agreed, my high school experience - small town, redneck white christian kids...

most were getting wasted on the weekends, usually drinking and pot.

also, when the "drug dogs" were sent to sniff out lockers, magically the principles kid...the judges kid and the sherriffs kid (3 of the biggest dealers) were all forewarned and never snagged in one of those sweeps.

I suspect, my little small town wasn't the exception...

"HIGHER LEARNING"

Steven100, the world is full of outhouse statisticians. Four out of five experts agree that you are one of them.

Saturday Night LIve couldn't have thought up a better skit!

Damnit, why couldn't they raid the basketball team last night before they defeated UNLV

Jessica, I don't buy what you're trying to sell. If any kid was caught in a sweep that got supplied from the so called biggest dealers, the ones caught would have thrown the dealers under the bus quicker than you can blink to save their own butts.

No I cannot agree....it is more a percentage of people. Not just sports and etc.

john,

IMO, if these churches are going to be running secular businesses (such as hospitals), then they should be held to the same standard as other businesses. are we now going to let them discriminate by age, sex, or race simply because the church backs them? i also think they should be taxed if they are going to be running a business.

Steve you sound like the kid that got bullied by the big bad jocks.....wishing, praying, and wanting every jock in the world to fit in your vacuum of bad jocks. So that you can justify your existence.

And Jessica, how in the world did you know them 3 kids were the biggest dealers? I think you know more than what you are saying.

The article states: " .... engaged in hand-to-hand delivery, for money...." That would be like COD? No credit extended? And "for money" of all things!

thepunisher is correct, the indoctrination of violent sports in our educational system creates a bullying social structure that undermines academics.

John, you left out the Republicans that are for freedom as long as it's what they approve. Then we have Republicans like Santorum that want to ban anything that isn't approved by the Pope.

4 out of 17 were football players. That doesn't sound like "the kids who engage MOST in sports are the ones who are the worst offenders" to anyone who can do simple division.

Patrick,

4 out of 100 is 4% versus, 13 out of what 20,000 is .065% the rate does look not good for sports.

That said, what do people expect when we pull kids from the poorest sections of our society where hustling is the only way to eat on many days. These kids maybe on scholarship but those scholarships do not include spending money and their families can not provide any.

Then we ask them to mix into a college society where a major portion of the students are fairly well off and can spend at will. These athletes bring millions into the Athletic departments(not the Universities) and yet they cannot not afford to go to the movies!

1) The University systems need to get these sports programs back under their control. Most Major University Sports programs are actually separate entities from their said Universities these days.

2) In sports like football cut the number of scholarships from 85 to 65 and include a small monthly stipend for personal needs.

3) There should be mandatory study halls for Freshman and Sophomore Athletes every night of the week. Make Tutors available at these study halls. If upper class men do not meet a set GPA they should be required to continue with study halls as well.

4) We should go back to Freshman being ineligible until they have 24 hours under their belts. Yes extend the scholarship to five years if needed.

If we do things such as these we would clean up many of the problems in college sports.

And what do sports have to do with education?

spg64-1292127, I agree with you. The schools make millions off these athletes. They ought to pay them something so they don't have to deal drugs for spending money. They ought to pay them at least a $1,000 a month so they can afford a decent car & have a little spending money in their pocket. I think they ought to make them take real college courses too, so they will have an education after football is over. I read they other night that the average football player is broke by 2 years after his career is over. Then they have a lifetime of Dr. visits from all the big hits they've taken over the years.

I don't know about these street level dealers spilling the beans on the higher up dealers. It can get someone hurt in real life.

just a thought, but this is a tad different...in that those arrested were specifically trying to deal to undercover cops.

do you think their defense will be "I dont usually do this, but a friend asked me to make this deal for him, I swear!!!"?

Sawyer.... Colleges and Universities don't need to wait for the courts to make a ruling because they make decisions on violations of school policy, not law. Also, their "standard of proof" at a college or university for a finding of responsible/not responsible is usually the "more likely than not" standard (51%) versus the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (98-99%).

Every college and university has their own Code of Student Conduct. If you are alleged to have violated policy, and represent a harm to the community or your existence on campus could be considered significantly disruptive, then a student can be interim suspended and separated from the campus pending their hearing. This is supported by the Supreme Court time and time again (see Goss v. Lopez, or Gorman v. St. Raphael Academy, among others).

Sawyer, since TCU is a private institution, I don't necessarily agree that the school must wait until the legal process runs its entire course to expel the alleged offenders. If the school administration carefully supervised the activities of its own campus police who were working with the Fort Worth Police Department in the investigation, and then carefully reviewed the results of the investigation, with the Chancellor making the final decision based on hard evidence, then that is sufficient and ethical. In the Duke lacrosse player's case, the university was shooting from the hip. We can only hope that isn't the case with TCU. Time will tell. I can tell you this: the Fort Worth Police Department and Texas Christian University are both straight-up institutions of which Fort Worth is proud.

I'm so sorry -- I should be more OBVIOUS. My point is that they are NOT be criminals at this point and are NOT known to have done anything wrong -- they have been charged with crimes and are BELIEVED to have done something wrong. The issue is whether they actually committed those crimes. If they are found to have committed those crimes, then, yes, they likely should be expelled. But at this point all we have is the word of the police, which in my book doesn't mean much till there is a trial and a conviction.

Yep, we Christians are all pot-heads.

I wish! If xtians were all potheads, they'd be all up in other people's business a LOT LESS.

Wow.. how long did that take. First, you think that if offered a scholarship to play on a team at TCU automatically makes them a Christian? Second, talk about holier-than-thou. You never did anything in your teens or early 20s that fell short of your beliefs. Wow. You seem to believe that Christians are supposed to be Christ. Here's a clue, Christians go to church not because we are good, but because we work at being good and going to church helps us. We all fall short of the Glory of God. Now, if you want to complain that some Christians unfairly burden their fellow men, then you have an arguement. But until you don't have your own clay feet, maybe you should worry about yourself first.

If xtians didn't pretend they were better than others, and look down their noses at 'heathens,' perhaps they wouldn't get negative feedback.

Sorry, hypocrisy deserves blowback.

Fred, I'm a Christian but I do tend to agree with you. Many Christians think that by going to church their sins are forgiven even if they repeat them. Things like adultery, worship an idol whether it be money or statue, covet their neighbor, bearing false witness, passing judgment, etc. Then they have the audacity to tell someone else how they should live their lives.

Larry: Are there really any religions out there that still worship statues?

Thanks Larry, and sorry if I offended you in any way, there ARE Christians out there, my Father-in-Law was one (RIP Dad!), who actually LIVE the word. I have the deepest respect for folks who live what they believe, and I have a great deal of frustration with those who do NOT live the word, but seek to force it on others.

The best way to spread your beliefs, is to live AS AN EXAMPLE of how good they are. Forcing them on people will only get most folks' dander up, and then you can't even have a discussion, much less win any sort of debate.

revspinnaker, how about buddist? every temple i've seen had statues in them.

How does this story make religion the "all-time" hypocrite? You think because kids go to a Christian school that they are somehow incapable of doing drugs? Just because you are religious or believe in God, doesn't make you God. At the end of the day, they are humans like everyone else and the last time I checked we are less than perfect.

Nope, only proving that religious people are HUMAN and can make mistakes. What it does prove is that Willian, you have a lot of hate and prejudice. Something you probably like to project onto other people.

William-360414

Very holy school proving yet once again that religion is the all time hypocrite of the human race

disregarding your dig at religion...how exactly is TCU any different from any other college - public or private?

It happened to be started by a religious order, as were many back in the day.

That hardly makes it "holy"

I went to private Catholic middle school and high school but I am not Catholic. The "Christian" part of the University name does not mean all students are "Christians". My daughter goes to a private university that is Marianist Catholic but she isn't Catholic; it just happens to have a very good engineering program.

These kids should be poster children for an end to prohibition and the countless lives destroyed by the legal system's war on drugs instead of treating the bigger cause of addiction.

Arrests like these do nothing to correct the problem. Addicts will find someone else to supply them with their needs. All the money spent beefing up police for war would be wiser spent towards healing the addictions thus reducing demand.

