<p>"College students convicted of illegal drug possession could get federal financial aid for the first time in more than a decade under legislation aimed at overhauling the student loan system." Is this good?</p>
<p>Congress</a> may ease law on college aid for drug offenders - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The current law seems reasonable and adequate to me and is not, imo, “double jeapordy”. There are plenty of things barred to current drug users and convicted felons, including many jobs, so why should the taxpayers support this? The disparity between conviction of minorities is a problem, but one that needs to be addressed separately from federal aid.</p>
<p>In 3 years it has affected only 200,000 students nationwide - apparently most schools deal with this privately and outside the judicial system. Or is it because the DoE actually has no means to check on this and relies on self-reporting?</p>
<p>While I no way approve of drug use I have never understood why drug possession (not the selling and distributing of but possession) is singled out as a barrier to receiving financial aid. There are many other crimes that are also very serious - why can thieves or people who are perhaps violent in some way receive aid but someone who used a drug cannot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My guess is that this was sold as junkies using taxpayer money to get high. It doesn’t matter if the student is beating their spouse, robbing banks, or raping teenagers as long as they aren’t using taxpayer money to do it.</p>
<p>
I never even thought of it from that aspect.</p>
<p>I am really glad this occurred. Especially since the incidence of illegal drugs possession is so high in high schools. It would be terrible if someone couldn’t get financial aid because they got high. If they actually barred every person who had done illegal drugs from getting aid money then there would be ALOT fewer students on financial aid.</p>
<p>Or maybe those of us who were smart enough not to do drugs could get more aid. :P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The current law only bars students who were convicted while in college and receiving federal aid. No high school crimes are considered. No drug conviction in college but not receiving aid. </p>
<p>There is a 3 strike system so I would think that learning a lesson the first two times would be motivation for cleaning up their act. If they don’t, how are they going to pass a drug test and get a job to pay back those loans and become taxpayers themselves?!</p>
<p>Why not? …</p>
<p>I think it’s ridiculous that a college kid caught with some marijuana could have their FA taken away. But then again, the whole drug war is a joke.</p>
<p>The war on drugs is not a joke, it is a disgrace. My business isnt going to be brought down by the kid smoking a joint on the fire stairs, its the guy who hacks into a computer that is costing us fortunes. Why are police resource directed toward drugs? We need to legalize drugs AND criminalize guns. I am truly sorry for those addicted to drugs, as I am sorry for those addicted to alcohol, gambling and porn. The war on drugs hasnt helped them though.</p>
<p>Apparently some of you have not yet endured the heartache of having a close friend or family member become addicted, which often starts with marijuana and ends with anything they can get their hands on (and by whatever means necessary) and don’t realize how many lives are being destroyed every day due to this. The collateral damage one addict can cause is huge and I hope you never have to deal with it. If you do, you’ll be very thankful for any assistance you can get from law enforcement and other government agencies. Families and neighborhoods are the frontlines on the war on drugs and it’s not a joke.</p>
<p>Which drugs should we give a pass on? If pot is okay, how about cocaine, meth, illegal use of prescription drugs, etc.? The sad thing about most addicts is that if there had been a significant or meaningful punishment that served as a wake up call early on, they would not become addicts. So taking away any deterrent is not really in their best interests. It’s not possible to predict which of these casual drug users in college will end up addicted, so it’s not logical to give a pass on drug use and just hope that by funding further education the potential problem will be solved.</p>
<p>No one is keeping kids who choose to smoke pot out of college. They’re losing federal aid - period. They can still attend, on their own dime or the college’s if that aid isn’t cut off too. They can take private student loans instead of Staffords. Or they can get a job and take some time to think about whether their future is more important than getting high. Believe it or not, there are kids who make this choice every day and make a concious decision not to risk it. If the risk of losing financial aid deters even one kid from starting down this path, it’s worth it. Just my $.02.</p>
<p>Sk8ermom – I am sympathetic to addicts, but I am sceptical about the help that law enforcement gives. As to other agencies, I am all for health care/social services to help.</p>
<p>kay, when I first started dealing with this (over 15 years ago) there was almost no regulation of prescription meds. I cannot tell you how many phone calls and trips to doctors offices and pharmacies we had to make to request that they did not fill pain medications for a family member who had become addicted as a result of legitimate medical problems. Since then, laws have been enacted and systems put in place that routinely screen prescriptions for multiple fills/multiple doctors, etc. That alone has been a huge help and deterrent. Also, for the addict that has been through rehab multiple times, jail is often the best answer. These aren’t hardened criminals but they do need to be out of their normal environment and in a structured place. Their families and friends need to be cut off from them. Even those who won’t support them become victims of their disease and they certainly deserve the protection law enforcement can give. There are not enough effective rehabs - they are hard to get into and very expensive, not to mention the problem of getting the addict to agree to a voluntary program. Seeing the inside of a jail cell, even for a short period, does make a difference for some addicts. It’s a matter of hitting bottom and realizing that this is not the way they want to spend their lives before they can truly commit to treatment. If they cannot or will not change, at least they can do longer hurt innocent people. Imo, giving up the fight when so many innocents are at risk is not an option.</p>
<p>…So, FIRST my taxes are used to bail out banks that made ridiculously bad loans to underqualified people and businesses in the first place.</p>
<p>THEN, Federal aid to MY (non drug using!) daughter is reduced because there is less to “go around”, because it’s being used for convicts. So I have to also pay full tuition. </p>
<p>Next the bank makes ANOTHER bad loan (now that they’ve been given a fresh start thanks to our tax money…“Nice work if you can get it”)…and the druggie defaults, leaving the bank to whine to the goverment again, who bails them out again with MY tax money … again. Sensing a theme?</p>
<p>We were just discussing health care at work today. If you need to have your hip replaced but have lousy insurance…just commit a crime and go to jail where they’ll HAVE to do it. </p>
<p>Same as with this situation. WHY doesn’t anyone have to answer for their actions anymore? If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime! These people can have college educations if they want…but NOT on MY dime. I have a bright, worthy, law abiding kid to pay for.</p>
<p>Oh please, if “addition” were really the issue, alchohol use would get kids kicked off aid–Afterall, it is much more addictive (in terms of percentage of users who become addicts and of course, in total number of lives ruined) than most illegal drugs. Marijuana, BTW, has never been demonstrated to be “addictive”, nor is there any real evidence that it is a “gateway”. This law was always just another punitive measure with no benefit to society and I would be thrilled to see it go.</p>
<p>Sk8er mom, not only is putting people in jail for using drugs wrong (why should anyone be punished for what they do to their own bodies?), but it doesn’t help addicts as it’s easy to get drugs in jail and most go right back to doing it out of jail. The drug war doesn’t work. Period. </p>
<p>As for your slippery slope argument, it’s ridiculous. You have to be pretty deep into the “Reefer Madness” mentality not to get why smoking pot is different than shooting heroin. </p>
<p>Plus, the whole notion that people with felonies (drugs or otherwise) in their past shouldn’t get financial aid is stupid and counter productive. I’d be happy to have my tax dollars go to someone trying to turn from a life of crime to being a productive member of society.</p>
<p>Deirdre, the difference is that alcohol is legal. The fact is that certain drugs are illegal and, whether you agree with their status or not, they are illegal for a reason. It’s true that you can’t legislate morality but that doesn’t mean that society has to give up and accept people deciding which laws they would like to follow and which they will not. That is the slippery slope. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People who committed felonies in their past aren’t being barrred from federal aid. Plenty of people get their education in prison. Only those who are convicted of possession/distribution while actively enrolled and receiving federal aid are affected by this statute. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t make that point, you inferred it. What I said is that most addicts start with mild “recreational” use. This is based on years of evidence. What is your theory? That kids go out to school one day and come home as addicts? That makes no sense. Putting addicts in jail was not the point of this topic, and I agree that it may not help them recover but it does keep them from wreaking further havoc on others.</p>
<p>Why the double standard for drugs? You just stated that society shouldn’t accept people picking and choosing which laws to follow, yet only people convicted of drug charges are at risk of losing their aid. This is silly. My point about felons in general was pointed towards the other user.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Were these not your words? Like I said, the reasons why pot is “okay” while meth isn’t are blatantly obvious. If the government can pick and choose which crimes to take your financial aid away for (drugs), they can also choose which drugs to do this for. Even Taco Bell makes the distinction between marijuana convictions and other drug charges on its job applications, why the government doesn’t get it is beyond me. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, my theory is that kids go out and use meth or crack, perhaps recreationally, and become meth or crack addicts. Not that they experiment with pot and become drug fiends. Possession of drugs doesn’t wreak havoc on people, drug-related violent crime does. They are different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly, but I doubt you’ll convince any of the people who believe a 4.0 Berkeley student shouldn’t have their education financed because they’re “breaking the law”.</p>