www.Poe-News.com wrote:Pop quiz: Of the following illegal activities, which renders a student ineligible for federal financial aid: a) arson; b) rape; c) murder; or d) possession of marijuana. The answer is possession of marijuana.
Through an assessment of need, the Higher Education Act has provided financial aid to countless students throughout the nation. Yet Rep. Mark Souder, R-Indiana, tacked on an amendment in 1999 that perverts the act's noble intention. The Drug-Free Student Aid amendment denies federal financial aid to any student with a drug conviction. To date, 92,000-plus students have lost their aid due to this flawed and destructive amendment.
Simple proof that the DEA needs to be abolished and its leaders incarcerated for civil rights violations, bigotry, and discrimination.
www.Poe-News.com wrote:Pop quiz: Of the following illegal activities, which renders a student ineligible for federal financial aid: a) arson; b) rape; c) murder; or d) possession of marijuana. The answer is possession of marijuana.
Through an assessment of need, the Higher Education Act has provided financial aid to countless students throughout the nation. Yet Rep. Mark Souder, R-Indiana, tacked on an amendment in 1999 that perverts the act's noble intention. The Drug-Free Student Aid amendment denies federal financial aid to any student with a drug conviction. To date, 92,000-plus students have lost their aid due to this flawed and destructive amendment.
Simple proof that the DEA needs to be abolished and its leaders incarcerated for civil rights violations, bigotry, and discrimination.
Let me remind you that this is the same Government who's State Department classifies Hemp as an agricultural crop, but who's DEA thinks of it as a drug. Lesson? IT'S A BUNCH OF FUCKING PURITANS! IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE SENSE!
Dark Heresy: Dance Macabre - Imperial Psyker Magnus Arterra
BoTM
Proud Decepticon
Post 666 Made on Fri Jul 04, 2003 @ 12:48 pm
Post 1337 made on Fri Aug 22, 2003 @ 9:18 am
Post 1492 Made on Fri Aug 29, 2003 @ 5:16 pm
Those would be bureaucracies with rather large budgets. They're simply too powerful to get rid of entirely. Too many ignorant yuppie parents like them because it makes the government do their work for them. Instead of actually talking to their kids about the negative sides of drug use, they simply have an bureaucracy ban it and hold education money ransom. Ditto for alcohol.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
www.Poe-News.com wrote:Pop quiz: Of the following illegal activities, which renders a student ineligible for federal financial aid: a) arson; b) rape; c) murder; or d) possession of marijuana. The answer is possession of marijuana.
Through an assessment of need, the Higher Education Act has provided financial aid to countless students throughout the nation. Yet Rep. Mark Souder, R-Indiana, tacked on an amendment in 1999 that perverts the act's noble intention. The Drug-Free Student Aid amendment denies federal financial aid to any student with a drug conviction. To date, 92,000-plus students have lost their aid due to this flawed and destructive amendment.
Simple proof that the DEA needs to be abolished and its leaders incarcerated for civil rights violations, bigotry, and discrimination.
<nelson>HAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA</nelson>
you get the laws you deserve.
And next time, hit the 'reply' button, not the 'quote' button. It makes you look silly when you quote the only other post in the thread
no it doesn´t. in case someone posts before you can hit the submit button it will look like you´re talking to the poster before you and not the original post you intended to reply to. MAHOK!
HemlockGrey wrote:Bigotry? Discrimination? WTF? The Drug War is a misguided Prohibition-esqe fiasco, not the fucking Ku Klux Klan.
300,000 non-violent drug offenders are in prison in this country, and the majority of them are minorities. White kids caught dealing drugs get pled down to possession and mandatory rehab and prohibition. Black kids get thrown in jail. The vast majority of people imprisoned for drug offenses are minorities, but the majority of users are white. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Durandal wrote:Those would be bureaucracies with rather large budgets. They're simply too powerful to get rid of entirely. Too many ignorant yuppie parents like them because it makes the government do their work for them. Instead of actually talking to their kids about the negative sides of drug use, they simply have an bureaucracy ban it and hold education money ransom. Ditto for alcohol.
Well those Yuppie Soccer Moms need to do without, and bite the bullet that hits em in the ass! I will never have sympathy for the lazy fucktards...
HemlockGrey wrote:Bigotry? Discrimination? WTF? The Drug War is a misguided Prohibition-esqe fiasco, not the fucking Ku Klux Klan.
300,000 non-violent drug offenders are in prison in this country, and the majority of them are minorities. White kids caught dealing drugs get pled down to possession and mandatory rehab and prohibition. Black kids get thrown in jail. The vast majority of people imprisoned for drug offenses are minorities, but the majority of users are white. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
good to know that i will only be confronted with minor problems when i´m cought smoking weed the next time i´m in the us. damn, white skin surely is a good thing to have.
If we do get rid of them, we would save billions of dollars in federal money and free up prison space for actual criminals. I say screw the soccer moms in this case.
RedImperator wrote:300,000 non-violent drug offenders are in prison in this country, and the majority of them are minorities. White kids caught dealing drugs get pled down to possession and mandatory rehab and prohibition. Black kids get thrown in jail. The vast majority of people imprisoned for drug offenses are minorities, but the majority of users are white. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
If you want to sell drugs, which is a bigger deal than selling them, then you'd better be prepared for the consequences. Like it or not, drugs are illegal and most should stay that way. If you want to do drugs or sell them then you had better face the consequences.
RedImperator wrote:300,000 non-violent drug offenders are in prison in this country, and the majority of them are minorities. White kids caught dealing drugs get pled down to possession and mandatory rehab and prohibition. Black kids get thrown in jail. The vast majority of people imprisoned for drug offenses are minorities, but the majority of users are white. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
If you want to sell drugs, which is a bigger deal than selling [I assume you meant "doing" here] them, then you'd better be prepared for the consequences. Like it or not, drugs are illegal and most should stay that way. If you want to do drugs or sell them then you had better face the consequences.
A heroin addict hurts no one when he shoots up. The government doesn't have the right to dictate private morality to you. There is no reason to waste billions of dollars annually on prosecuting and jailing junkies.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Durandal wrote:A heroin addict hurts no one when he shoots up.
If that were actually true then yes it would be right.
Durandal wrote:The government doesn't have the right to dictate private morality to you. There is no reason to waste billions of dollars annually on prosecuting and jailing junkies.
The government does have the right to dictate public policy. Regulation of drugs is one of those because they are a harmful and dangerous substance.
Durandal wrote:A heroin addict hurts no one when he shoots up.
If that were actually true then yes it would be right.
Durandal wrote:The government doesn't have the right to dictate private morality to you. There is no reason to waste billions of dollars annually on prosecuting and jailing junkies.
The government does have the right to dictate public policy. Regulation of drugs is one of those because they are a harmful and dangerous substance.
by that logic you´d have to ban gasoline as well. it is also a harmful and dangerous substance if you pour it into a car tyre put it around someone´s neck and throw a match into it.
storm, care to enlighten us how a heroin addict hurts people by shooting up?
And dont give bullshit like "emotional suffering" or "he could die" because people can have life insurance so their families are safe from financial issues. Emotional suffering is entirely different, and you can put that little excuse on anything ("Oh storm, youre not a christian, it causes me emotional pain, convert now or I'll be forced to lock you up and drug you").
The only real issue i could think of would be uncontrollable addiction which financially bankrupts a person, or using the drug in a place that is likely to cause poor judgement or inability to respond to the situation, in which case I would argue for special facilities for people to shoot up in where they can get monitored and controlled amounts of the shit, and are provided with all the necessary medical and health care they need.
same with all drugs, facilities should be provided, clean monitored goods should be sold in limited amounts, etc. People are going to continue to use, so its best to just make it safer for those who are going to do so.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
I have no sympathy for those nailed for using marijuana.
Mainly because I don't use and don't find it appealing.
I find the War on Drugs more offensive because of the massive waste of money and prison space (massive fines would be so much more effective), not because of the "morality" issue. Hell, we have enough fucking problems with drunk driving, and frankly stoned drivers can be dangerous too.
Uraniun235 wrote:I have no sympathy for those nailed for using marijuana.
Mainly because I don't use and don't find it appealing.
so you don´t give a damn that they rot in prison even though you don´t think that they did something wrong?
i don´t like choclate. but if someone was imprisoned for eating a mars bar i´´d be pretty upset even though i don´t use mars bars and don´t find them appealing.
It's funny how serious an issue drug prohibition is with some people. During the one of the recent congressional races in Georgia, a Democratic candidate, Roger Kahn, had said that it may be possible to legalize some drugs. The opposing Republican responding by running an unintentionally hilarious ad; it showed footage of Kahn endorsing limited drug legalization, and then asked the viewer, "Can we even THINK about allowing someone who even thinks about legalizing drugs into Congress?"
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
The opposing Republican responding by running an unintentionally hilarious ad; it showed footage of Kahn endorsing limited drug legalization, and then asked the viewer, "Can we even THINK about allowing someone who even thinks about legalizing drugs into Congress?"
Er?
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
Durran Korr wrote:It's funny how serious an issue drug prohibition is with some people. During the one of the recent congressional races in Georgia, a Democratic candidate, Roger Kahn, had said that it may be possible to legalize some drugs. The opposing Republican responding by running an unintentionally hilarious ad; it showed footage of Kahn endorsing limited drug legalization, and then asked the viewer, "Can we even THINK about allowing someone who even thinks about legalizing drugs into Congress?"
It's probably because every drug with the exception of alcohol is taboo in American society. No matter how a politician defends decriminalizing marijuana, their opponent will use it against them.
Stormbringer wrote:If that were actually true then yes it would be right.
Explain how a heroin addict hurts people, and don't say, "Because he'll resort to crime to get his fix." People resort to crime to buy things that are perfectly legal all the time.
The government does have the right to dictate public policy. Regulation of drugs is one of those because they are a harmful and dangerous substance.
They are only dangerous to the user. Gasoline, as salm said, is a dangerous substance, as well. So is hydrochloric acid. Yet, these substances are not outrightly banned. If cigarettes are legal but tightly regulated, I don't see why marijuana, cocaine and heroin can't enjoy similar status. Junkies should be in rehab programs, not prisons. The Drug War is a waste of money.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
RedImperator wrote:300,000 non-violent drug offenders are in prison in this country, and the majority of them are minorities. White kids caught dealing drugs get pled down to possession and mandatory rehab and prohibition. Black kids get thrown in jail. The vast majority of people imprisoned for drug offenses are minorities, but the majority of users are white. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
If you want to sell drugs, which is a bigger deal than selling [I assume you meant "doing" here] them, then you'd better be prepared for the consequences. Like it or not, drugs are illegal and most should stay that way. If you want to do drugs or sell them then you had better face the consequences.
A heroin addict hurts no one when he shoots up. The government doesn't have the right to dictate private morality to you. There is no reason to waste billions of dollars annually on prosecuting and jailing junkies.
Just as an alcoholic hurts nobody when he downs a bottle of Jack Daniels? Sure he may not look like he's harming anybody, but when he goes into the hospital because his liver's turned to pate and the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for his treatment, that seems like a drain on society to me. And what happens if this theoretical alcoholic gets drunk, and then gets behind the wheel of his car and kills a family with three kids? Somebody definitely is getting hurt by somebody's habits there.