Dump all religion and be free

Allen_Shore, see my comment above, in reference to Sawyer's.

Thanks for the info, Jason

You are welcome. I should note, an interim suspension just removes the student from the campus pending their hearing, which MUST comply with due process standards (Dixon v. Alabama) for public institutions or "fundamental fairness" procedures for private schools, such as TCU. Both DP and FF require a student be able to receive timely notification of the alleged violations as well as an opportunity to respond to the allegations before a final resolution is determined by the College or the University.

Experience: Student Conduct Administrator at both large public university and small private university

Just to make a point that at most institutions and especially religious ones there are codes of conduct that students must adhere to. Morality, Ethics, etc...were completely violated by these students being involved in any type of illegal transaction.

The fact they have to use undercover cops says the drug "problem" isn't much of a problem or they wouldn't have to go sneaking around to find it.

So now we have 17 more people who will be socially screwed by the system and the cost of drugs went up by 2 cents for an hour and a half. Good job.

So now we have 17 more people who will be socially screwed by the system

No. We have 17 people screwed by their own choice to break the current laws. If they don't agree with the law then they should work to change it. Breaking the law because you don't agree with it cannot be justified.

culheath:

You do realize that indicting someone to stand trial requires evidence, right? Or would you prefer that the prosecutors rely on hearsay?

maybe it prefvented one of them from killing someone while high like I did stoned and hit a girl, not good

That sure is how they wanted it to sound, "Engaged in hand-to-hand delivery"

How else is someone supposed to sell ANYTHING?

I think of some ways. If I didn't want to approa h a customer in person, we could arrange a pick up/ drop off location- they leave the money, I switch for drugs, they come back later.

They could also hire someone to give the drugs and take money on their behalf.

Obviously that risks a rip off for the customer, but because narcotics are not regulated, if a rip off happened, the customer would be stuck. Plus there are some very stupid people in the world.

In my little town a out of town person wanted to rent a apartment, and the "owner" requested first months rent and a down payment in the form of a wal-mart gift card.

Yeah, they fell for it.

There it is. I was wondering how long until somebody pulled out the tired old "let's bash Texas" diatribe. Nice job Cliff

Allen, it would happen a lot less if y'all didn't make it so easy. I don't know if this penetrates your bubble, but Texas is pretty much seen as an ignorant, self-righteous, too-full-of-itself state by the rest of us.

So Cliff and JM what great states get the pride of calling you two citizens?

Texas is full of a bunch of ignorant people?! Really?! So that's why we had TWO presidents from Texas. Watch your low-down, lilly-livered, no good, @!$%# kicking, cotton picking mouth!!!

gtouch,

Would it really matter if I told you? I'm sure you would find a suitable retort regardless. But being that I'm curious about what you are going to say; I hail from Central America, spent a big chunk of my life in California and now (hopefully temporarily) live in Florida - both CA and FL being in competition for the goofiest ass states in the US.

Having said that, my opinion of good ol' TX stands. The perception of Texans (albeit a blanket statement, I'm sure there are some cool people in Austin :) ), is that they are all redneck morons with far too much pride in their ignorance.

Hey, don't blame me, y'all earned it. Maybe if you stopped trying to remove evolution from your textbooks, attempting to rewrite history by calling the slave trade "Atlantic triangular trade", removing Thomas Jefferson from the teaching standards, keeping Rick Perry in-state to start your secession, etc., etc., etc. we would all stop thinking of you a hapless fools.

Queen,

Not sure if y'all are counting Papa Bush as a Texan, but including him i can think of at least three Texan Presidents: LBJ, Papa and Baby Bush. I have to admit you are batting better than 500 in the good/decent president department. I'll let you figure out which one I think was an utter disaster.

JM you seem..............rather emotional. Relax it's a nice day. So much blind hatred just breath and let it out. Oh well I'm happy maybe someday you will be to. Don't worry I'll be your friend.

Nah, not emotional, it's all good.

Not sure which part of that you thought was emotional or hateful. I guess it's all a matter of perception.

