cannabisnews.com: A Drug-Free Berkeley A Drug-Free Berkeley Posted by CN Staff on July 06, 2002 at 09:40:40 PT By Salar Jahedi Source: Daily Californian Drugs have always been a problem on college campuses. Smoking marijuana is like a rite of passage you undertake when arriving at college. You know, hitting the blunt, smoking the herb or passing the weed. I have seen people rolling the fatty J., blazing the sticky-icky or just getting burned. Never mind the people splitting the purple haze, getting their nicky's worth or sacking their kryptonite. There is a longstanding debate on whether this is beneficial. Well, let's face it—drugs are dangerous. Why else would the nice police officer guy throw all the druggies into prison? With Eminem topping the music charts, the nation is becoming more aware of this fact. "See children, drugs are bad, and if you don't believe me, ask your dad," the visionary rapper chants in a song called "The Kids" that aims to teach children about the harmful effects of some drugs. But seeing as how the divorce rate is so high, perhaps asking your parents is no longer convenient. President Bush decided to send an even stronger message out to the younger generation. Last year, he signed a bill enforcing the Drug-Free Provision of the Higher Education Act, saying that those who are caught smoking up will be denied federal aid for school. Because of this, 25,000 college students were denied financial aid last year. With even stricter enforcement this year, the number is expected to double. I can see where some of you Berkeley-ites could get upset. This law is unfair—it targets low-income families and so on. Kids whose parents are rich enough to finance their child's education need not worry about this law because it targets minorities. While only 13 percent of minorities are known to smoke weed, 67 percent of the drug arrests are minorities. This law targets pot smokers. With all this in mind, how is it that rapists and murderers still get financial aid? Well, just because a law targets only a specific group of people doesn't make it a bad law. If the government was able to make everybody in the country put down the reefer, I'm sure they would. However, it has limited resources. See, the government uses tax dollars to provide services for society. One of these services is to help educate those who cannot afford to educate themselves. Another service is to fight the war against drugs. If the government were to tackle these problems individually, it would need more resources (pronounced "charge higher taxes"). By bundling its responsibilities, the government can attempt to kill two birds with one stone. It can provide education to the poor while simultaneously stopping kids from using drugs. Let's remember that the tax dollars that finance government expenditures come from the people. Most of these people would not appreciate wasting their hard-earned money to fund some kid's drug habit. If the government wants to provide for its people, it should also listen to how those people would like their money spent. The government is by no means obligated to support the habits of law-breaking individuals. In fact, an individual who knows that his financial aid will be cut off if he is caught smoking and decides to smoke anyway is not the most studious of students. Either that, or he is ready to provide for his own education. These people signal to the government that they put a low priority on education and a higher priority on breaking the law. If the people affected by the law do not change their behavior, then they deserve whatever punishment was promised. The Drug-Free Provision also provides one last benefit I have failed to mention. College has become almost a given after high school. With many students not even considering forgoing college, there will soon be a lack of low-paid, high labor workers. This could spell trouble for our economy. Who will do the more menial jobs in society? Might as well be the druggies. Have low aspirations? Light a blunt and pass it on to Salar at: salar dailycal.orgSource: Daily Californian, The (CA Edu)Author: Salar JahediPublished: Friday, July 5, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Daily CalifornianContact: opinion dailycal.orgWebsite: http://www.dailycal.org/Related Articles:Higher Learning - Reason Magazinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13054.shtmlStudent Drug Offender Law Knocked http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12918.shtmlSmoke a Joint and Your Future is McDonald's http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12892.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #17 posted by rchandar on July 25, 2002 at 19:57:53 PT: misc berkeley is a part of history, synonymous with enlightenment and protest. the place should always be a center of dissent thinking and action. but i doubt reefer is "tolerated" in berkeley; they told me to put out the joint i lit at a jazz concert years ago at zellerbach.i agree with everybody's apprehension about new laws. it's much more difficult to dismantle oppressive laws than it is to write them, just like it's much more difficult to save a life than it is to take it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Industrial Strength on July 06, 2002 at 22:25:27 PT I wonder... what Tim Leary would think of a drug free Berkley?This article is obviously a misguided if good intentioned and unfunny satire. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Lehder on July 06, 2002 at 20:19:29 PT no comment Never mind the people splitting the purple haze, getting their nicky's worth or sacking their kryptonite. The author is too hip for me, the article too far out. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Digit on July 06, 2002 at 19:14:32 PT: another law makes the situation worse. so now that they have spent the last 70 years demonising black and espanic people because some of them used the herb, sending them down to suffer a continued wrath of racial slurring during times of love for ALL mankind... they now wnat to makesure that those who use THC to increase their brain capabilities are to be forced further under the system and to suffer worse conditions than those who murder and rape and steal. well... all i got to say to that is... good luck americans. you are choosing the path to your own doom.woops, i forgot... u didn't choose did you. Bush chose for you.democracy indeed! HAH!E_Johnson wrote- Just because they don't call themselves by those names any more, don't think that Fascism and Communism aren't still alive. They've just managed to emigrate and reinvent themselves as the Drug War ----------hell it aint the cummunists you gotta look out for... it's the capitalist republicans (hell! could a governmental system be any more corruptable?!? that method is corrupt from the start)and also... some of the largest companies that are now based in the US were also the companies that were best buddies with the nazis before the end of WW2! the DuPonts and other similar corporations should be public enemy number 1 world wide. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by letsgetfree on July 06, 2002 at 18:53:10 PT It seemed like satire to me.... That's what i got out of it. For someone to be that dumb their first name would haveta be George, their last name Bush, and right dare in da middle: Dubya. Hmm wait...could be John p Walters... or Asa Hutchinson...o wait the worlds fucked and America's a police state. Revolution abrewin [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on July 06, 2002 at 16:32:47 PT freedom fighter I agree there isn't such a thing as a Drug-Free Berkeley. I had a friend that went their many years ago and it was FAR from drug free. I don't think it has changed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by freedom fighter on July 06, 2002 at 16:24:25 PT Like culebra stated it hit me where I lived...After all, there's no such a thing as Drug-Free Berkeley..ff [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by freedom fighter on July 06, 2002 at 16:19:00 PT Robbie, I think it is a satire "Light a blunt and pass it on to Salar at: salar dailycal.org"I mean after all it is a serious subject or issue to deny someone an education just because she/he may have smoked a blunt and got arrested for it.Sure one heck of a serious Satire.. Nothing to laugh at and yeah, probably some folks would even "agree" with it.Food for thoughts...ff [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Robbie on July 06, 2002 at 15:09:57 PT certainly doesn't look like satire the author seems serious in his contentions [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Robbie on July 06, 2002 at 15:06:48 PT I'd respond to this article... but I'll wait for the author to grow-up. Maybe get about 20 years under his belt. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by culebra on July 06, 2002 at 12:07:03 PT: *snicker* Very nice satire-it hit me where I live; caught me off balance a little. I am sure that many politicians use the same reasoning but actually believe it! [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on July 06, 2002 at 11:44:47 PT from www.m-w.com fas·cism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date: 1921 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge> com·mu·nism Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively Merriam-Webster Collegiate Ddddictionary :) [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Nasarius on July 06, 2002 at 11:39:28 PT Hmmm Some people just can't recognize sarcasm... [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on July 06, 2002 at 11:23:06 PT Mussolini made the trains run on time Just because they don't call themselves by those names any more, don't think that Fascism and Communism aren't still alive.They've just managed to emigrate and reinvent themselves as the Drug War. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by p4me on July 06, 2002 at 11:04:26 PT Slate.msn on supreme court Slate came out with a critical article of the supreme court's last drug testing decision on July 3rd titled "Urinalysis The Supreme Court's torturous justification of high- school urine tests." By Dahlia Lithwick: http://slate.msn.com/?id=20677101,2 [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Dave in Florida on July 06, 2002 at 10:32:01 PT What a Dumbass ! This guy is a complete idiot. Let's just call people names, yea, that's the ticket.. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on July 06, 2002 at 10:01:46 PT Oh no He shouldn't have provided his email address! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment