reply is to be expected; note that the original complaint - that of telling lies about cannabis - is not disputed. <BR/><BR/>The excuse given is the most threadbare imaginable; that the ONDCP was <I>not</I> lobbying against cannabis law reform; it was disseminating information commensurate with its' 'prescribed duties'. It can only do this because it's stated charter says up front it is working against normalization of cannabis laws (From the second link: <I>ONDCP has statutory responsibilities for developing the national drug control policy, coordinating and overseeing its implementation and, most significantly, for taking “such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of [certain controlled substances]” including marijuana)</I>. <BR/><BR/>So, because it has lying about cannabis and propagandizing against cannabis normalization laws written into its' charter, even when it's lying like a dog, it's not...lying. Alice would feel oddly nostalgic for such bald-faced sophistry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1145547345295482782006-04-20T10:35:00.000-05:002006-04-20T10:35:00.000-05:00800 lb gorilla, here's some clarification:1) It wa...800 lb gorilla, here's some clarification:<BR/><BR/>1) It was the DoE (Department of Education), not the DEA that initially denied SSDP's request that they waive the FOIA fee. (They didn't deny our request, they denied the fee-waiver).<BR/><BR/>2) Non-profits are allowed fee-waivers if the info is in the public interest, and will not benefit the organization financially. Their reasoning for denying the fee-waiver was that since this info could lead to the "legalization" of drugs, that we might benefit financially. <BR/><BR/>Of course, this is a bogus claim, which is why they backed down in the face of a lawsuit.Micah Daiglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18153647198534157206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1145069289603368842006-04-14T21:48:00.000-05:002006-04-14T21:48:00.000-05:00ha! this site reminded me of you guys:http://potlo...ha! this site reminded me of you guys:<BR/><BR/>http://potloses.ytmnd.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1145031517729933382006-04-14T11:18:00.000-05:002006-04-14T11:18:00.000-05:00And no "parent's groups" would take such 'conflict...And no "parent's groups" would take such <A HREF="http://www.pharma.com/pressroom/news/20040615-01.pdf" REL="nofollow">'conflict of interest money' from pharmaceutical corporations</A> to prevent any meaningful drug law reform that might challenge their sponsor's mercantile interests, would they? <BR/><BR/>Noooo, they're too upstanding and forthright for that! They're <I>far</I> too ethical to stoop so low, right? After all, the children look up to them to provide examples of civic virtue! What would those children think, if they learned their parents were engaged in such behavior? My, I believe that those children could be excused for thinking of them as being <I><B>hypocrites</B></I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1145031088680405692006-04-14T11:11:00.000-05:002006-04-14T11:11:00.000-05:00Steven Steiner, welcome back to the DGD! Steven, ...Steven Steiner, welcome back to the DGD! Steven, though your post was "anonymous", your calling card spelling mistake ("lobbiest") never fails to authenticate the authorship of your messages. :-)<BR/><BR/>Seriously though Steven, it's great to have different points of view here. I think we could benefit even more, however, if you would address specific statements with which you disagree rather than simply making ad hominem attacks against the authors. I'm willing to offer you the same courtesy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1144974803200557332006-04-13T19:33:00.000-05:002006-04-13T19:33:00.000-05:00Wasn't the author of that Slate piece a paid lobbi...Wasn't the author of that Slate piece a paid lobbiest for one of those pro-legalization groups? <BR/><BR/>Talk about unethical journalism! Fair and Balanced reporting, I'm sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1144940802216647832006-04-13T10:06:00.000-05:002006-04-13T10:06:00.000-05:00The Slate piece is one of the most cogent and comp...The Slate piece is one of the most cogent and comprehensive treatments of the issue that I've read. Great work on pitching this to them!<BR/><BR/>One gripe: I hate the new term "HEA Aid Elimination Provision" (HEAAEP?) I know it was referred to that way in the lawsuit, but everyone knows it as the HEA Drug Provision, and it's much easier to understand that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18542739.post-1144939793172763512006-04-13T09:49:00.000-05:002006-04-13T09:49:00.000-05:00Bravo! And I'm not surprised at all that Hoosiers ...Bravo! And I'm not surprised at all that Hoosiers would have to suffer the most from Souder's Law; <I><B>after all, they keep re-electing him to office.</B></I> <BR/><BR/>Is this another (twisted) case of 'leading by example'?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com