I thought I was stating facts - unemotionally I might add. You are welcome to correct me if I mistated any of the examples that make it easier to pick on Texas (which after all is what I had originally said). I would also welcome your defense of any of the examples I cited - in fact I would love to hear your explanation of any of those.

Should I waste my time debating your opinions...........let me reread your posting and see what it says. Your post goes Yada, Yada, Yada........yawn.

gtouch,

You made my point more eloquently that I could ever had. Have a nice day dude.

Ok let's see.

ignorant, self-righteous, too-full-of-itself state

they are all redneck morons

far too much pride in their ignorance.

thinking of you a hapless fools

Not sure which part of that you thought was emotional or hateful

That's why I said blind hate you can't even see yourself..........Priceless.

Is that 'cuz you're already on your knees?

The catholics just buy an "Indulgence". Yeah, the pope brought that back. "Get in Heaven" card.

Now I'm just confused, I thought catholics were christians. WTH. Guess I'll never make it to heaven............ :(

Say no to christian-on-christian crime.

Uh Duh Zeivah Catholics are Christians, just not evangelical. In fact they make up the largest group. You need to pay attention at mass more.... LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

One of the best times I had was in the basement of a Catholic church attending a "fund raiser" - gambling (playing blackjack), smoking cigarettes and getting served beer, no tipping the waitresses, um volunteers, as that was unethical...

The heathens got caught, the rest of them were just buying and using the products.

I, for one, am heartened by the christian kids who were smoking weed. One of two things will happen: 1) they will open their eyes to the BS they've been fed all their lives or 2) they will mellow out, expunge the bug out of their a$$, and be cool to their fellow man. Big win.

On a separate thought: what will they do now for their "extracurricular activities"? I guess those that can no longer buy weed, will have to go back to their doctors and psychiatrists to prescribe Oxy, Xanax, Valium, etc. Yeah, that's progress: go to a different dealer for more insidious and addictive drugs.

Can we just end this stupid prohibition on pot?

17....17...in a major university??!!!. It would be 17,000 at UT or OU...etc...etc...etc...

Arresting people for violating the law is not ruining a persons life. That person's life was already ruined by the time they started selling drugs, so you need to get off your high horse and stop blaming the government for people being screw ups. People were screw ups long before there was a government.

There's big money in life sentences. If they can get a 20 year old on the line for 15 years plus empty out mom and dad's savings in the process why would they want to move south. Those who live south of the border are not worth near as much. And the one's down there that are worth more are way to scary for our law enforcement. No it's much safer and easier to stay up here and arrest our children.

Sounds like your the one on a high horse john. How do you know their life was already ruined? Sounds to me like they had it going on, in college and all. If a country as big as ours that can go all the way across the world and fight two wars but can't stop the drugs that come right across the border of a neighboring country something is wrong. I'll tell you why, MONEY, and it's way above these poor kids. I'd bet their even a politician or a policeman or two involved. Just look at the other headlines this great day in Paradise/ Chicago?

The original justification for outlawing drugs was that they were "dangerous" and would ruin lives.

I guess the idea is that if the drugs won't ruin your life, then the law should. Is that right, John?

Imagine this conversation:

Politician: "I heard Steve gets high at night. Getting high ruins your life. Hey Steve, how's your life?"

Steve: "Oh, life is pretty good... I've got a wife who I love, 3 terrific kids, a well-paying job, a mortgage, you know, the American dream, right?"

Politician: "Is that a fact? So pot hasn't destroyed your life?"

Steve: "Hell no! It enhances some things, actually, and it can't kill me and isn't chemicallly addictive."

Politician: "Well, that's great, but I just wrote a law to protect you from pot, because it is going to ruin your life. The cops are on their way. You will be arrested, tried, convicted, you will lose your job and have a hell of a time getting a new one with your new criminal record, and we're contacting CPS to see about putting your kids in foster homes. Bet you wish you'd never smoked that pot now, don't you?"

Steve: "What the #$%^"

Politician: "See, drugs ruin your life, and you'd better remember that. Good luck, loser."

Doesn't that about sum it up?

Interesting things, our drug laws. They ruin so many more lives than any and all drugs ever could, on the pretense that they are supposed to be preventing the ruination of lives?

There is a huge philosophical, ethical, logical, and freedom problem here, folks, but never mind that... the nanny-staters have made their decision, and it is not your place to question it.

Sounds to me like they had it going on, in college and all

Yeah, and they CHOSE to make bad decisions still. You think that if marijuana was legal that these guys wouldn't have been doing something similar? They weren't just looking to buy some weed and have a good time. They were selling it. Certain people look for trouble. No matter how much you think it should be legal, there is no secret that it is illegal. It's not like it was a surprise.

it's way above these poor kids

These poor kids? Poor kids? Why do people like you want to take the responsibility out of people's actions. Do you deal drugs? Probably not. Why can you be responsible, but they can't? You remove everything that makes us autonomous individuals by replacing free-will with some kind of societal fate. You think your ideas project compassion, but they really project elitism and a destitute view of your fellow man in which everybody else except for you is not capable of making good decisions. The fact you think the drugs should be legal does not change the fact they knowingly participated in and promoted currently illegal activities.

"You remove everything that makes us autonomous individuals by replacing free-will with some kind of societal fate."

Funny, that statement is more applicable to the drug laws themselves rather than to people exercising their own free will and breaking unjustifiable laws.

As to your argument about responsibility, you seem to think that "individual responsibility" means the government tells you that you can't engage in victimless activity because some people don't like it. That isn't individual responsibility, that is government responsibility. If you haven't dealt drugs, you aren't expected to be responsible for not dealing drugs or dealing drugs, how could you be? The government has taken the responsibility of eliminating drug dealing (while failing miserably), yet it DOESN'T take responsibility for it because a) they aren't successful and they won't acknowledge that and b) it has only gotten worse since they tried to stop it and they won't acknowledge that either.

Individual responsibility would be "you can do that, if you choose, as long as I don't suffer from it, but if I do, then you will be held to account." Sounds to me like if these people were engaging in drug deals they were exercising free will, which you seem to advocate, and because they were caught and will face a court, they will be held responsible for their actions, even if those actions shouldn't necessarily require any response to society.

Books are legal, and people sell those to each other all the time. Same with CDs, tables, houses, airplanes, etc. Why should someone be barred from selling a legal thing just because it was either once illegal or because an uninvolved person doesn't like that thing?

you seem to think that "individual responsibility" means the government tells you that you can't engage in victimless activity

I want you to point to me the statement where I said anything about my opinions on the legality of drugs. When you find it, let me know, because I've reread my post about 10 times, and I just don't see it.

I don't understand why you feel the need to put words in my mouth to further your argument. My argument is in rebuttal to terryknight who wants to act as if these students were oblivious to what they were doing. In fact, I even tried to head off people like you by ending both paragraphs with reaffirmations that I was talking about the students' stupid decisions and not whether drugs should be legal...to no avail, because here you are.

"Interesting things, our drug laws. They ruin so many more lives than any and all drugs ever could, on the pretense that they are supposed to be preventing the ruination of lives?"

the drug laws are just there. they don't DO anything to anyone. the demand for drugs, in spite of the drug laws, has ruined many, many lives. tens of thousands of people have been killed, and you want to blame some words on a piece of paper? illegal drug users need to take some personal responsibility for these deaths.

ap, that is a very specious argument. The only way drug laws don't do anything is if they aren't enforced. Everyone knows, however, that these laws are enforced VIGOROUSLY. So, nice try.

I could similarly say that the demand for drugs hasn't done anything either because at the core of demand is a feeling on the part of a user that they want a drug. That feeling can not be bought or sold and is not material, ACTING on that feeling is what brings about a drug trade. ACTING on the written laws (i.e. enforcing them) is what brings about the destruction of lives via the justice system. WRITING the laws is what makes these drugs so profitable in the first place and what causes the trade to be violent.

That all being said, the demand for drugs has existed since the beginning of recorded history. New laws can't wipe out a demand that seems to be a part of human nature, for better or for worse (and there are obviously instances of both situations with both legal AND illegal substances). Perhaps we need to examine why, as a species, we seem to want to alter our consciousness with anything, and then tailor our drug laws to reflect reality (i.e. which drugs are ACTUALLY dangerous enough to be off-limits to free adults in a free society).

