A truly stupid law..

[Eaglesfan27]

The following is an email I received from one of my best friends and professional colleagues. I usually don't participate in political debates, and I'm not looking to start one here, although that may happen as a result. I just believe they are some people on this message board who would share the view of both me and my friend on this issue who might not know about this issue and might want to make their voice heard. Thanks for taking the time to read this thread as it is a long first post. Please note that I copied the email verbatim except for formatting and switching the http to hxxp.



Please give this a minute of your time. It truly is a
stupid law.

Jeff
Dear Click Back America Members,

The 'Drug Provision' of the Higher Education Act is possibly the right wing's worst direct assault on America's students. It's an amendment to the Higher Education Act that strips all federal education assistance, (including all loans and all work-study funds) from any student with any drug-related conviction. This includes non-violent, first-time misdemeanor marijuana possession, which is the most common drug conviction in America.
To date, the 'Drug Provision' has denied 153,000 students affordable college education, and deterred countless thousands more from even applying. And now the Bush administration has chosen to vigorously expand enforcement, ensuring many more will be locked out of a better, more productive life.
Our education is being sacrificed to score points for a conservative
agenda because they don't think students have the power to fight back.

This is our chance to prove them wrong:

hxxp://www.clickbackamerica.org/petition1.php?id=24

Together with the NAACP and the ACLU, Click Back America is committed to getting the 'Drug Provision' repealed. Because the Higher Education Act is up for renewal, the next few weeks are the best chance we've had in five years to get Congress to take action on this issue. This is more than a petition, it's a campaign. We'll deliver your signatures to the most critical members of Congress. As the issue unfolds, we'll stay in touch and let you know when your specific representatives need to hear from you directly, and what else you can do to help.

hxxp://www.clickbackamerica.org/petition1.php?id=24

Here are just a few of the reasons to oppose the 'Drug Provision':

1) It slams the door on students struggling to use education to build a better life. That increases the likelihood of repeat offenses and more serious crimes.

2) All students covered by the "drug provision" have already been punished by a judge who had the option of withholding educational assistance. That means the "drug provision" only actually affects students in cases where judges have decided NOT to cut these funds, usurping the role of the courts and virtually guarantees that the law is only applied in cases where it is NOT appropriate.

3) It primarily hurts the poor - wealthier students are less likely to be convicted of drug offenses, and can attend college even without the federal aid if necessary.

4) Drug convictions fall disproportionately on racial minorities, and this law transfers that well documented discrimination into educational access and the chance for a better future.

5) The 'Drug Provision' has resulted in absolutely no measurable reduction in drug use among any segment of the population.

So far, hundreds of thousands of students have been denied an education so that the Bush administration can score political points with their conservative base. It's time we took our future back.

Please sign the petition, and pass it on.


hxxp://www.clickbackamerica.org/petition1.php?id=24

Thanks for all you do,

Ben Brandzel
Click Back America

[Huckleberry]

I just believe they are some people on this message board who would share the view of both myself and my friend

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

As for a response that actually contributes to the topic, I have nothing.

[Eaglesfan27]

Fixed (I think) ;)

[Cuckoo]

I have no problem with this. It's called responsibility, and if one takes their education seriously (as the Federal government should have a vested interest in making sure that they do), they should avoid illegal activities while receiving Federal assistance. Doesn't seem too hard to me.

[CraigSca]

Yeah, kinda stinks for the people that lose out, but I have some advice for them - "don't break the law".

[Subby]

Yeah, kinda stinks for the people that lose out, but I have some advice for them - "don't break the law".Maybe, just maybe...not everyone is blessed with your ability to make all the right decisions in life.

(Effectively) blocking someone's access to higher education because they got busted on a misdemeanor pot posession is not only punishment in the extreme, it is also short-sighted.

The more college educated citizens this country has, the better.

[Cuckoo]

Maybe, just maybe...not everyone is blessed with your ability to make all the right decisions in life.

(Effectively) blocking someone's access to higher education because they got busted on a misdemeanor pot posession is not only punishment in the extreme, it is also short-sighted.

The more college educated citizens this country has, the better.

I still don't see what's so wrong with accountability. Actions have repercussions. Mistakes have consequences. Of course I'd love for more people to have college educations, but I would think that we should have an interest in making sure that those who receive Federal aid to attend college are committed to that pursuit and paying back the money they borrow. Convicted drug use is a strong indicator that an individual lacks that commitment. Is it always the case? Of course not, but I don't see anything wrong with drawing a line for a Federally funded program.

[Glengoyne]

I think Cuckoo has a point. Personal responsibility seems to be understressed today.

I don't think these 153,000 students were denied an education. I think 153,000 students screwed up.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[Huckleberry]

Tough situation. A 14 year old kid that lacks the power at that age to say no to his peers might deserve another chance. A 20 year old already in college probably should have his funding yanked.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have no problem with this. It's called responsibility, and if one takes their education seriously (as the Federal government should have a vested interest in making sure that they do), they should avoid illegal activities while receiving Federal assistance. Doesn't seem too hard to me.

Give that man a cee-gar.

[Huckleberry]

I have no problem with this. It's called responsibility, and if one takes their education seriously (as the Federal government should have a vested interest in making sure that they do), they should avoid illegal activities while receiving Federal assistance. Doesn't seem too hard to me.

Wait, I read the information to mean that if I have a conviction in my past, I'm ineligible to receive future funding. That's the only aspect I have a problem with, and only in certain circumstances.

[John Galt]

Why don't we just kill them? That holds people accountable and responsible for their actions.

[Cuckoo]

Tough situation. A 14 year old kid that lacks the power at that age to say no to his peers might deserve another chance. A 20 year old already in college probably should have his funding yanked.

I don't disagree with this. There probably should be some distinction made between circumstances and severity of the offense. I would assume though, that the problem with that is the establishment of the oversight authority would be such an undertaking that would pull a tremendous amount of money from the program, making it far easier and cheaper to establish a no tolerance policy. While I would feel for someone who lost the ability to receive Federal aid because of a stupid teenage mistake, I think that the Federal interest in creating that policy far outweighs that.

[Cuckoo]

Why don't we just kill them? That holds people accountable and responsible for their actions.

John, John, John... I find it funny when you act the way you condemn others for acting.

[John Galt]

John, John, John... I find it funny when you act the way you condemn others for acting.

I don't condemn people for asking appropriate questions.

When someone is saying the punishment is too severe and the response is that it teaches responsibility, it is appropriate to ask what "too severe" is. Foreclosing someone's education because of drug bust is not only too severe, it is counterproductive. But I guess it makes people feel good that they sent a message and taught responsibility (even when it doesn't decrease drug use).

[Subby]

I completely agree with the personal responsibility argument, but too often people stick that argument out there because they can't muster up any compassion for someone who made a poor decision.

I think it is important to point out that the funding doesn't get yanked for breaking "any" law...just certain drug laws. Does that include underage drinking? Reckless driving? Public drunkenness?

College age kids are at a tough age. They are still *kids*. Expecting them to all of a sudden act like mature, responsible adults is just not realistic. Not to say that there aren't a large number of kids that are very mature...but that still leaves hundreds of thousands that are prone to poor-decision making.

Punish them, fine...but effectively removing their access to higher education seems short-sighted and unbelievably harsh to me.

[gstelmack]

The more college educated citizens this country has, the better.
The only reason I come close to agreeing with this is because of the poor job this country does educating its high school citizens. Not everyone needs or should go to college. For lots of jobs, a high school education *should* be sufficient. For many others, a vocational education is the correct route. I'd much rather see us focus on improving the high school educational experience so that colleges can focus on teaching kids that need that level of education and WANT that level of education.

Right now you only need a college education because a high school diploma has been so watered down that employers are looking at college degrees the same way they used to look at diplomas. A high school diploma really needs to be worth more than it is now. And a college degree often isn't enough, you also need some job experience (co-op, internship, etc) to separate yourself from the pack who just have the degrees.

We're suffering from education inflation here...

[Cuckoo]

I don't condemn people for asking appropriate questions.

When someone is saying the punishment is too severe and the response is that it teaches responsibility, it is appropriate to ask what "too severe" is. Foreclosing someone's education because of drug bust is not only too severe, it is counterproductive. But I guess it makes people feel good that they sent a message and taught responsibility (even when it doesn't decrease drug use).

No, you condemn people for making outlandish statements that drastically exaggerate the positions of others in order to make some sort of point. You can say that you feel like the punishment is too severe without doing it in such an inflammatory way, and that's exactly what I've seen you condemn other people for doing many times on this board.

[dacman]

What's stupid about this law is not that it witholds aid from drug convicts, it's the the question is entirely self-reporting. Have a drug conviction, but still want aid? Just say no (har, har). Financial aid administrators have no way of knowing or determining if you're lying. In fact, in order to have your aid revoked/witheld, after answering that you do have a drug conviction, you fill out a worksheet to determine if the conviction is "resolved." If it is, you still get aid and again financial aid administrators have no way of determining if your lying at this step either. I have no doubt that many students are initially honest about their drug convictions, but then lie on the worksheet when they discover federal aid will be witheld. THAT's what so stupid about this law.

[rkmsuf]

You don't have to go to college. This isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia.

[Subby]

We're suffering from education inflation here... While that is probably an argument for another thread, I would just point out that as it currently stands you have an infinitely better chance of being successful in this country if you receive your college education.

And I just don't see the argument that a citizenry that can read, write and think critically (skills you learn in college) is bad for a country at any level...

[dacman]

So far, hundreds of thousands of students have been denied an education so that the Bush administration can score political points with their conservative base. It's time we took our future back.

Please sign the petition, and pass it on.
Ben Brandzel
Click Back America

The last reauthorization went into effect when some guy named Clinton was in office, so you can blow it out your ass Mr. Brandzel (or whoever you are).

[Cuckoo]

I completely agree with the personal responsibility argument, but too often people stick that argument out there because they can't muster up any compassion for someone who made a poor decision.

I think it is important to point out that the funding doesn't get yanked for breaking "any" law...just certain drug laws. Does that include underage drinking? Reckless driving? Public drunkenness?

College age kids are at a tough age. They are still *kids*. Expecting them to all of a sudden act like mature, responsible adults is just not realistic. Not to say that there aren't a large number of kids that are very mature...but that still leaves hundreds of thousands that are prone to poor-decision making.

Punish them, fine...but effectively removing their access to higher education seems short-sighted and unbelievably harsh to me.

I actually don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying here. Often times, people with less tolerant approaches to solving difficult problems are labelled as having no compassion, and maybe that's true in some situations. I really do have a tremendous amount of compassion for people who are consistently hounded in their lives by past mistakes that can't ever be overcome because I have personal experience with it.

I also agree that, from what I've read (admittedly not a great deal) on this portion of the law, there are "holes" in the law and things that need to be addressed. Where I disagree with you is that, in my mind, the logic is sound, not necessarily from a punitive standpoint but from the interest of the Federal government. Far too often, our government makes little effort to monitor the effectiveness of the investments it makes. In this case, I see a tremendous responsibility on the part of the government to screen, sometimes harshly, those it lends thousands and thousands of dollars.

[John Galt]

No, you condemn people for making outlandish statements that drastically exaggerate the positions of others in order to make some sort of point. You can say that you feel like the punishment is too severe without doing it in such an inflammatory way, and that's exactly what I've seen you condemn other people for doing many times on this board.

No, I didn't exaggerate the positions of others. I asked how much is too much in a pointed fashion. Unlike those I condem, I never said anyone else made that argument (and then answered it). I posed a question that still hasn't been answered - how much is too much?

Does it make sense that a poor 13 year old who is passed a joint from a friend, gets busted, loses the ability to go to college (especially when the judge had the discretion to revoke educational benefits and didn't)? Teaching responsibility and accountability to the youth of America is great, but doing in it a way that ignores the specifics of the cases and forecloses a lot of their future options is just short-sighted. Treating a 13 year old as an adult and punishing them for life because a childhood mistake is just dumb.

Of course, if Bush were busted as a child, his daddy would have still paid his way through Yale.

[gstelmack]

College age kids are at a tough age. They are still *kids*. Expecting them to all of a sudden act like mature, responsible adults is just not realistic. Not to say that there aren't a large number of kids that are very mature...but that still leaves hundreds of thousands that are prone to poor-decision making.
So do we also take away their right to vote? If they aren't responsible enough to make good decisions, why are we giving them the keys to the country?

Heck, there are plenty of 30+ year olds with poor decision making processes. Do they get a free ride as well?

[John Galt]

Far too often, our government makes little effort to monitor the effectiveness of the investments it makes. In this case, I see a tremendous responsibility on the part of the government to screen, sometimes harshly, those it lends thousands and thousands of dollars.

What does this have to do with the effectiveness of the investment? I've known plenty of underage drug experimenters who graduated with a 4.0. Why not let the academic record speak instead of a childhood mistake?

[dacman]

Does it make sense that a poor 13 year old who is passed a joint from a friend, gets busted, loses the ability to go to college (especially when the judge had the discretion to revoke educational benefits and didn't)?

OK, enough of that crap. It does not apply if you're a minor convict. The slate is clean in regards to this law when you hit 18, so you'd have to be an ADULT convict. Clear everyone?

edit: your, you're, yore, blah!

[gstelmack]

While that is probably an argument for another thread, I would just point out that as it currently stands you have an infinitely better chance of being successful in this country if you receive your college education.
Agreed, which is why I said the current state of things is the only reason I agreed with your original contention. Doesn't mean it's a good state that we can't correct.

And I just don't see the argument that a citizenry that can read, write and think critically (skills you learn in college) is bad for a country at any level...
You are supposed to be able to read, write, and think critically when you graduate from high school. College is supposed to expand your knowledge beyond these basic concepts (teach you computer science, for example). The fact that we have students graduating from high school who can't read, write, or think critically is absolutely appalling to me.

[heybrad]

I'm puzzled by the fact that some think that if the government wont pay for college it essentially closes the door to higher eductation for them.

[Cuckoo]

What does this have to do with the effectiveness of the investment? I've known plenty of underage drug experimenters who graduated with a 4.0. Why not let the academic record speak instead of a childhood mistake?


And I'm sure there are many people who declare bankruptcy once and then have a stellar credit rating from that point on, but that doesn't mean that banks shouldn't be hesitant about lending them large amounts of money in the future.

[John Galt]

OK, enough of that crap. It does not apply if you're a minor convict. The slate is clean in regards to this law when you hit 18, so you'd have to be an ADULT convict. Clear everyone?

edit: your, you're, yore, blah!

That isn't my understanding of the law - do you have a cite?

[John Galt]

I'm puzzled by the fact that some think that if the government wont pay for college it essentially closes the door to higher eductation for them.

It does for some people.

And it makes it much, much harder for others.

[John Galt]

And I'm sure there are many people who declare bankruptcy once and then have a stellar credit rating from that point on, but that doesn't mean that banks shouldn't be hesitant about lending them large amounts of money in the future.

Where is the evidence that a one time drug offender is more likely to fail out or default on their federal loans (isolating for the normal control variables)?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why don't we just kill them? That holds people accountable and responsible for their actions.

Which is one reason I've long advocated capital punishment following a 2nd drug offense.

[heybrad]

It does for some people.

And it makes it much, much harder for others.
I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say it does, but as far as making it harder for others, well, yes, making bad decisions in your life can have a tendency to force you to face some additional obstacles.

[dacman]

That isn't my understanding of the law - do you have a cite?


http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/FOTWWebApp/fotw0405/WorksheetServlet?wstype=Q31

[Subby]

So do we also take away their right to vote? If they aren't responsible enough to make good decisions, why are we giving them the keys to the country?

Heck, there are plenty of 30+ year olds with poor decision making processes. Do they get a free ride as well? Greg - I don't think I am advocating a free ride here. A person arrested and convicted of drug posession still pays a penalty. My point is that it doesn't make sense to me to pile on like that when it is very possible that as punishment, the thing you are taking away (access to higher education) could be one of the things that helps that kid long-term...

And don't get me started on irresponsible thirty-year olds. If you want to start a thread about tax-credits for sterilization then we can talk ;)

[John Galt]

Which is one reason I've long advocated capital punishment following a 2nd drug offense.

Cuckoo - now you can't even accuse me of making a strawman.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And I just don't see the argument that a citizenry that can read, write and think critically (skills you learn in college) is bad for a country at any level...

And, on a daily basis, I see very little proof that this skill set is being taught in college either. Or, if it is being "taught", it isn't being "learned".

[Cuckoo]

Where is the evidence that a one time drug offender is more likely to fail out or default on their federal loans (isolating for the normal control variables)?

Seems like logic to me. If it's my money (which it is if we're talking about tax money), I'm going to be very strict about who I lend it to.

[Cuckoo]

Cuckoo - now you can't even accuse me of making a strawman.


:D

[John Galt]

http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/FOTWWebApp/fotw0405/WorksheetServlet?wstype=Q31

That makes it a little better (although the tried as an adult exception is overused in a lot of jurisdictions). I still stand against the law, but at least it isn't overly punishing childhood mistakes.

[John Galt]

Seems like logic to me. If it's my money (which it is if we're talking about tax money), I'm going to be very strict about who I lend it to.

Still no evidence. Drug use is very common in America among 18 year olds. Only a small number are busted. Why suspend their educational access if they are doing well in school (and the judge in their case didn't see reason to suspend their loans)?

[Eaglesfan27]

OK, enough of that crap. It does not apply if you're a minor convict. The slate is clean in regards to this law when you hit 18, so you'd have to be an ADULT convict. Clear everyone?

edit: your, you're, yore, blah!

This wasn't my understanding of the law either. I read the rest of this thread and saw your link. Even if it only applies to those over 18 or convicted as adults, should an 18 year old who makes a mistake and gets caught with a joint be barred from higher education?

As far as needing financial aid to go to college, I know most lower socioeconomic classes cannot afford to sent their children to college. I never would have gone to college or medical school without scholarships and loans because my family was too poor to afford to aid me.

[Subby]

Which is one reason I've long advocated capital punishment following a 2nd drug offense. Jon - Sometimes I think you might benefit from the occasional use of recreational drugs.

:)

[Eaglesfan27]

Still no evidence. Drug use is very common in America among 18 year olds. Only a small number are busted. Why suspend their educational access if they are doing well in school (and the judge in their case didn't see reason to suspend their loans)?

This post brings up my biggest criticism of this law. Why take the discretion away from the judge? In serious drug offenses, the judge can choose to apply this penalty. However, this law applies it to everyone convicted of any drug offense, even in cases where it is not appropriate.

[Bee]

I'm in favor of requiring a drug conviction before providing financial aid to college students.

[heybrad]

Am I the only person on the planet who has put themselves through school?

[John Galt]

Am I the only person on the planet who has put themselves through school?

I did (with a scholarship and work), but I don't think everyone can.

[heybrad]

I did (with a scholarship and work), but I don't think everyone can.
Outside of the main issue of this thread (sorry to threadjack here), buy why? Who cant (at the very least) afford a couple years of community college and get themselves an AA?

[Eaglesfan27]

Am I the only person on the planet who has put themselves through school?

If someone takes out loans and pays them back, aren't they putting themselves through school?

I would have had to work for about 15 years (subtracting living expenses and assuming I could have gotten a 20,000 dollar a year job after college) to save up enough money to go to medical school and pay for it (and living expenses.) Since, I took out loans and am now paying them back, does that mean I didn't put myself through school?

[Subby]

Outside of the main issue of this thread (sorry to threadjack here), buy why? Who cant (at the very least) afford a couple years of community college and get themselves an AA? I think it is a mistake to make the assumption "because I did it, anyone should be able to do it." Applying your personal experiences when judging others or making policy is problematic because that leaves you with such a small sample set of experience from which to draw.

Plus, I have seen your pictures...you're a freakin' super-hero ;)

[kcchief19]

Interesting topic. Couple of points:

* On the issue of access, the law does not DENY access to higher education, it simply makes an individual ineligible for federal financial assistance. That maybe a hindrance, but it is not a denial of access.

*I think Subby makes an excellent point in that this law seems to unfairly target drug crimes. I believe that a felony conviction bars receipients of fiancial aid, and that seems to be a fair barrier. A higher standard including convictions of a lesser degree isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you have to wonder the fairness of including drug-related crimes but not including other crimes. You can get busted for prostitution, vandalism, or driving your car 120 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood and that has not impact on your financial aid standing?

Personally, I think the law is indeed flawed as described. It would be more fair to either exclude drug-related crimes or include all other crimes.

[ageofquarrel]

Just wondering can you get finacial aid, if convicted of drunken driving? Not that I have or anything.

[Glengoyne]

Why don't we just kill them? That holds people accountable and responsible for their actions.Wait wait.






Is that a slippery slope?


Edit: I typed that too fast. I think it actually looks more like a straw man. I can't believe I dropped the ball on that one.

[judicial clerk]

-I am generally against this law for reasons stated by kcchief and would add a couple of things.

-I don't necessarily buy the argument that the decision to withold aid for school should be taken away from judges. I have never heard of a judge addressing any offenders access to schooling or financial aid (federal or otherwise). The only thing even remotely close to this is the judge offering the offender some kind of reduced sentence conditioned on the offender finishing school. Myabe this is a federal court thing, though.

-Generally, I would like to encourage drug offenders to attend college. "Education... the anti-drug"

-i do understand that we are talking about a finite amount of money, and so I want it to go to the most qualified applicants. Criminal record is a legitimate criteria, but it should not be the end all beat all. If all the money gets used up by kids who have shown that they are more deserving by, amiong other things, not breaking the law, then that is fine.

-I would think that crimes involving dishonesty (theft, fraud, etc.) would be a better criteria than drug based offenses.

-I would prefer to see the government focus on crimes against children, rather than drug crimes. Parents not paying child support or non-custodial parents kidnapping their kid, child abuse, neglect, etc.. If we could put a dent in these crimes, you will have less people (young adults) turning to drugs "parents ... the anti-drug"

[digamma]

Am I the only person on the planet who has put themselves through school?
No. I did through a combination of public and private financial aid (or scholarships) and public and private loans--which brings me to my question...does this preclude federal student loans as well?

[John Galt]

Wait wait.






Is that a slippery slope?


Edit: I typed that too fast. I think it actually looks more like a straw man. I can't believe I dropped the ball on that one.

You are SOOOOO behind in this thread - see Cuckoo (and then Joninmiddlega above). ;)

[Surtt]

What if you don't inhale?

Ex-President Clinton experimented with pot.
Not that anyone has accused him of good judgment in his personal life.

[John Galt]

No. I did through a combination of public and private financial aid (or scholarships) and public and private loans--which brings me to my question...does this preclude federal student loans as well?

Yes, it precludes federal student loans (and any loans you have are no longer deferred and require immediate repayment).

[Qwikshot]

What if you don't inhale?

Ex-President Clinton experimented with pot.
Not that anyone has accused him of good judgment in his personal life.
I think this applies only if you are caught.

[Surtt]

I think this applies only if you are caught.

As for the merits of the law, no it doesn't.
The law is to deter people from using drug, not getting caught using drugs.
Ideally every one would be caught.

[Huckleberry]

As for the merits of the law, no it doesn't.

They ask you if you have any drug-related convictions, right? Not if you have ever possessed or distributed illegal drugs.

[yabanci]

notice how this doesn't apply to the illegal use of alcohol. Obviously the weed lobby doesn't line their pockets like the alcohol lobby does.

[Cuckoo]

As for the merits of the law, no it doesn't.
The law is to deter people from using drug, not getting caught using drugs.
Ideally every one would be caught.

People keep saying this, but my understanding of the law (or at least my justification of it) is that it has very little to do with discouraging drug use but rather protecting an investment the Federal government is making with my tax money in a person with questionable decision-making abilities.

[Surtt]

People keep saying this, but my understanding of the law (or at least my justification of it) is that it has very little to do with discouraging drug use but rather protecting an investment the Federal government is making with my tax money in a person with questionable decision-making abilities.

Or just plain bad luck.

[Cuckoo]

Or just plain bad luck.

In my definition, luck typically involves something completely out of one's control. Whether a person gets caught may be luck, but whether they engage in an illegal activity is about decision-making and carries consequences.

[Surtt]

I read you post wrong.
I thought you were implying it was ok to use drugs as long as you weren't caught.

[Raiders Army]

Still no evidence. Drug use is very common in America among 18 year olds. Only a small number are busted. Why suspend their educational access if they are doing well in school (and the judge in their case didn't see reason to suspend their loans)?

If they're doing well in school, why would they jeopardize their chances at federal funding? :p

I think Subby makes an excellent point in that this law seems to unfairly target drug crimes.

Agree completely with you guys; but that being said, I think the law is a good law. It doesn't prohibit students from a higher education; it just makes it more difficult. Also, if kids (and I say that loosely, because at age 18 and up you are no longer a child) can afford illegal drugs, why can't they afford an education? Spend your money on an SAT prep book or something.

[GrantDawg]

Legalize it.

[Whar]

What is the damn love affair with mandatory sentences? We have a judge that examines the facts of the case and determines a penalty based on the law and those facts. I understand judges will screw up but does that justify these reactionary sentences?

If a judge has the option to suspend funding what is the problem with leaving it in his or her hands?

[sabotai]

Legalize it.

Damn straight!

[albionmoonlight]

If a judge has the option to suspend funding what is the problem with leaving it in his or her hands?
People don't like to leave important decisions up to the discretion of other people because those other people may make a decision with which they do not agree.

The judicial branch is the branch least accountable to political pressure, so anyone with money or who beleives that they hold a majority view really does not like it.

Of course, I think a lot of people nowadays would like to discard the constitution completely and replace it with "Whatver over 50% of the American people decide they want at any given time shall be the Law of the Land. No consideration shall be given to the alleged rights or opinions of those who hold a view contrary to said Law of the Land."

But that's way off topic.

[dacman]

Hmmph...I wish I could've followed this thread a little more closely. Lots of irrelevant or plain incorrect arguments and assumptions.

Someone convicted of possession (note: NOT sale) will only be out of federal financial aid for 1 year. Not 10 years, not 8, not even 5 -- no just the low, low price of one year! Not exactly "protecting the investment" like some of you are arguing if you ask me. No the law was intended to be a deterent, plain and simple.

I think a "sale" conviction gets you 3 years ineligibility. Not a lifetime.

Keep in mind, only a student that is completely honest about 1) their conviction 2) lack of expungement of said conviction from criminal record 3) lack of attendence in a drug education program 4) the date of said conviction -- is even likely to lose any aid. Lie once, aid restored. No one checks the student's answers at anytime.

[Glengoyne]

You are SOOOOO behind in this thread - see Cuckoo (and then Joninmiddlega above). ;)
I had a web glitch. I replied almost immediately...and it was lost in the nether world somewhere. When I came back and completed the post, there were already over 50 replies.

[sterlingice]

Why don't we just kill them? That holds people accountable and responsible for their actions.
Darn right! I knew you had the makings of a great oppressive dictator in there somewhere. "They're all plotting against me! KILL THEM!" ;)

SI

[Crapshoot]

Interesting topic. Couple of points:

* On the issue of access, the law does not DENY access to higher education, it simply makes an individual ineligible for federal financial assistance. That maybe a hindrance, but it is not a denial of access.

*I think Subby makes an excellent point in that this law seems to unfairly target drug crimes. I believe that a felony conviction bars receipients of fiancial aid, and that seems to be a fair barrier. A higher standard including convictions of a lesser degree isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you have to wonder the fairness of including drug-related crimes but not including other crimes. You can get busted for prostitution, vandalism, or driving your car 120 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood and that has not impact on your financial aid standing?



Exactly. Its blatant hypocrisy, and its a regressive law, simply because of the way opportunities are afforded. I find it inane that a president who did cocaine can realistically support a law banning a 18 year old who smoked a joint from getting federal aid (and this is coming from a Republican/libertarian). Then again, I think the government needs to get out of the business of trying to regulate weed at large- the War on Drugs has been a collosal failure, serving only to make politicians look good.