http://www.raiseyourvoice.com/ The Higher Education Act (HEA) Drug Provision delays or denies eligibility for federal financial aid for any drug conviction, even first-time mar1juana possession. Since taking effect in 2000, more than 160,500 students have been harmed by this misguided law. On March 9, 2005, 56 members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the RISE Act (Removing Impediments to Students' Education), H.R. 1184. Recently the Congressionally-appointed Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance called for the repeal of the drug provision in its recommendations for simplifying the financial aid process. PLEASE VISIT http://www.raiseyourvoice.com and call your Representatives directly -- you can use the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or get their numbers from us by emailing cmulligan@raiseyourvoice.com -- and urge them to sponsor and support legislation to repeal the HEA Drug Provision. BACKGROUND: Added in 1998 as an amendment to the Higher Education Act (HEA), the "drug provision" (section 484(r), or 20 USC 1091(r)) bars students with drug convictions from receiving financial aid to attend institutions of higher learning. The provision has had the effect of disqualifying a large number of deserving, low- to middle-income students from receiving aid to attend college for what are often relatively minor drug offenses, including misdemeanor possession of mar1juana. KEEP US INFORMED: When you send your letters or faxes, please send us a copy. In addition, when you receive a response, please pass it along to us, as it is most helpful in gauging legislators' positions by their responses to your letters, faxes, and personal meetings. Visit http://www.raiseyourvoice.com for more information and resources for getting involved in the campaign. SOME TALKING POINTS: The HEA drug provision is troubling for numerous reasons: * It is economically discriminatory and only affects the children of low- and middle-income families who rely on student loans, federal work-study programs, Pell Grants, and other forms of aid to help finance their educations. These are the very students and families whom the HEA set out to assist by expanding their educational opportunities. * It is inappropriate to punish people twice for the same offense. * Judges already have the discretion to deny federal benefits to those convicted in their courts. Likewise, school administrators have the discretion to discipline and/or expel students who violate university policies. We should let those who are directly in touch with the individual cases make such judgment calls -- not have one blanket policy decided in Washington for everyone regardless of the circumstances. * Studies have shown that those convicted of crimes are far less likely to be re-arrested after having received two years of postsecondary education and that students who leave school after their first year have a dramatically reduced return rate. For more information on the HEA Drug Provision and how to become active in the campaign to repeal it, please visit http://www.raiseyourvoice.com online. For further suggestions on talking points or strategy, please contact Chris Mulligan by e-mail at cmulligan@raiseyourvoice.com, or by phone at (202) 293-8340.
This is a JUST law that helps keep drug pushers and users out of our college system. The students that do not use drugs should be first in line for federal aid. They are, after all, the ones obeying the law.
Yet again you prove that you have absolutely zero knowledge regarding drug policy. This law does not do jack to keep "pushers" or "users" out of college unless they are unable to afford college in the first place. IOW, it is an attack on the ability of the lower classes to get an education in order to make something better for themselves. One of the things that is most positively correlated with lower rates of drug use is education. The more education you have, the lower the chances that you will exhibit problem usage of drugs, legal or illegal. So, much like the rest of our insane drug policy, this law is absolutely counterproductive. Personally, I would rather that we prohibit federal funds for rapists or murderers, two types of criminals who do not have a provision that keeps them from pursuing an education. Can anyone intelligently explain how a drug user does more damage than a murderer or rapist? BTW, your statement would make far more sense to me if we were actually running out of funds for Pell grants every year. In that case, I might be willing to concede that people who are "obeying the law" should be "first in line." However, since that is simply not the case, denying funds for education is absolutely wrong. These are people who have completed the punishment for their "crime" already, which means that this law amounts to additional punishment that only affects poor people.
It is important to note that the bill prevents the student who is convicted of posession of a controlled substance (first offense) from receiving that financial aid for 1 year, not their entire academic career. The second possession conviction bars them for 2 years. In addition, the HEA bill allows the student to regain eligibility before their suspension is up by complying with the following: "(A) the student satisfactorily completes a drug rehabilitation program that-- (i) complies with such criteria as the Secretary shall prescribe inregulations for purposes of this paragraph; and (ii) includes two unannounced drug tests; or (B) the conviction is reversed, set aside, or otherwise rendered nugatory." I do agree that if you are convicted of any felony, you should have the same (or stronger depending on the crime) restrictions. Rather than repeal that provision in the HEA bill, I would request that Congress include other crimes in it (unless those are already dealt with in some other way).
So it still creates an additional punishment that will only affect poor people, right? This provision keeps poor people from getting education, education that is proven to have a positive effect on rates of drug use. This rule is counterproductive in its effects and discriminatory in its application. They were so nice to allow for the conviction being reversed. How exactly is a poor drug "offender" supposed to afford to go to drug treatment (thousands or tens of thousands of dollars) when they can't afford as little as $300 for school? I totally disagree. Not only does education reduce problem drug use, it also reduces the incidence of other crimes as well. The more education you have, the less likely you are to commit ANY crime and as such, people who have satisfied the criminal justice system's punishments should have access to the same financial aid for school that the rest of us do.
According to the article you posted, since 2000, around 160,000 applicants have been denied due to this bill. Assuming that encompasses 5 years (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004) that is around 32,000 applicants per year. In the year 2000, 8.6 million students applied for federal aid according to the U.S. Department of Education. I think it is a fair estimate to use this value for each of the 5 years. That being the case, on average, only around 1/3 of 1 percent of applicants are being denied each year under this provision. That means that over 99.5 percent of all applicants are able to comply with the bill's provision.
It also means that 32,000 people per year have been denied one of the only things that has been positively correlated with lower incidences of problem drug use: education. If we want to keep those people away from drugs, school is the best place for them. Instead, those poor people will be forced to delay their plans for self-improvement, increasing the chances that they will get further involved in drugs as well as the chances that they will end up in a jail cell before they see another classroom. We already spend more money incarcerating people than we do educating them, which is one of the major problems in thos country. We need to repeal this rule so that we can have a positive impact on society rather than the negative one we are currently having.