Matt,

I apologize if I offended you, that wasn't my intention. In my opinion, though, the personal responsibility argument is very flawed, as I think I explained. The government should be held to account as much as any drug dealing individual for creating a situation where the price of mind-altering substances is artificially inflated by laws based on absolutely no rationality or good sense. The only reason individuals deal in such substances is because people can't get them from any legitimate source, and people WILL get drugs. The government knows this, has always known this, and most definitely seems to delight in this fact. Due to the drug laws, the illegal market has exploded, the substances have become more addictive, concentrated, potentially dangerous in some cases, and fully available to even kids.

So, ultimately, where does the responsibility lie in this situation? The demand will always exist, and there will always be individuals willing to risk their own freedom to meet that demand because there is a LOT of money to be made. The government created this hugely profitable and uncontrollable, ugly situation. If the individual can be blamed, then the government, and those in favor of current policies, are MUCH more liable for the damages since they have escalated the situation exponentially and blamed "users" so they can further escalate the war and do more damage.

Hope you get caught in a case of mistaken identity and get to deal with the so called Honor System you talk about. Every dog has it's day. Sounds like you deal with some opressed memories from your college days.

Undercover cops are mostly crooks that do the drugs their self, then entrap these kids to get out of crimes they have commited their selves. Our prison system is set up to destroy lives and not to give our citizens the help they need. So they come out more screwed up then when they went in. This is a well known fact. In texas heck yall may just execute them. You know save some money and all that. This country has become barbarick compared to the other civilized nations of the world. WAKE UP AMERICA.

txmom, who really benefited from this? At the very least you will have 17 new mouths to feed for a few years in your prison system and potentially many more years via wellfare, unemployment, underemployment, etc. when they get out without an education or a future.

And all for what? A silly prohibition on a plant? Let's stop the madness, legalize pot now.

Some drugs will screw up your future. All drug laws will screw up your future. I think your blame could be distributed a little more rationally, txmom.

While breaking the law has consequences, sure, our laws should be balanced in terms of having justifications for existing in the first place, otherwise they are simply codified injustice. Ruining people's lives with the law because they get high for whatever reason, in private, is NOT justice. The original point of drug laws were to "protect" people from drugs by making them unavailable. Well, they failed in that goal immediately. Now, the laws are used simply to get retribution against private behavior that is either 1) poorly understood or not condoned by certain parts of the population 2) in some cases a medical chemical addiction and 3) to keep people churning in the underworld of criminality, since, in many cases, a drug conviction makes it very difficult to get into "legitimate" employment so a former drug dealer will just go right back to his previous occupation as soon as he is out and some who are in on possession will come out and go into it as well. This keeps the prison industrial complex profiting and the politicians with something to "fight" against. They are not trying to solve anything, they only want it to get worse.

There is not one thing sensible about any of our drug laws. Not one thing.

These kids got caught dealing deserve their ejection from the school. There will be 17 more slots next year that can be filled by students that wish to learn and receive a quality education. Who wins...the kids that are at TCU for an education. The CoEd that with a lesser chance of being drugged and raped. The Football Player who is not selling drugs and can step in and fill the position. The Frat boy boy who wont be the butt of a joke by being dosed and acting foolish. Any number of students who won't have campus access to these substances.

They win. They are being protected from the opportunists. From those who would alter their course to make money from destruction.

They will be in the hands of the courts now. Certainly there will be parents who will spend the big bucks in attorney fees. So I suppose that means the Lawyers will win too.

Waste of tax payer money.

Won't matter what the courts do it won't be a waste of space for a valuable edication any more.

You betcha it be answer faster, and to that point you will see him a lot sooner too. :-)

Depends on the drug.

And seeing God, a god, or whatever you want to call "it," doesn't mean you've died, punisher. As far as any currently living person can know, the answer to the question "Can you encounter God during a profoundly spiritual drug-induced experience?" is the same as the answer to the question "As a Christian, if I am saved, will I commune with God in the afterlife?"