Pubdate: Tue, 25 Apr 2006
Source: Chronicle-Tribune (Marion, IN)
604250322/1014/OPINION
Copyright: 2006 Chronicle-Tribune
Contact: 
http://www.chronicle-tribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=CUSTOMERSERVICE1
Website: http://www.chronicle-tribune.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3691

IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICES AND CONSEQUENCES

Drug-Tuition Law Backs Up Fact That Drugs Are Path To Failure

Children are taught - or should be taught, anyway - that their choices
create consequences and that sometimes, those consequences are not
pleasant. They should learn that making the right choices can minimize
the number of unhappy consequences.

That's one big reason why people are wrong to complain about a federal
law that cuts off federal college tuition aid because of drug-related
convictions.

The complaints about the law were sparked by an analysis that found
that Indiana leads the nation in the rate of college students denied
aid under the law.

The analysis is by Students for Sensible Drug Policy, an advocacy
group.

The SSDP has joined with the American Civil Liberty's Union's Drug Law
Reform Project and, with the ACLU, is suing the federal government
challenging the constitutionality of the law.

Since 2000, according to the report, more than 8,900 Indiana students
have lost their eligibility for federal financial aid because of drug
offenses. That amounts to one out of every 200 Indiana students who
applied for aid.

Nationwide, about 190,000 students lost their financial aid
eligibility, the federal data show.

It's sadly surprising that Indiana leads the nation. It would seem
that a more urban state would produce more drug users and dealers.

And it's sadly ironic that it was a Hoosier, Rep. Mark Souder, who
introduced the legislation, which passed Congress in 1998. The law has
been changed to affect only drug convictions that are handed down
while students are attending college.

The law is not unusually harsh. It gives students more than one chance
before they lose their financial aid eligibility.

First-time offenders lose their financial aid eligibility for a
limited time.

If they behave themselves, they may re-apply for aid. If they choose
to break the law again, they lose - people with multiple offenses can
lose assistance indefinitely.

It is not unreasonable to want drug-free young people, and it is not
unreasonable to expect accountability. That's a good principle for
children and young adults - everyone, really - to learn.

And why would taxpayers want to dish out money for college to people
with drug convictions?

The SSDP-ACLU lawsuit argues that the law is unfair and that cutting
off the aid could ruin the students' lives.

And a life with drugs won't?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek