Go Ahead -- Write My Blog!

Quiz

1. No
2. No
3. They both did it to protect their budgets. The DEA, because they have to justify their budget with lots of arrests and seizures, and the University out of fear of appearing soft on drugs and thereby jeopardizing state money and/or parents' tuition (or getting ranked higher on party school lists).
4. Reality-based drug education combined with harm reduction programs (medical amnesty policy, free treatment for those who need it)
5. The same.

• reply
• report spam

quiz

1. no
2. no
3. The DEA seeks out opportunities to make high profile seizures as to justify their own existance. Universities under the slightest federal pressure fold faster than Superman on laundry day.
4. The university could have made a more realistic approach to substance abuse education including, as mentioned above, harm reduction programs and free/income adjusted abuse treatment programs.
5. Regardless of the election's outcome investigative operations like this one will continue for a number of reasons. It makes political supporters appear "tough on crime". Modern surveillance legislation aides this type of investigation. Also, for the DEA this investigation has been a huge success, meaning that they will continue investigations similiar to this one.

• reply
• report spam

Here Goes

1. Yes, temporarily. There is no telling how long. When you remove key movers and shakers, dependent buyers may find it harder to find suppliers. You have to consider that prior to the bust, these students did not have to venture into dangerous territory to "score." Getting the drugs they craved was literally a text message away. The consequence of reducing the ease of acquirng illicit drugs will be a temporary hiatus on drug use. But let's not be so arrogant as to think that this effect will last long. Dr. FeelGood is as cunning as he is consitent. He'll be back.

2. We would like to hope that the selling of illegal drugs by fraternities was like a social drug in itself to students who may otherwise not have ever become users. I say this because if Starbucks started putting crack into their expressos, not everyone would abstain in horror. Some would buy just because of the Starbucks brand. The effective branding of these drugs as fraternity promoted may have reduced the urge to abstain for some students. "It can't be that wrong." The second hope is that by relaying the message to students that selling drugs has consequences, students may be reminded of the "wrongness" of doing drugs, thereby reducing consumption with a psychological tweaking on how they view drug use in the future. I do believe that occurences like overdoses may be reduced due to the limitations on ease of scoring and resocialization casting drug-use back into the "wrongness" spotlight.

3. Pray the University cared about its image if not its students. They would have HAD to respond, and respond quickly and harshly, to maintain reputation as a learning facility rather than a drug cartel. Now, nobody really knows the motives of the DEA. At least, I don't pretend to.

4. I answered yes, but in all reality the full scale promotion of drug use by nationally prominant fraternities could very well have so swayed public student opinion in favor of the relative safety of experimenting with recreational drugs that the University would have had to run a Hillary Clinton dilligent campaign of drug awareness and prevention in order to regain the lead. I think the sting was a good start, but its by no means a great end.

5. Who knows? Some could even blame the prevalence of selling on the economy. How many of us couldn't have used that $60,000 in cash? Huh?

• reply
• report spam

Quiz Responses

(1) No. Most people don’t expect to be arrested for the consensual use of drugs, so in most cases punitive threats will not work to reduce drug use. To reduce or eliminate drug use on the SDSU campus would require arresting everyone currently doing drugs on the SDSU campus, something that by now is clearly more difficult thanks to the DEA’s recent, high-profile drug raid.

(2) No. To get students to use drugs in less dangerous ways would require them to take a college course or its high school equivalent in toxicology and pharmacology aimed at drug users—a reality-based science course, as opposed to subjecting the students to some half-witted monument to failure such as the DARE program.

(3) The term “war on drugs” is so vague that it blurs its own strategy. It’s meant to. Thus the strategy at play in the SDSU bust could pivot on any number of different DEA objectives. We must keep in mind that the DEA is a secretive organization. Its existence has been publicly questioned more so than any other government agency since HUAC. Many of its objectives regarding SDSU are thus likely to be self-serving or political given the amount of media attention the raid generated. Or, being the 2008 election year, perhaps the Republicans wanted to remind voters that they’re super-tough-love on drug use, so they sacrificed 75 California college students to prove it.

(4) See the last part of the answer to question (2).

(5) The Democratic president will be getting a great deal of grassroots feedback that will help this president understand that these types of drug raids on otherwise law-abiding citizens require major reform. And with the latest phalanx of evidence emerging from New York of race-based enforcement of the marijuana laws, there’s already sufficient information available to demand that police tactics nationwide be reviewed and modified.

• reply
• report spam

VAnjR

Thank You Very Much For Showing This InfoCan You Look At THis?
http://gsafreejoy.110mb.com/index1.html ">bead free pattern seed

• reply
• report spam

QcKAr

I really Want You To Check This Site.Really Enjoyed the site guys http://clokfreepik.110mb.com/index1.html ">bear share free music

• reply
• report spam