Pubdate: Wed, 12 Apr 2006
Source: Good 5 Cent Cigar (U of  RI: Edu)
Copyright: 2006 Good 5 Cent Cigar
Contact:  http://www.ramcigar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2599
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

TO REPEAL, OR NOT?

In the debate over the Higher Education Act provision that disallows 
students with drug convictions from receiving federal financial aid 
for college, it is unclear who's right. Should the provision be 
repealed, as the Students for a Sensible Drug Policy group says, 
because of unconstitutionality?

One of the gripes of the national SSDP is that the provision violates 
the Fifth Amendment guarantee against "Double Jeopardy," or being 
tried with the possibility of conviction for the same crime twice. 
The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that an individual can 
only be tried for a crime once, but is taking away a convicted 
student's financial aid the same as convicting them again? It's 
stretch to say that taking away a student's financial aid is the same 
as parole, community service or jail time. Financial aid and going to 
college aren't rights afforded to all U.S. citizens; these are earned 
responsibilities.

As the SSDP says, the provision "punishes individuals twice for the 
same infraction," but the second punishment isn't a verdict passed 
down from the courts. Claiming the Fifth Amendment doesn't fly here 
because the students aren't again being tried with the chance of 
conviction. A punishment is different from a conviction.

We at the Cigar do sympathize that the law doesn't seem to have any 
real purpose except to keep drug dealers and users out of U.S. 
universities. But there is also a thought that maybe this is 
necessary to create a better atmosphere for students without drug convictions.

SSDP also says that this provision will make it "more likely" that 
students will drop out of school and become drug abusers, 
non-taxpaying delinquents and criminals. Well, they're already 
criminals and probably drug abusers when they get convicted, but 
isn't this contrasting the SSDP message that responsible drug 
policies will create a more responsible population? Here's what this 
SSDP claim seems to be saying: "If you're in school, you should be 
able to do drugs and you're not a criminal. Get rid of their student 
status and they're suddenly criminals." Wrong. The drugs these 
students are convicted for having are illegal; students are subject 
to laws just like everyone else and have to take the penalties.

This is not to say that the provision is steadfast and perfect. As 
the American Civil Liberties Union points out: other convicts "from a 
murderer to a shoplifter, can receive financial aid." So, how can 
this be remedied? Would it be better to make financial aid available 
for everyone (even "murderers") or disallow financial aid to anybody 
who has ever been convicted of a crime? A middle ground? All ways 
seem imperfect.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman