A DRUG-FREE BERKELEY

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.org.