Re "A Victimless Crime?," by Mario Berlanga (Op-Ed, Sept. 27): There's no doubt that much of the money spent in the illegal drug market goes into the pockets of very dangerous people and organizations, as Mr. Berlanga effectively argues. But trying to shame users into quitting, as the government has done in the decades-long failed war on drugs, hasn't ever been an effective way to diminish the drug trade. Only legalizing and regulating drugs can strip drug profits from organized crime, just as ending Prohibition took the booze market out of the hands of the gangsters who controlled the trade for part of the last century. [continues 70 words]
To the Editor: As a marijuana legalization advocate, I'm not going to argue with David Brooks about whether marijuana is safe or harmful. No matter how bad one thinks the drug is in and of itself, there's no question that prohibiting it only increases the potential for harm. Making marijuana illegal means its production and profits are in the hands of criminals who often use violence to protect their market share. There's no testing and labeling of street marijuana for potency and purity. [continues 92 words]
The March 21 editorial "A more fitting punishment," on Maryland's bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, correctly pointed out how current laws waste police time and drain precious resources. But merely decriminalizing marijuana possession while leaving sales unregulated ensures that people who use marijuana must purchase it through the black market, often from gangs that use violence to protect their profits and turf. It's true that federal law prohibits the sale of marijuana. But states such as Colorado and Washington haven't waited for Congress to change failed and outdated marijuana policies, and Maryland shouldn't, either. Without pressure from the states, the federal government is unlikely to take on the important task of reviewing its decades-old marijuana laws. Tom Angell, Berkeley, Calif. The writer is chairman of Marijuana Majority. [end]
How would President Obama acting in support of medical marijuana be "a gift to Republicans in an important election year," as Robert Gammon writes? Polls show that 80 percent of the public supports medical marijuana. Recall that this president handily won his last election after pledging not to interfere with state medical marijuana laws. Tom Angell Media Relations Director, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition [end]
Thanks so much for calling for marijuana to be classified like alcohol in your latest column. I hope you'll keep watching and covering this issue as the push for legalization heats up, and I thought you might be interested in hearing about a group of police, prosecutors and judges who are pushing in favor of legalization. These members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) fought on the front lines of the war on drugs, witnessing how prohibition only serves to make substance abuse and market violence problems worse. Now, they are actively working to change the debate on drug policy issues so that more voters understand that continuing to keep marijuana illegal harms public safety, not protects it. [continues 358 words]
As he often does, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) ignored the facts and engaged in ad hominem attacks in his Nov. 20 letter, "Politico - Ideological Prism?" Instead of disputing Politico's report that Rep. Souder incorrectly labeled the American Federation of Teachers, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, the United Methodist Church and others as "drug-legalization groups" because they oppose a law he wrote that strips financial aid from college students with drug convictions, the congressman decided to attack the credibility of reporter Ryan Grim. [continues 166 words]
As the Kansan reported, students convicted of any drug offense -- including possession of just one marijuana joint -- are automatically stripped of their financial aid ("Marijuana found on move-in day;" Aug. 17). How many students do you know who could afford to stay in school after losing their aid? Probably not many. And how are they supposed to clean up and make an honest living once they're kicked out of school? It's not hard to see that this penalty causes more, not less, drug abuse. [continues 84 words]
It's disturbing that drug traffickers are now surgically implanting drugs inside innocent puppies so they can more efficiently smuggle their products over our borders ("Puppy drug smugglers," Feb. 2). But this reprehensible behavior can't be blamed on drugs. It's the result of drug prohibition. If drugs were produced and sold in a regulated, legal market, there would be little incentive for thugs to hide drugs inside puppies. Tom Angell Washington Note: The writer is campaigns director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy. [end]
As college students around the country prepare for this semester's midterms, thousands of their would-be classmates don't have anything to study for because of a federal law that strips financial aid from people with drug convictions. The policy is currently being reconsidered as Congress renews the Higher Education Act (HEA) for the first time in seven years. While the HEA was originally enacted in 1965 to make higher education more accessible and affordable for all Americans, the Drug Provision - added during the 1998 HEA reauthorization - is an unjustifiable roadblock in the path to college. Over the past seven years, more than 175,000 students have lost their financial aid because of the HEA Drug Provision. [continues 649 words]
Asa Hutchinson, former DEA director and current candidate for Arkansas governor, is on the right track when he says the law that takes away financial aid from college students with drug convictions should be scaled back ("Don't withhold student loans for past drug offenses, former DEA Director says" -- Oct. 22). But while the partial reform he proposes would help some students with past convictions, it would leave behind tens of thousands of others who get convicted while in college. Blocking access to education to people who have been in trouble with drugs is a bad idea, regardless of when convictions occur. Pulling students out of school won't do anything to keep them away from drugs; instead, it causes more drug abuse. [continues 69 words]
