Busted!

PartyCampus ^ | 04.18.2005 | Ajai Raj

[cvq3842]

LOL!

[lugsoul]

Ah, but their is not now, nor had their ever been, any move afoot to disqualify anyone convicted of a crime from getting student loans. It is only those dastardly druggies that anyone is concerned about denying financial aid.

As far as everyone else, I'm not sure it is good public policy to have an across the board denial, either. Kid gets a conviction at 18, does his time, pays his debt, trys to get his life together, wants to further his education - why should he not be able to obtain any loan guarantee any other student can have? Is their really any doubt, statistically, that obtaining a college education would reduce the likelihood of recidivism?

It is grandstanding, nothing more, to apply this policy to drug crimes.

[Zhangliqun]

It is grandstanding, nothing more, to apply this policy to drug crimes.

OR...it could be that since most experimentation with hard drugs occurs at college age (18-23 or so), this law was specifically targeted to be a disincentive for kids during their most vulnerable years, figuring that if they make it past age 23 or 24 without trying coke/heroin/PCP, etc., they probably never will.

I propose a compromise in the form of a statute of limitations -- no drug offenses for 5 years, your record is expunged and you can get a loan again.

[lugsoul]

The rule only applies to a conviction. So, in response to your construct, I would say that (a) the vast majority of 18-23 year olds who use drugs don't think they will get caught, because they don't think they'll get caught doing anything, and (b) in this instance, they are right, because the vast majority of 18-23 year olds who use drugs do not get caught or convicted of anything. I know hundreds of people who used copious amounts of drugs in college. That I can think of, I know two who were arrested for it, and one who was convicted.

If you are using rule making to incentivize, it is usually a good idea to provide a real incentive rather than the avoidance of a worst-case scenario what if...

I'm impressed that you want to work so hard to justify this rule on rational grounds. Do you work for the ONDCP?

[lugsoul]

Also, I'd love to see some stats on the percentage of folks affected by this rule whose convictions are for coke/PCP/heroin, as opposed to weed. I'd wager it is very low.

There is a reason the WoSD is increasingly focused on weed. It is bulky, it is stinky, it stays in your system for a long time, its consumption is usually conspicuous. It is far easier than pursuing a real drug problem, like meth.

[Zhangliqun]

I don't even know what ONDCP is.

I'm not saying the rule is necessarily an effective one with college kids, only that if you're going to target a group for drug use, college age kids is ground zero.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that laws against drug use alone will stop people from using them, especially if, as you say (correctly), college kids don't think it will happen to them because they don't think ANYTHING will happen to them. The critical line of defense against a totally drug-addled generation and then general population is cultural taboos. When taboos are gone, no amount of laws will effectively curtail a behavior that is so difficult to spot and is condoned or even celebrated by popular culture.

My main point is that legalizing drugs (I'm not saying you favor drug legalization) won't fix this problem either, but will just make it even worse, because laws against possession of such drugs actually still do stop a lot of people from even trying them. Granted, not nearly enough, but nonetheless SOME -- like me. If cocaine and heroin were legal, I probably would have tried them at least once by now and then who knows what would have happened from there? (There was a first time for every addict.)

But the fact that I could go to jail stopped me from even considering it. Legalize drugs and you will have more addicts.

[sawoody]

Ironic, really—to get out of this drug charge, I’m forced to arrange bigger drug deals than I ever intended to.

He'll be lucky if he only loses his financial aid...he's likely to end up dead in a ditch somewhere.

[ibbryn]

I wonder if this guys friends know he's agreed to rat them out for a reduction in his sentence. The way I read this statement:
The law is sticking all kinds of fingers in my a$$hole right now, but with a few savvy business deals, I can plow through this shit and come out smelling like roses. Ironic, really—to get out of this drug charge, I’m forced to arrange bigger drug deals than I ever intended to. C’est la vie, non?

How do we get this guys other writings bragging about what losers the justice systme has to the sentenceing judge?

[Zhangliqun]

Ironic, really—to get out of this drug charge, I’m forced to arrange bigger drug deals than I ever intended to.

Ultra-childish logic. A common sense sting operation in which there isn't really a drug deal at all -- never mind "bigger drug deals" -- he calls "ironic". This idiot would want speeding tickets given to ambulances and fire trucks.