While We’re On The Daily Cal…
The Clog, in attempt to be intelligently witty, has decided that the newly approved $400 ASUC scholarship for recovered drug addicts is in bad form for the ASUC. From the Clog:
When we said students were an embarassment, we meant it and it didn’t take long for them to prove it. In an attempt to fight the man, the ASUC passed a bill to have a scholarship only for students with drug convictions.
We can only speculate as to how many hits it took to imagine this egalitarian piece of legislation. What we do know, however, is how much weed one
luckyqualified student can buy for $400.
Clever, sirs, very clever. Well, if you had actually read the bill, you’d know that students don’t receive the money, but rather, must be reimbursed with receipts for their tuition and book costs. They aren’t given a blank check to take to their local pot dealers. Sorry, but the local Berkeley economy probably won’t be seeing that big a bump because of these ASUC efforts.
As far as the idea of the bill goes, if you don’t like giving people who have made a demonstrated effort to turn their lives around a second chance, you’re entitled to be a prick (or a Republican). Maybe you think they’d be better off in jail? Or working minimum wage, showing you where the hardware aisle is at Target? Maybe instead of complaining about $400 of a $1.5 millon operating budget, you could, I don’t know, be more critical of the ASUC’s efforts to raise student fees (again) with no clear benefit guaranteed to the student body.
Since the permanent disqualification only occurs after a 3rd offense, it seems like we’re giving someone who seems to have habitual problems a 4th chance.
Also, there is no difference between giving a student a “blank check” for $400 and reimbursing a student for tuition payments. The student still has $400 he or she would otherwise not have and, if previous actions are any indication, will most likely use that money to buy drugs.
Whether you like it or not, this bill will provide money for weed.
Comment by Andy Morris — January 30, 2007 @ 11:17 am
andy: where did you hear about the third strike thing? When I was looking into the issue last year, I was under the impression that it would affect everyone, even those with a single conviction.
Regarding your point concerning the fungibility of money, it’s only an issue if the person is not already buying as much weed as they want. If a student is already buying as much weed as they want and skipping buying things like textbooks or food then extra money would be spent on those necessary items as opposed to more drugs. I can’t imagine most heavy drug users who are already not buying textbooks would be likely to spend that extra money on books instead of having extra funds to get some more weed, but I also have a sense that the scholarship will be likely to find someone who isn’t a hard core druggie.
Comment by the other andy — January 30, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
The Higher Education Act of 1965 makes it so that even 1 drug-related offense strips you of financial aid.
I’m really thinking that the fact most people don’t know fully what this act does is problematic, there are tons of students out there (and I’m sure readers of this blog too) who don’t know about the HEA and what the government can do to really screw you up for a small crime.
Comment by Joshua May — January 31, 2007 @ 6:17 pm