As college students around the country prepare for midterms, thousands of their would-be classmates don't have anything to study for because of a federal law that strips financial aid from people with drug convictions. The policy is currently being reconsidered as Congress renews the Higher Education Act for the first time in seven years. While the HEA was originally enacted in 1965 to make higher education more accessible and affordable for all Americans, the Drug Provision -- added during the 1998 HEA reauthorization -- is an unjustifiable roadblock in the path to college. Over the past seven years, more than 175,000 students have lost their financial aid because of the HEA Drug Provision. [continues 575 words]
As college students around the country prepare for this semester's midterms, thousands of their would-be classmates don't have anything to study for because of a federal law that strips financial aid from people with drug convictions. The policy is currently being reconsidered as Congress renews the Higher Education Act (HEA) for the first time in seven years. While the HEA was originally enacted in 1965 to make higher education more accessible and affordable for all Americans, the Drug Provision - added during the 1998 HEA reauthorization - is an unjustifiable roadblock in the path to college. Over the past seven years, more than 175,000 students have lost their financial aid because of the HEA Drug Provision. [continues 662 words]
As college students around the country prepare for this semester's midterms, thousands of their would-be classmates don't have anything to study for because of a federal law that strips financial aid from people with drug convictions. The policy is currently being reconsidered as Congress renews the Higher Education Act for the first time in seven years. While the HEA was originally enacted in 1965 to make higher education more accessible and affordable for all Americans, the Drug Provision added during the 1998 HEA reauthorization — is an unjustifiable roadblock in the path to college. Over the past seven years, more than 175,000 students have lost their financial aid because of the HEA drug provision. [continues 158 words]
10/12/05 - To the Cigar, As college students around the country prepare for this semester's midterms, thousands of their would-be classmates don't have anything to study for because of a federal law that strips financial aid from people with drug convictions. The policy is currently being reconsidered as Congress renews the Higher Education Act (HEA) for the first time in seven years. While the HEA was originally enacted in 1965 to make higher education more accessible and affordable for all Americans, the Drug Provision - added during the 1998 HEA reauthorization - is an unjustifiable roadblock in the path to college. [continues 671 words]
As college students around the country prepare for midterms, thousands of potential classmates don't have that opportunity, because of a federal law that strips financial aid from people with drug convictions. The policy is being reconsidered as Congress renews the Higher Education Act for the first time in seven years. While the act was originally passed in 1965 to make higher education more accessible and affordable for all Americans, the drug provision - added in 1998 - - is an unjustifiable roadblock in the path to college. Over the past seven years, more than 175,000 students have lost their financial aid because of the provision. [continues 605 words]
Rep. John Kline is wrong when he characterizes the law that strips financial aid from students with drug convictions as "an incentive for students to seek help" (Letters from readers, July 21). While it is true that the law does allow some students to get their aid back if they take a qualified drug treatment program, many students find that private counseling is sometimes more expensive than college tuition itself. Does Kline really think that all students caught with a marijuana cigarette should be kicked out of college until they undergo an expensive treatment regimen? [continues 124 words]
The Patriot Ledger does its readers a disservice by insinuating the only reason parents or students would oppose student drug testing is that it is an invasion of privacy (Editorial, "Testing teens for drugs," May 20). While there are serious privacy concerns when students are forced into bathroom stalls while school officials stand outside listening for the sounds of urination (as often happens as part of school drug testing programs), there is a much more fundamental reason to oppose drug testing: It simply does not work. [continues 120 words]
Re: "Instead of jail they get another chance," May 26: Drug court participant Nicholas Stakelbeck says he, like many people caught up in the criminal justice system after drug arrests, has "goals." But too many people in recovery run face-first into a brick wall while trying to achieve their goals. Under a federal law passed in 1998, people with drug convictions on their records are denied financial aid for college. So far, more than 160,500 have been affected. How is pulling students out of school supposed to keep them away from drugs and out of the criminal justice system? Lawmakers should make it easier, not harder, for people to move on with their lives and make something of themselves after getting into trouble with drugs. Tom Angell Students for Sensible Drug Policy Washington tom@ssdp.org [end]
The Daily Emerald rightly criticizes our nation's criminal justice priorities in the era of the War on Drugs ("Marijuana poses lesser threat than violent theft," ODE May 12). Violent criminals are allowed to roam free while our prisons are filled with nonviolent drug offenders. The misguided War on Drugs also directly targets students. Since 1998, more than 160,500 students have been denied financial aid because they have drug convictions. Rapists, murderers, burglars and arsonists are all free to receive financial aid once they've otherwise paid their debt to society; only drug offenders have the doors of education automatically slammed shut in their faces. Students who want to help change misguided drug policies that negatively affect them should start a chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Visit www.DAREgeneration.com for more information. Tom Angell Communications Director, Students for Sensible Drug Policy Washington, D.C. [end]
Katherine Strickler accurately portrays the insanity inherent in trying to reduce drug abuse by stripping students of their financial aid ("Federal bill may revoke FAFSA question asking about drug convictions," April 6), but she uses an outdated statistic to reflect the number of students who have been affected by this terrible policy. Actually, more than 160,500 students have filled out the financial aid application and been denied after admitting to drug convictions. This number doesn't account for all the students who saw the drug question, figured they'd be denied aid and didn't bother to waste the postage to mail in the application. [continues 59 words]
