It Just Might Catch You

Via Talk Left, one of the more ludicrous and pernicious manifestations of our nation's silliness about drugs is thankfully being eliminated:

The Senate legislation would also eliminate from the federal financial aid application a controversial question asking whether applicants have been convicted of drug possession while receiving federal student aid. That question has been used to identify and strip financial aid from thousands of students. While the Senate bill would leave the drug possession penalty in the law, dropping the question from the federal financial aid form would make enforcement of the provision very difficult.

“We’re thrilled that the committee has acted to make sure that students with drug convictions will no longer be automatically stripped of their aid and will be able to stay in school and on the path to success,” said Tom Angell, government relations director at Students for Sensible Drug Policy. “While it would be more appropriate to simply erase the penalty from the lawbooks altogether, we support the committee’s effort to make sure that students with drug convictions can get aid just like anyone else.”

Why anyone ever thought this was a good idea is beyond me. Someone who gets in trouble with drugs presumably needs to start making better choices -- like, say, finishing school. This is a particularly important issue for community college students, many of whom are non-traditional and really struggling to move in a more positive direction. Getting rid of the question is good. Getting rid of the law would be better.

On the bad side of the Senate bill, they don't follow the House lead in reducing the interest rates on student loans.

Comments

[SamFromUtah]

Why anyone ever thought this was a good idea is beyond me. Someone who gets in trouble with drugs presumably needs to start making better choices -- like, say, finishing school.

You're right, but do you remember what the War On Drugs(tm) was like in its rhetorical heyday? Politicians were falling all over themselves to one-up each other, thinking up more draconian penalties and invasive methods of drug use detection. A couple of things that didn't come to pass but which, IIRC, were discussed: making certain states of mind illegal, however they were attained, and installing drug-testing toilets in workplaces.

I'm glad that question is going away, and agree that getting rid of the law would be better.

[Captain Goto]

I'm glad that question is going away

Only because the mouth-breathers have since moved on to other betes-noires to get hysterical over, cf.: gay-marryin' folk, messkins, Ay-rabs, etc.

[rea]

Don't forget the class warfare aspects of this. Financial aid is for the middle and lower classes. Rich kids get to smoke marijuana with impunity.

[Gus]

Oh it was a good idea all right. It gave some demagogues another propaganda weapon in the never ending quest for reelection.

[Xeno]

This sort of question shows up in all manner of Federal aid programs. When I worked in Medicaid/Foodstamps/Welfare programs, we were required to ask people if they were "fleeing felons", ie people who were either wanted on felony charges or who had escaped custody. "Fleeing felons" were declared ineligible for all federal aid programs in 1996, and I believe they also can't get housing assistance. Questions about drug convictions were also part of the drill.

All the workers resented having to ask these questions for two very good reasons. One, they were stupid questions and most rational fleeing felons and convicts would lie to your face. Two, irrational fleeing felons and convicts might go postal on you and start giving a live demonstration of their felonious nature. (God knows we got assaulted enough without giving anyone provocation.) It was just another unnecessary hassle for us to deal with.

[Nancy Willing]

Fucking A!

our state legis just passed a SEED program to allow kids two years of state college for free, regardless of family income: caveat Grades and a Clean record.
I protested to the bill's author that it would be abused as rich kids could err, hire fatcat lawyer and make it all go away while the poor would be shut out once again.

[atablarasa]

The problem is the same as the one with illegal immigration: all those "Amnesty" people who don't believe that any penalties are ever enough. Like Javert in Les Miz, they believe "once a con, always a con" even when the law is wrong to begin with. It's all those "others" getting "handouts."

Too many quote marks in this, but the mouth-breathers live in a fantasy world...

[markg8]

Now what are they gonna do about the disparity in sentencing laws between crack and powder cocaine? You can be sentenced for many years longer and stripped of a lot of your rights forever for getting caught with much smaller anounts of crack than you would for more expensive powder cocaine. It's not a surprise that cheaper crack cocaine used in minority communities draws bigger penalties than powder but it is disgusting. A legacy from the 1980s Republican war on drugs that really ought to go.

[whig]

The purpose of the war on drugs is to oppress minorities. It's not an accidental side-effect.