Denying college aid because of past drug related convictions

[GePap]

Lets just cut their pay.

While the state is not violating anyone rights by doing this, I do think continually hobbling people for thier past acts is a great way to promote drug use: heck. used it once, I am screwed now, so why stop? The most simplistic generlaization of the reality- if you odn;t give people the chance to make up for their mistakem you rmeove incentive to reform once one has erred.

[Harry Tuttle]

I don't quite know how the law works, at least in my state, but I remember juvenile records being closed upon a person's 18th birthday. Is the information about past drug use completely voluntary or is it only based on post 18th bday records out there (if flagged and investigated)?

If after being flagged an applicant is investigated and has been convicted after their 18th birthday I can see the proponents idea behind the law. i.e. they don't want drug sellers and buyers in a learning environment. Of course this is more discrimination than punishment as a drug conviction presupposes that the person has paid for his or her crimes.

"Those with one drug offense are ineligible for one year for government grants or federally backed loans; a second conviction bars applicants for two years. However, they can regain eligibility upon completion of an approved drug-rehabilitation program."

My question to the above quote: What if they already have gone through rehab? And what if the applicant in question is a 50 year old reformed flower child who had one conviction 30 years ago?

I agree with making an effort to keep drugs out of college, but this law is a poor excuse for enforcing drug laws and dolling out punishment.

[Japher]

I agree GePap.

Still, you have the reverese side of the coin. I do nothing wrong, the other guy still gets rewarded. So why did I even bother staying out of trouble?

Or, I did something wrong, I still got rewarded, so I guess there's no harm in doing thigs I'm not suppose to.

The wrong message is being sent either way.

[Patroklos]

Convicted convicts do not get to vote, it is a result of their actions. Some mistakes have life long consequences, and should.

However, for you reationaries, the burden of your illegal actions does not stick with you forever in this case. So you are required to take counseling or wait a year for aid. I got denied aid for a year for no reason for all as far as I know. It is just happens, but I would be mighty pissed if joe the crack dealer was in prison a year before and now gets money for college over me.

As far as being harmful to low income minorities. Bieng a low income minority is not a blank check to do drugs and other illegal activites and get away with it. It might be harder to do the right thing in a difficult situation, but you must endeavor to do so anyways. If you don't like the harsh word, hate your God.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why don't they pass a law forbidding people who used drugs from running for political office? That would have taken care of both Bush and Gore.

and Bubba, plus a few Kennedys, and a few ex-DC mayors, etc, etc... I agree, NO DOUBLE STANDARD!!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Vesayen
There are a limited number of dollars.

Little Johny and Little Bobby are identical in every aspect, until.....

Little Johny was caught selling marijuana and was sent to jail for a year when he was 19.

Little Bobby never sold marijuana.

What if Little Johnny and Little Bobby aren't identical, in that Little Johnny, while still having a jail record, also has better grades, more extracurricular activities and is much needier than Little Bobby? Under this law, Little Bobby still gets the money.

Every dollar given to the little Johny is a dollar little Bobby dosent get. There are a limited amount of dollars for all the little boys in the world to get from MY tax dollars.

If there was an unlimited amount of money it would be unfair, but can you justify penalizing little Bobby for NOT messing up?

Ludicrous. How is Bobby being penalized if they just didn't take into account a past drug conviction for Johnny? That's not penalizing anybody. If Johnny gets the money, then he did so on his own merits/need. Maybe they both can get some money, if less, rather than punishing someone again over something for which he's already paid his legal dues. Haven't you ever heard of double jeopardy? Why should Johnny be punished twice for the same crime?

This isnt an issue of not being compassionate, its an issue of not screwing people who never messed in, in favor of those who did.

No, it's an issue of screwing over people who have messed up. Messing up is a part of life, and is frankly more valuable experience than not messing up. I know plenty of complete ****s who never did anything wrong. Just because Little Bobby didn't get caught doing something doesn't necessarily mean he's more deserving, a harder worker or a better person. This rule says that he is, which is why it is repugnant.

[Japher]

Messing up is a part of life, and is frankly more valuable experience than not messing up.

Not really Boris. The real lesson is taught after the error is commited. Which is when these ppl are being denied AIDE. Like I said earlier, however, it is unfair that there doesn't seem to be anything they can do to repay or repent their actions, and there should be. Yet, forgive and forget is not the answer.

[Pekka]

Japher, I disagree. IT should be based on other things. Except if the crimes are actually you know, selling drugs or using harder drugs, something like that.

Why not reward people for their scores at highschool and SAT? Why not make everyone write an essay or something. Or do a test, a completely new test. Then you get points from them, and then you get points from your economical situation at home, which would be the biggest factor?

This doesn't matter if you're rich. You can afford college without any aids. It only limits the poor ones.

This just shows, that your character is judged like this, not what you do and what you're about, but what you have might done in the past. It's ok if were talking about real criminals, but we're talking about curious kids.
Or let's get it fair then, let's do random drug testing on applicants, I bet we can turn down hell of a lot more of them, because they just didn't get caught by the police and this serves them right?

What I'm saying is, it's better to let in a person to this program who comes in and says 'here I am, this is me, I did that but I learned from it and I'm here in interview so you can judge my character better and see how much potential I have', rather than saying 'No'.

I think there are some things that we should forgive, the small things. I bet most applicants who got aid, laughs their asses off because they smoked too, and some of the still smoke and who knows what they use, difference being they didn't get caught.

[Dr Strangelove]

What ever happened to wiping a kids record clean when he reaches the age of majority? I think the usual age is 21. People over the age of 21 who have been convicted for drug related ofenses ought to be able to apply for aid without fear that their record would lessen their chances. Courts are barred from revealing their record, so they shold be able to fill out the application without worry. I wonder if they should even feel compelled to answer the question.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher


Not really Boris. The real lesson is taught after the error is commited. Which is when these ppl are being denied AIDE.

How about serving time under the original conviction? See what I said about double jeopardy.

[TCO]

I'm not in favor of subsidized tuition anyway.

[Ramo]

Yeah, only the rich deserve education.

[Japher]

He is proposing that when the law is reauthorized, only those students with convictions incurred while they are in college and receiving aid be affected.

I can live with this, sounds to me like a good idea.

[Ramo]

Why should I be denied subsidized loans because I smoke up once in a while?

[Japher]

Why should I be denied subsidized loans because I smoke up once in a while?

Because it's against the law and you would be using government (those who make the laws) money to pay for your livelihood. It's a big F-you, IMO, it's bitting the hand that feeds you, so to speak.

Personally, if I had a kid and college, and I was funding them, and I found out that they had enough money to buy something I didn't approve of, I would stip them of their benefits for sure.

I am not saying don't do it, I am just saying don't get caught.