Food for thought ...

“...I am [not] against an absolute bar on college admission for students who use drugs, have sex, or drink booze before they are 21...” Hahahahaha... A ban on college admission? I can’t even fathom your fatuous justifications for such a suggestion. To quote a member of LEAP — Law Enforcement Against Prohibition — opining on the ridiculousness of denying Federal financial aid to students with drug convictions: “College?! That’s EXACTLY where we should want to send these people!”

In response to Matt: I appreciate your reply and your perspective. Please add paragraphs to make your writing more navigable. I mostly agree with what you are saying and I share your frustration with the hoi polloi’s inability to grasp even limited fundamental truths about drug prohibition — i.e. drug prohibition magnifies the harmfulness of drug use and diverts police and government resources from other problems. No matter how you feel about drug use, you should insist that our government’s efforts in trying to protect us from its attendant possible harms (whether used by ourselves or others) minimize rather than multiply the independent harms of drug use.

I would like to see a new drug policy that moves away from this prohibitory model of control and focuses instead on HARM REDUCTION , as in reducing the sum total of negative consequences traceable to our drug policy — including murders, prison population, etc. I would like to see a new policy of this sort not because I would like to make America more drug dependent, but rather because I would like to see us less drug-dependent.

To do so requires first and foremost that every American shed their drug-ignorance. A sensible drug policy should focus on educating the populace — the crux of the message can certainly be “You shouldn’t use drugs, because they aren’t as great as they are made out to be, and they have a lot of negative side-effects and their long-term use can inhibit your ability to achieve your goals.” BUT, and this is a huge but, the message needs to not lie and make tenuous value-judgments which reduce the digestibility of the core message. It is often also said in the public health profession that we must also educate those who will choose to do drugs to do so more safely.

Last issue I wanted to bring up is that on FAFSA’s website, it actually does say that you should answer no to the drug conviction question as long as it didn’t occur while you were receiving aid (see last *):

“Answer No to this question if: * You have never had a conviction for possessing or selling illegal drugs * The conviction was not a state or federal offense * The conviction occurred before you were 18 years of age and you were not tried as an adult * The conviction was removed from your record* The offense that led to your conviction did not occur during a period of enrollment for which you were receiving federal student aid (grants, loans, and/or work-study)”

From: http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/faq003.htm— Click on Drug Convictions hyperlink.

Cheers,

Peter J. MathewsUniv. of Virginia

Peter Mathews, at 5:30 pm EST on November 29, 2007

Drug Convictions and Financial Aid

While I enjoy Inside Higher Ed each morning I find that many of the facts in this particular article are inaccurate. A student seeking financial aid is not automatically disqualified for a simple drug possession charge. That rule was ammended a number of years back. Checking that box on the FAFSA simply flags the SAR for further review. Students have to complete additional questions in regards to the drug conviction. (For additional questions see http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/q31wksht.pdf)

Many of the additional questions involve the number of convictions, type of convictions, having done rehab, etc. I had reason to speak with a student who had 3 past drug convictions and they were allowed to recieve financial aid after having successfully completed an in residence rehab program. So, no they are not automatically denied anymore for a drug conviction.

Student seeking financial aid, however, do have to jump through some additional hoops, true. However, I believe rightfully so.

I have no hard facts at hand to back this up, but I am told that conviction of distributing drugs is very tough, on the other hand. They still can jump through hoops and get financial aid, but the review is much more stringent and are treated on a case by case basis. Conviction for distributing can be pretty misleading and it is good that each case is reviewed individually. Simply possessing a little too much of a controlled substance can lead to distributing charges. Check your state laws to determine the facts of what is considered distributing in your state. The occasion mentioned above, one of the three charges the person was convicted of distribution, however, after DOE review they still recieved financial aid.

From my conversation with this person they had a large bag of marijuana in the vehicle with them that weighted just at the limit in our state. The person stated they were not distributing and just had a big bag of “weed.” Once again the student DID complete an in residence treatment program. Based on this if this student can get financial aid upon review then my question would be of those denied, why are they being denied? Is it because they refuse to do rehabilitation or are they very serious drug offenders? Both of which we must ask ourselves first of all do they deserve financial aid at the risk of other students without such issues being denied aid? Second, and very importantly do we want these people in our campus communities?

My hats off to DOE. I know the task of deciding who gets aid and who does not, even with probably strict government guidance, is not an easy job. However, from what I have seen they are doing a great job.

David, at 9:50 am EDT on September 28, 2005

Kevin, Most states do not ban use of “illegal substances” but rather possession.

As a practical matter, certain teenagers will be targeted for police enforcement (usually the poor ones) and rich ones will be in a better position to understand the implications of accusations by the government (and often avoid a conviction). And this assumes that rich people and poor people have the same access to counsel.

This doesn’t mean I am against an absolute bar on college admission for students who use drugs, have sex, or drink booze before they are 21, but we should at least understand that these laws will not be enforced equally.

Larry, at 10:49 am EDT on September 28, 2005

Responses

Vlad, the application of laws often changes in light of new readings. Even strict origionalists will admit this — and allow it on occasion. One example may be that the 401k law went two years without even being recognized, and no one who wrote the law realized the shelter that they had created until a corporate tax lawyer read it differently.

I don’t know if this new reading is unsubstantiated, and if so, the methods may need to be changed.

Larry, merely because some people get away with drug use doesn’t mean that the law no longer applies or should no longer apply to those who get caught. Most sexual assaults aren’t reported, but when we do manage to catch a guilty party, most advocate nailing him to the wall to the full extent of the law.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 1:30 pm EDT on September 28, 2005

The Road Less Recognized

This has been a subject I have often debated with people. Though I know I always sound heartless for saying this, I don’t believe that someone convicted of a narcotics offense should receive help. Every grant they get potentially takes aid away from someone who hasn’t been convicted. It shouldn’t solely apply to offenses in college either. If someone is convicted their senior year of high school, they should not have a clean slate when they are a freshman in college. As Kevin said, they made a choice to use/possess the substance, whether they were rich or poor it was still their choice. Something that was very disheartening to me was hearing my friend who made the state academic team. On the application, one of the requirements was telling of an obstacle they had overcome as a student. Another student’s obstacle was that they overcame severe drug addiction. I think that is wrong that he made the team. Good for him that he beat addiction, but there was a lot of applicants who hadn’t chose that path in their lives that were denied a spot because of him. Sadly, a fluffy story such as this is much better for PR but I don’t see why screw up who has reformed can sometimes be held in higher regards than those who have not strayed from a good path. Were they just expected not to? Sorry for the tangent but when it comes down to it, someone who is simply poor getting passed by for someone who has a criminal record just doesn’t seem right to me.

Matt, student at UIUC, at 10:48 am EDT on September 29, 2005

Typical Responses

Most of the comments posted on this site are typical responses from people who in my opinion are very closed minded about the situation. It amazes me how the general population can justify not allowing drug offenders to apply and receive grants and loans. However, we have murders, rapists, child molesters who can enroll in colleges across the nation and receive grant/loan monies. The law should be applied to any one that commits a crime. Selling or possessing drugs is no less serious than many of the other crimes being commited.

Crystal, Ms, at 6:13 pm EDT on October 11, 2005

Guilt by Association?

As I read down the comments submitted, I see none addressing the fact that one can be convicted of a drug offense without having used, sold or been in contact with drugs. In the case of an 18-year-old girl, Kelly, it was like this: In February of 2005, Kelly began dating a guy she met at a New Year’s Eve party and had given her number to. She was young and naive. His name was Kevin. He bought her jewelry and when she asked where it came from, he told her his family had money. She believed him. In March, after only six or seven dates with Kevin, Kelly went with him on an overnight trip to Cincinnati. They met up with some of his friends and had a party at a hotel room. Kelly dropped Kevin off at a bar at about midnight that night where he was supposed to be meeting his buddy and bringing him back to the hotel party. Kelly was pulled over leaving the parking lot and Kevin was arrested inside the bar for trafficking Crack. Kelly was convicted of “Complicity to Trafficking” and “Permitting Drug Abuse” and sentenced to 3 years on the first charge and 11 months on the second. She never even knew he was selling drugs. Kevin (the liar and trafficker) was sentenced to 3 years TOTAL. Fair? Nope. Was Kelly naive? Yep. Does she deserve to be 86′ed from Pell Grants and other federal aid? I don’t think so. Something stinks.

Jenny, at 4:35 am EST on February 10, 2006

It’s really sad to see the ignorance of some of the people who posted here. I found this article while writing a paper on the disenfranchisement of people convicted of drug crimes. A few people have mentioned some important facts, but there is a few things I would like to clear up. First there are two major forms of discrimination in this law. The first is that this only applies to people convicted of drug crimes; any other crime does not matter as mentioned by someone else. The second factor you must realize is that this only affects the poor and working class who are trying to better themselves. Some rich kid with several drug convictions can easily go to school, while a poor or working class student who made one mistake can be excluded. Next I would like to point out that this is a federal law, but states have the ability to modify it or not adopt it at all. So the poster that mentioned that a student was allowed aid after completing a rehab program is not standard procedure for all states. In fact 26 states do not have that provision and in many of those states the ban for just one time possession is for life. Do you realize that if you pass a joint to an undercover officer in circle that is a drug dealing charge even if its not yours or if your riding in a car with someone who has even the smallest amount of marijuana in it, even if you don’t know it there that is a possession charge. It really makes me wonder how many of these posters ever experimented with drugs when they were younger, I mean most people experiment when they are young in high school or college and then leave it behind as a learning experience. We have even had presidents admit to that and only a little over one percent of the population is addicted to drugs. Most people just experiment and leave it at that. For those of you that are really opposed to this, open up your mind for a minute and just spend some time on the internet learning about the war on drugs and the impossibility of it success. Maybe once you realize how much money we spend on it and how it has no effect on the supply and the only thing it really does is put poor people in prison you may change your mind a bit. Its not a coincidence that the war on drugs really got enforced around the same time the cold war ended. The government needed a place to dump money to keep the military machine going. So now there’s tons of money going into drug enforcement contracts instead of cold war contracts. If you don’t believe me that fine, look it up its easy to find. I will concede on one thing though. I beleive in the law and these people did break it, so I would be fine with restrictions on grants, work study and free money for all felony convictions, not just drug convictions, but leave student loans to everyone that needs them. I going on my 4th year now at the University of Washington and I have heard of them running out of money for grants and work study, but never for student loans. I guess some of you people have never made a mistake in your life. At least not everyone who responded to this was like that. Also to qualify myself a little, I am not a young kid with no life experience that believes drugs are great, I am a returning adult student, who is strongly against the use of drugs, that has just researched the facts and knows that the drug war is just a PR campaign to justify spending billions of tax dollars to have influence over other countries and has made the drug problem worse and more profitable for the large traffickers

Matt, Senior at the Univesity Of washinington, at 1:15 pm EDT on June 5, 2006