Pubdate: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 Source: Charleston Daily Mail (WV) Copyright: 2002 Charleston Daily Mail Contact: http://www.dailymail.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/76 Authors: Anna Gottesman, Chris Hagglund, Kevin Hebert Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hea.htm (Higher Education Act) Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n005/a07.html Note: Main title by Newshawk HIGHER EDUCATION ACT Denying Aid Puts Drug Users In Double Jeopardy The author of the Daily Mail's Jan. 1 editorial, "College: Those who sell drugs should not get federal aid," has his facts all wrong. Sadly, the author expressed support for the Higher Education Act because of common myths and misconceptions that many citizens may have about this destructive, cruel law. First of all, this law, which denies prospective college students convicted of any drug offense federal aid, does not discriminate between the one time pot-smoker who gets arrested, and the drug dealer caught selling cocaine, as the author assumed. Any first drug conviction will take away federal student aid from a person trying to improve their life for one year. A second drug offense of any kind will deny the applicant federal aid for two years, and a third offense puts off aid indefinitely. It is offensive to me that any person convicted of a drug offense would be denied federal aid, while murderers, rapists and other violent felons have no problem receiving federal student aid. There is no question on the Federal Student Aid form that asks if you have ever been convicted of a violent felony. It asks only if you have been convicted of a drug crime. Secondly, the author stated that prospective students who answer yes to the question "have you ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?" are given the opportunity to explain. The truth is, the government does not read explanations, nor do they consider any. If you answer yes to that question, you are automatically denied aid for one year after that conviction, no matter how minor your drug offense was. However, the government hasn't the time or the resources to do a background check on all applicants, therefore, if a prospective student answers no to that question, even though he or she has been convicted of a drug offense, the chances of him or her being denied federal student aid because of that conviction is slim to none. This encourages applicants to lie on the application. It is true that there are not enough resources to give all those who need aid assistance. However, this does not, and should not mean that those applicants who have experimented with, or been convicted of a drug crime should be singled out and denied assistance based solely on that fact. When a person is convicted of a crime, they pay the price and serve whatever sentence that is given to them. In this country, we do not believe in double jeopardy which means we do not punish people twice for their crime. This bill would do just that, and more. It would put an unnecessary and unfair obstacle in the way of those trying to better their lives and contribute to their communities. Those who support the repeal of the Higher Education Act, such as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who introduced a bill repealing the ban, should be praised for their moral and ethical stance. Those who oppose it should be recognized for their ignorance, shortsightedness and hypocrisy. Anna Gottesman Van Nuys, Calif. - ------- Drug Prohibition Is The Real Enemy The law in question in your Jan. 1 editorial, "College: Those who sell drugs should not get federal aid," does not only discriminate against the sellers of prohibited substances, but also the users. Why should drug users or sellers be specifically targeted by this unconstitutional law? Well, the short answer is that the federal government has decided that doing drugs is the worst crime you can commit. That's right, getting high in the comfort of your own home or dorm is worse than killing your neighbors and their children according to the federal government's loan denial policy. You see, you won't be denied federal aid if you are convicted of murder, rape, or even petty theft. But if you just happen to be convicted of smoking a joint, then you may as well kiss your future good-bye. This of course, is all in the name of prohibition. Drug dealers aren't the enemy, prohibition is. Almost all of the damage done by drugs is as a direct result of drug prohibition. But we must continue prohibition for the sake of the children -- to ensure that their student loans are denied. Chris Hagglund Toronto, Canada - ------- Editorial Reflected Anti-Drug Absurdity The Daily Mail's Jan. 1 editorial, "College: Those who sell drugs should not get federal aid," reflects the all-too familiar absurdity of our federal drug laws. The article goes to great lengths trying to make The Drug-Free Student Aid Provision, which was amended to the Higher Education Act of 1998, seem like the perfect way to stick it to "drug dealers." The Mail conveniently ignored the fact that the vast majority of people who lose student aid from this law are guilty solely of marijuana possession. Rapists, murderers, even terrorists are not subject to this provision. End the war on drug users. Stop wasting our hard-earned tax dollars on this abject failure. Put DEA officers on anti-terrorism detail. But most of all, stop demonizing drug users. Everyone uses some kind of drug. Putting people in jail because we don't like the way they get intoxicated is a foolish waste of limited law enforcement resources, especially in this new age of terrorism. Kevin Hebert Chicopee, Mass. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh