Want college aid? Bush insists on total disclosure about prior drug use.
June 25, 2001 11:30 PM   Subscribe

Want college aid? Bush insists on total disclosure about prior drug use. "The thing that struck me was the Bush administration stance that a non-answer means you're guilty is ironic, since he spent the entire campaign not answering the question about cocaine," Hlinko said. "I don't care if he did coke 30 years ago, but this is hypocritical." I don't dislike Bush to the same degree as some of you, but this pisses me off.
posted by dong_resin (25 comments total)
 
Talk about the man keeping you down! This is particularly stinky since a disproportionate number of drug convictions involve minorities. And it sure will be great for the economy.
posted by roboto at 12:01 AM on June 26, 2001


Kids: "Just Say Blow"
posted by owillis at 12:21 AM on June 26, 2001


It's easy for Bush; his kids don't need aid. Help, yes, but not financial aid.
posted by pracowity at 12:48 AM on June 26, 2001


Obligatory 'this was passed while Clinton was in office' post.
posted by skallas at 4:38 AM on June 26, 2001


skallas: I refer yo to this --

"Under the Clinton administration, the non-answer provision was largely ignored. But when Bush took office, he immediately moved to have that policy strictly enforced. "


Clinton was the head of the enforcement end of the country at that time. Republicans were the ones passing things.
posted by brucec at 5:17 AM on June 26, 2001


So? I said it passed while he was in office i.e. he didn't veto it.
posted by skallas at 6:05 AM on June 26, 2001


He didn't enforce it the way Bush is.
Sort of the whole point.
posted by dong_resin at 6:19 AM on June 26, 2001


it's all about political cowardice. what pol wants to get called "pro-drugs"?

justsayblow.com is fun but there are more hard facts on the 1998 updates to the Higher Education Act at raiseyourvoice.com. And a whole pantload of stories at the Media Awareness Project.
posted by Sapphireblue at 6:28 AM on June 26, 2001


Bush would never get called pro-drugs if he had just let this one alone. This is an active agenda, not political cowardice.
posted by FPN at 6:30 AM on June 26, 2001


An old, old story. There's one set of rules for the oligarchy and another set of rules for everyone else.

Do as I say, not as I do.

So no one forgets, let's go over this again:
Graft, corruption, influence buying/selling and greed are positive attributes and are totally unrelated to morality, honor, dignity and integrity.

Don't make me have to get Ari down here on your hinnys!
posted by nofundy at 7:35 AM on June 26, 2001


um, do we have any proof that the republicans were the ones who sponsored and passed this provision? not that I need any more reasons to hate bush and company, but it seems unfair to just assume that.

as for clinton, it's nice that he let the policy go unenforced, but it's naive to think that he would have expected it to continue going unenforced under a new administration. would it have been that big a deal if he had vetoed it? if it were something he really cared about, shouldn't he have done something about it? seems to me he's just as politically responsible as bush is for letting this remain part of the legislature. the point of making laws is not so the president can selectively decide when to enforce them.
posted by rabi at 8:12 AM on June 26, 2001


I don't know for sure, but I imagine a provision like this is part of a larger piece of legislation which Clinton may have wanted -- legislation about financial aid for instance which has this drug provision tacked on to it. Anyone know?
posted by josh at 8:22 AM on June 26, 2001


Anyone know?

Just do a google search for the higher education act of 1998. Higher education... oh the puns.
posted by skallas at 12:15 PM on June 26, 2001


What does this law mean? It means that if you have a adult drug conviction on your record and you want financial aid, you're going to have to sit out a year from your first application date until you're eligible to receive that aid. It's an additional penalty put in place in hopes of acting as a deterrent. It goes along with the concept that if you care about your future, you won't get involved with drugs.

The only difference between what is happening now compared to what was happening six months ago is that law is being fully enforced. That's all. Rabi hit the nail head on - the government cannot pick and choose which provisions of the law it wishes to follow. If Clinton, or the Congressional Dems did not like this particular point of the HEA'98, then it should not have been made law. It was. It is, consequently, mandated that all students who want tax dollars to fund their educations complete the forms in total or they will forego those dollars. If you want cash from the government, you comply with their rules.

Conflating disapproval with this law with yet another backhanded attack on GWB is just silly and dilutes the merit of the argument against the law as it stands.
posted by Dreama at 12:55 PM on June 26, 2001


one thing I've noticed about this site is that people spend a lot of time bitching and a lot less time acting. Go here and here, and take a stand. Tell your elected representatives to correct this hypocrisy. Believe it or not, they still do work for you.
posted by themikeb at 1:21 PM on June 26, 2001


"It goes along with the concept that if you care about your future, you won't get involved with drugs."
Or at least, you'll have the good sense to have enough connections to get away with it.

"The only difference between what is happening now compared to what was happening six months ago is that law is being fully enforced. "
By a man who dogged and still dodges the same question himself.

"Conflating disapproval with this law with yet another backhanded attack on GWB is just silly and dilutes the merit of the argument against the law as it stands."
I'd say pointing out the hypocrisy of the administration's attitude underscores how out of touch the policy is.

"one thing I've noticed about this site is that people spend a lot of time bitching and a lot less time acting. "
Bitching is the first step, oh more active than thou.
posted by dong_resin at 1:45 PM on June 26, 2001


I know that personally it takes A LOT of bitching before I actually do something. Not sure if others are like me or not, but I assume they are. And if they're not, I'm going to do a lot of bitching to try and make sure they are one day.
posted by FPN at 2:14 PM on June 26, 2001


I don't think the main issue here is whether or not the law is just and fair. What's being pointed out is that Dubya is pushing enforcement of a law that he himself would not have complied with, if his behavior in the campaign was any indication. Sure, the law passed under Clinton. And Clinton admitted to trying pot ("didn't inhale" notwithstanding). That means that even if you don't agree with the law, you can't accuse Clinton of being a hypocrite for going along with it. Dubya, on the other hand, is clearly a hypocrite.
posted by owen at 2:41 PM on June 26, 2001


And if that's the main issue, it's a moot point. No amount of letter writing is going to make GWB say anything new on this issue. No amount of finger-pointing and geegawing is going to change his statements from the campaign. If that's the main issue, it's a lot of bitching for nothing. Go do something productive, lobby to change the law if you don't like it or for pete's sake, go talk to some kids to think about whether or not that next opportunity to get wasted is really worth it.
posted by Dreama at 2:44 PM on June 26, 2001


You're just typing crap simply to get the last word in, now, aren't you.
posted by dong_resin at 2:56 PM on June 26, 2001


Having wasted 7 years in college, I can tell ya kids, he's doing you a favor.

Not that *hanging around* colleges is a bad idea, mind you... that's real education.
posted by Twang at 4:35 PM on June 26, 2001


one thing I've noticed about this site is that people spend a lot of time bitching and a lot less time acting.

How would you know that? What people do when they're not talking here is completely unknown to you. And the tiny fraction of users that posts on any one item is surely not a reliable indicator of what 9000 registered users do.

I am so sick of these I'm-so-superior "all you Metafilisitines" generalizations.
posted by rodii at 7:01 PM on June 26, 2001


people spend a lot of time bitching and a lot less time acting

I mailed my congress critter about this ages ago and got a form letter about Barney Frank's proposal to eliminate it. I wouldn't sign that infantile petition (err, one of the first links) focusing on just GWB and asking him to not take a salary. Oh man, like the paltry presidential salary is anything to that man.
posted by skallas at 9:12 PM on June 26, 2001


"And if that's the main issue, it's a moot point."

Beg to differ. This goes to intent. (Being a lawyer, you understand that Dreama.)
Such actions clearly point to an intent to deceive. Deliberate deception for personal gain is often criminal fraud.
Other supporting examples are voluminously evident with the 'campaign as a moderate but appoint and govern on the extreme right' actions.
Restoring honor, morality, dignity and integrity to the office are in direct contradiction to the actions we observe.
Moot point? Hardly!
posted by nofundy at 8:14 AM on June 27, 2001


I'm not trying to come back with a holier than thou attitude. I'm simply saying many, many sites make it as easy to contact your congressperson as it is to add your voice to this thread.
posted by themikeb at 8:48 AM on June 27, 2001


« Older Mark Twain - Back from the Dead!   |   Call for directions, get cancer... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments