resist/rebel Archive through April 24, 2004

<font color="0000ff">Denying college aid over drugs faces fight

By Bonnie Miller Rubin
Chicago Tribune staff reporter
Published January 5, 2004

Thousands of college-aid applicants have been denied federal money over the last five years because they were convicted of possessing or selling drugs--a policy supporters say serves as a deterrent to drug use and ensures that aid goes to those who deserve it.

But opponents are gearing up to jettison the provision when the Higher Education Act comes up for renewal this year, arguing that education should not be used as a weapon in the war on drugs. The policy disproportionately hurts lower-income families who are least able to afford college tuition, they say, while noting that punishment for such offenses is already meted out in court.

"I don't understand why you'd want to hinder someone's ability to go to college," said Caton Volk, 23, who dropped out of the University of Illinois at Chicago after he discovered he was ineligible for aid. "If the administration is really concerned about drug use, what better means of rehabilitation than education?"

More than 100 student governments have called for the policy to be revoked. Some institutions--including Yale University, Western Washington University, Hampshire College in Massachusetts and Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania--are so opposed to the policy that they will reimburse students who have lost aid because of it.

"We don't believe students should have their education interrupted," said Dorie Baker, a spokeswoman for Yale University, which took a stand even though none of its students has been affected.

Application poses question

On average, about 47,000 of the 10.5 million federal aid applicants lose their eligibility every year, according to the American Council on Education, the major coordinating body for the nation's higher education institutions.

The process works like this: Students must complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Question No. 35 asks: "Have you ever been convicted of selling or possessing drugs?" Applications with a blank or "yes" are flagged. The applicants are then sent a letter that explains that they might not receive aid and asks some follow-up questions.

Those with one drug offense are ineligible for one year for government grants or federally backed loans; a second conviction bars applicants for two years. However, they can regain eligibility upon completion of an approved drug-rehabilitation program.

The mere presence of the drug query rankles critics.

"The financial aid form was designed to help lower and middle-class students gain access to college--not be used as a mechanism to collect information," said Chris Simmons of the American Council on Education. "I understand why Congress wants law-abiding citizens, but this punishment does not affect all students equally."

Others groups--from conservative Christians to mainline anti-drug organizations--endorse the idea. "There's no entitlement to this money," said Sue Thau, a public policy consultant to Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America.

"By the time you're in college, you're old enough to know that your actions have consequences," she said. "What it says to kids is: You've got a good thing going here. Don't screw it up."

Steve Dnistrian,an executive with Partnership for a Drug-Free America, also believes it acts as a deterrent.

"This gives students a lot of incentive to make good decisions ... and we're for anything that reinforces social norms that help persuade young people not to use drugs," he said.

But to Marisa Garcia, the law doesn't keep her peers off drugs--only out of school. Garcia's financial aid was jeopardized in 2000 after she was caught with a marijuana pipe in her car.

"It was my first time. ... I had never even had a traffic ticket," said Garcia, 22, of Santa Fe Springs, Calif. "So I just paid my $400 fine and didn't think much of it."

After she was accepted at California State University at Fullerton, she filled out her aid application and received the bad news. "There was no way we could afford college without loans," said Garcia, one of four children of a single parent.

Only because her mother refinanced the house and received a raise at her florist job was she able to scrape together tuition, Garcia said.

"What happens to kids whose families don't have a house?" she said "It doesn't make sense to penalize young people who want to better themselves."

Volk was busted for possession of marijuana in 1998, one week before he graduated from Naperville North High School. He attended UIC for one semester, with his parents paying the bills. But then his family's financial situation changed, and his past came back to haunt him.

"[The marijuana] wasn't a tremendous amount, just enough to keep me from pursuing a college education," said Volk, who lives in Wicker Park. "I just took one look at the form ... and that was it. I didn't even try. Who knows how many kids just see the question [about drugs] and just forget the whole thing?"

Volk held a string of low-paying jobs before starting his own film production company. "But I still feel like I missed something," he said. "I love the classroom experience."

Unintended effects

U.S. Rep. Mark E. Souder, an Indiana Republican and author of the 1998 provision, says he never intended to include prior offenses as a basis for denying aid. He blames the U.S. Education Department for "misinterpreting" the law.

He is proposing that when the law is reauthorized, only those students with convictions incurred while they are in college and receiving aid be affected.

Despite the widespread criticism, he said he thinks it's the right thing to do.

"I believe that if a student is using drugs, he is probably not making the most of his education," Souder said. "That is bad enough if he is paying for his education himself, but it is simply unacceptable if the American taxpayer is footing the bill.

"What is more, I strongly believe that this law will discourage drug use."

Democratic lawmakers are divided over whether they should continue to oppose this weaker version of the ban. Given the political realities, some say it is the best they can hope for. Others--including Illinois Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Jesse Jackson Jr., Danny Davis and Bobby Rush--have said nothing short of all-out repeal will do.

Matthew Atwood, a graduate student at Loyola University, feels so strongly that the law should change that he is traveling to New Hampshire this month to grill the presidential candidates on their position. (Of the nine Democratic hopefuls, only Ohio's Dennis Kucinich has called for scrapping the provision.)

The Park Ridge native said the deterrent claim is dubious because the majority of young adults aren't aware the policy exists. But when they do find out, he said, they are "floored and appalled" to find out they can be denied aid for a non-violent crime.

Along with 250 other protesters, Atwood vows to be a persistent presence at a college convention in Manchester this week.

"I feel compelled to be there," he said. "If the candidates care about education than they need to care about this issue. They need to tell us how we can be smart on drugs and no longer hold education hostage."</font>

Great article, I really hope that this ludicrous mandate will be reconsidered soon. My record is spotless, but ever since I started college in August I've been super super careful. I prefer to have my stuff brought to me instead of risking arrest by going out and getting it.

<font color="0000ff">Source: BBC News, Wales 01/11/03
Hemp burgers on sale


Hemp has a variety of uses
A recipe for burgers made from hemp is is just one of the products being offered for sale by a south Wales business.
The firm, run by Gail Dunsbee from her home in Chepstow, offers a range of goods including chocolate, tea and bath oils all made with hemp.

Now hempish.com is planning to sell its wares to a wider audience after getting financial help from the Welsh Development Agency (WDA).

Hemp is a versatile and hard wearing product often used to make clothing.

But now Mrs Dunsbee is offering a wider use of the plant by selling other products made from the plant.

She includes a range of foods including chocolate, tea and flour as well as body care products.

"I get children asking me about hemp and they have no idea of its benefits, they just think about its link with cannabis," said Mrs Dunsbee.

"Cannabis is one thing, however, everything else that can be done with hemp is positive."

Hemp has a variety of industrial uses including making paper, textiles, food, clothes and medicine.

"Hempish.com was formed from a desire to respect the environment and to source the best and most varied hemp products from around the world," said Mrs Dunsbee.

The hemp plant is farmed by eco-friendly methods and is claimed to be one of the most eco-beneficial crops grown.

Hemp is the longest, strongest and most durable natural fibre known to mankind and can be grown in four months.

Until 1883, more than 75% of the worlds paper was made from Hemp.

It has been cultivated in the UK again since 1993.


</font>

http://www.hempish.com/products/food/products/prod uct_3.htm

<font color="0000ff">Source: The Toronto Sun 01/18/04
OTTAWA -- Spanking your kid could soon be a crime. In a landmark ruling this month, the Supreme Court of Canada will decide if a century-old law that allows parents and teachers to use physical force for discipline should be scrapped. The constitutionality of the so-called "spanking law" -- Section 43 of the Criminal Code that pits teachers and socially conservative family groups against child welfare advocates -- will be decided Jan. 30.

"The fact that a parent is bigger and stronger and more powerful should not be a justification to strike a child," said Marvin Bernstein, a lawyer and policy development director for the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

"It shouldn't be a problem to physically stop a child from harming another person or running out onto the street -- but that's different from striking or hitting or inflicting pain."

The CAS has joined a legal fight launched five years ago by the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law. The children's rights group wants Section 43 of the Criminal Code -- which was enacted in 1892 -- repealed on the grounds it discriminates by age, violates the human rights and security of children and fails to protect minors from abuse.

Bernstein believes it's time to send the message that violence against children -- whether it's a light tap on the buttocks or punishment with a "weapon" like a belt, stick or hairbrush -- is not acceptable.

Foundation lawyer Cheryl Milne said courts have had difficulty establishing what is "reasonable" corporal punishment. In some cases, courts have accepted discipline that results in bruising and broken teeth as "reasonable."

"It's hard to predict what falls within that section and it puts children at risk," she said.

The foundation lost its fight at the Ontario appeals court level, but hopes the Supreme Court of Canada will follow an international trend to outlaw physical force against children.

Eleven countries have passed a legal ban on parental-school corporal punishment, including Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Israel.

In Canada, a Decima Research poll released last fall showed 51% of Canadians believe parents should be banned from using corporal punishment, while almost 70% want to end provisions that allow teachers to use physical force.

Milne is opposed to even mild forms of spanking, but said those who want Section 43 repealed aren't seeking criminal charges slapped against any parent who taps a child on the behind. Prosecutorial guidelines could direct police officers and lawyers to avoid charges in those cases, she said.

But Darrel Reid, president of the B.C.-based Focus on the Family, worries that removing Section 43 will lead to a growing number of children being removed from their homes and parents being tossed in jail for "loving" discipline.

"Parents are the people who understand, know and love their children best. They're far better able to make responsible decisions about parenting their kids than lawyers or bureaucrats," he said.

"This is not about abuse ... It's basically turning all Canadian parents who use corrective physical discipline into criminals."

Carole Morency, senior counsel with the federal justice department, said the government is defending the law as it stands because it protects only a "narrow" range of conduct.

"The federal government's position is that this kind of conduct is bad, we don't condone it, we don't advocate for it, but we also don't believe that type of conduct should attract the full force of the criminal law," she said.

Vic Toews, a Manitoba MP and former provincial attorney-general, said it would be "totally irresponsible" for the Supreme Court to tinker with the existing law. He warns that any physical contact could become an assault -- such as a teacher touching a disruptive student to remove him from the classroom.

TEACHERS JOIN FIGHT

That's why the Canadian Teachers Federation has joined the fight and some police officers are concerned about the outcome, he said.

But Ron Ensom, a former social worker with the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario who co-authored a study on the impact of corporal punishment, called the law "archaic."

Mounting world evidence shows that physical punishment puts children at risk of depression, mental problems and violent behaviour, he said. "The law doesn't allow husbands to hit wives, the law doesn't allow employers to hit employees, the law doesn't allow correctional services staff to lash or harm prisoners. But the law in Canada allows parents and teachers, in the name of correction, to hit and hurt kids to teach them a lesson. That's not right."

Reid disagreed, insisting the move to quash Section 43 is like trying to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer.

"This is a major and unwarranted intrusion into the lives of parents and kids across the country. Parents know what loving discipline is.". </font>

[shroomzhilla]

Oh yes lets try to reason logically with a child. once again lets reinforce acceptance of mis-behavior.
while I dont advocate knoicking the teeth out of kids,er, most kids, I think a good ass kicking is in order when all else fails. by this I mean a wide variety of punishments to fit the crime.
in my house lies and dirty words get rinsed out with vinigar water, back talk usually ends up with some one putting their nose on the wall for 5-30 minutes. its ABSOLUTE to be consistent and fair too otherwise there is no lesson learned IMO.
but for those rare occasions where it all goes to hell and the first few steps have no effect, then its over the knee time. funny thing is that I almost never have to go there. I have good kids and plan to keep it that way no matter what law tells me otherwise.

obedience training for humans.
start young building good citizens.

I disagree.
Never spank a child.
Give him everything he wants.
Never short his allowance because he was bad.
Always reward him for throwing tantrums.
If you don't have enough money to give him, borrow it.
He'll grow up to president of the US.

LOL RR. (I wondered what was wrong with that kid.)

But, seriously, positive reinforcement is more effective, if handled properly. Striking kids just teaches them that problems are best solved through violence, which is rarely true.

(Message edited by Smerd on January 20, 2004)

[cleanjar]

Kids seem to listen very well to what i say.

I'd never hit a kid for any reason,
-Instead they just have to listen to me talk.

A goofy lecture with complicated adult words that they don't yet understand works best, it's all in the voice, and kids are good listeners to my voice and my word.

If they've really done something off-the-wall and wrong, then the lecture i give them is very brief but stern, until i know they understand.

One day ill have a kid or two or three of my own one day.

It IS illegal in UK.

i think much depends on the mental capacity of the kid,
and how much force is applied.
most would agree that a little slap on the hand is just about the only way to teach a baby not to grab objects it should not have.
but the intent should never be to inflict pain,
rather the intent is to shock the child, to get it's attention.
once the child is old enough to understand speech then there are few situations that justify corporal punishment, imo.
about the only things i would consider 'spanking' over would be acts that endanger the child such as playing with fire. i would spank a child i caught setting a fire because the risk is so great it warrants drastic action to ensure it never happens again.
but those types of threats are about it,
i just can't see striking a child for mundane offenses.

Just about as you have said, that's the way the law is enforced in practice here though the 'letter' seems fairly uncompromising with the under 2's. Though not a parent (so I know I've got no right etc...but)I agree with Hippy that its small children that a sharp physically reinforced rebuke is sometimes needed and often for safty reasons. Conflicts with what all 'the specialists' have put into law though...mmmmmm.

It does get a bit radical when a teacher has to run from the class room when a violent 10 yr old goes for them.....any 'raising of a hand' will almost certainly be the end of that teachers career.

(Message edited by masterkush on January 20, 2004)

I just send my kids to their room. I do not alow tvs or computers in their rooms so it drives them crazy. Sometimes spanking works better than anything else when a child is younger. But only on the butt and only, as Hippie3 said, to get their attention.

My 9 year old is almost 170lbs and when he gets in one of his attitudes and starts being mean or hurting his little brother or sister, sometimes a smack on the ass is the only thing that seems to effect his behavior. Now, I totally agree that other forms of punishment, such as taking away a toy or game or restricting their activities is more desirable, as well as a firm scolding with an explanation of why what they did is wrong, but all kids come to a point where they try to test the boundaries. When they do cross that line then, IMO a spanking is very effective. It should be something that is used as a last resort, though.
PB

(Message edited by pissybee on January 25, 2004)

see http://www.mycotopia.net/discus/messages/100158/10 6543.html?1075857710

<font color="0000ff">Source: BBC News
Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/3458535.stm

Magic mushrooms are cash crop


The mushrooms are produced in clinical conditions

Ellen Timiney's home, on an otherwise ordinary Plymouth street, is a haven for hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Step inside her Plymouth flat and you are greeted by the moistness which mushrooms demand.

She has turned the burgeoning demand for the fungi into a business, by growing magic mushrooms for sale.

Ms Timiney grows them legally, then distributes the crop to cafes and shops across the South West.

It is part of a retail boom in the psychedelic fungi which have a similar effect to LSD.

Fresh mushrooms

It is the processing of the mushrooms, such as drying or freezing, that is currently prohibited.

Ms Timiney gets around the law by selling her mushrooms fresh. Opponents claim, however, that while the mushrooms may be legal, they are still dangerous.

Ms Timiney, 29, has set a room aside in her home to mushroom growing.

Cultures, available on the internet, are bred in clinical conditions and fetch about £160 a kilogram.

Ms Timiney said: "We have quite a small operation, but we can produce 10 kilos of mushrooms a week."

She does not see herself as a drugs baron.

"I don't consider magic mushrooms as a drug. They are very spiritual things to take.

Mental health problems

"In many countries they are called the mushroom of God because they give you a sense of talking to God.

"But obviously if you have a mental health problem it is better not to take magic mushrooms," she said.

"We have had no problem with the police at all and we fully intend to stay within the law as we understand it."

A spokeswoman for Devon and Cornwall Police confirmed she was not committing an offence.

Gary Wallace from the Plymouth Drug Action Team said: "Any plant or fungus that has a psycho-active element is a drug.

"It is also the case the hallucinogenic drugs such as magic mushrooms and LSD can affect the mental health of people that did not know they had a mental illness.

"So it is irresponsible to claim that any drug is risk free."

He said that legally, selling magic mushrooms was a grey area, but there were no plans to change the law.

"You can either prohibit it and risk handing everything over to the criminal world, or you can apply the law such as trading standards, but that is an issue for the government."



"I don't consider magic mushrooms as a drug - they are very spiritual things to take."
Ellen Timiney </font>

[cleanjar]

[highflyer]

160 euros a kilo
10 kilos a week
1600 euros a week
$2005 dollars a week
$104,000 a year

Im moving to Britain.

highflyer dont wanna sound horrid but Euro is different to pound propley more...
i dont know the conversion rates its 1.50 i tihnk
so your prob talkin more or less money still loads!!

[highflyer]

Yeah you are right. They are in lbs not euros. Should be:

160 pounds a kilo
10 kilos a week
1600 pounds a week
$2932 a week
$152,464 a year

[cleanjar]

Yeah - she looks like she has the operation under-control.......

....

fuckin hell i mite be doin sum of tht in future if its still legal tht is... 150grand cmon thts like a million in 6 and half years!

[cleanjar]

I wouldn't mind being her "assistant" par-say

if i could only raise the money to get there.... i'd be rich. really what would i tell the folks and friends... yeah ... moving cross seas.. going to start a farming business.... imagine that.. leaving here for a better life....

They- The bbc of all media!- sandwiched the admitadley sympathetic article between two pieces on drug addiction and coucelling.
As a psychological technique to bias the news this was crude and very effective. I have started a formal complaint through the BBC concerning this.

I would love to legally sell some of the mushrooms I grow. I am willing to put warning labels on them. What's the problem?

i wonder if Ellen Timiney visits this site.....

Legal mushrooms, Legal peyote, lessening of marijuana penalties...
The UK is sounding pretty sweet.

1804: "I am moving to America so I can farm and have a good life"

2004: "I am moving to Britain so I can farm and have a good life"

[psilly]

I'm not necessarily trying to disagree with any post so far, as there are so many degrees, but I've seen parents who use spanking and hand slaps like a form of conditioned response technique. My old framing boss (a pretty strong guy) would slap his 2 year old's hand every time he tried to take a cookie off the table, to the point he'd cry (and not because he didn't get a cookie). We had an argument about the topic a little while ago because we heard on the radio about how if new laws get passed social services can take kids away from their parents, and he seemed pretty convinced that there is no other way to teach a child right and wrong. The way I see it, kids do as they see others do, not what others say. If you spank a kid for getting into a fight (or any non-violent behaviour for that matter), you're reinforcing their notion that lessons are taught with violence. It also doesn't help when they see the most powerful countries using violence to bring peace to the world.

I totally agree with spanking, and I will do it to my kid if that time comes. My father had the right idea:

-We would take that "long" walk to the basement
-He would get out the board, a thin one that really stung alot
-He would tell me or my brother why he was doing it and how many we would get
-ASS WHACKING!!!
-Before I ran upstairs with my pride hurting more than anything else (but it still hurt, damn I can still remember the "whipping" sound) he would make sure I knew why I was spanked

He told me a few years ago that he never used his hand...(at least on me that I can remember, my brother sometimes needed immediate pursuasion) because he didnt want to associat a physical touch with pain, a tool used to inflict pain was the better way. I totaly agree with spanking a child if done in this way.

By the way, im 22 now, if I remember correctly I did not get spanked after age 9 or 10.

Shrizoomer

[chnop35]

My Dad was a prof prize fighter and never laid a hand on me. On the other hand, my mom used it all:
hitting with wooden spoon till it broke
twisting my lip off
pulling my ear off
surprise slaps and face back-hands
etc.
I never hit my kids. Found other ways to discipline. And its funny, they are doing well. Their grandma lives close by but they don't see her much. Although she doesn't "hit" them, they feel her vibe. Me, I still get an occasional slap! Violence is rampant in this country of ours; why support it?

im in.

swap ya...
I no more want to be a US citizen than you probaably do a British one.
....but extended visits
..the ability to live and work for 3-6 months at a time that sort of thing.
...whats the problem?
...why the red tape?
You guys would dig it over here in small doses I'm sure, just as I enjoy hanging out in the States from time to time.
oh well :-(

<font color="0000ff">