|
In 1998, most college students didn't notice
when the United States House of Representatives passed a bill modifying
the eligibility for federal financial aid. In fact, in confusion
most students skipped the question on eligibility forms that asked
about the new eligibility requirement: conviction of a marijuana-related
offense.
If a student has been convicted of selling or even
possessing marijuana, they will lose federal funding of their college
education for a year. The second time, they will lose funding for
two years, and after that, indefinitely. Funding includes grants,
loans, and work assistance given to a student to help them and their
families cover the high costs of a higher education. This is government
money, so some people, like anti-cannabis crusader Representative
Gerald Solomon and his spokesman, Bill Teator, feel that "federal
student aid is a privilege, not a right." This holds true;
the government is giving money to students as an investment in their
future, and in all cases the government is very specific about what
its money can be used for. However, the implementation of this bill
results in quite a controversy.
For one thing, students who need federal funding in
order to attend colleges or universities are being punished far
more harshly than are students whose parents can afford to pay full
tuition. Carolyn Hyppolite, founder of Mount Holyoke College's DRC,
says "this policy specifically targets low-income students
while failing to punish higher income students for the same crime."
Jennifer Landis, president of Mount Holyoke's recently formed organization,
Students for Sensible Drug Policy, says "most students don't
even know there is a connection between drug offenses and federal
aid."
NORML (another organization dedicated to realistic
marijuana laws) attacks the bill not only for its uneven distribution
of punishment among economic demographics, but also for problems
such as its lack of consistency from state to state and its improbability
of implementation. For example, in some states marijuana use is
considered a mere civil offense (you pay a fine) and in others it
is a misdemeanor or felony. Convictions for serious violent crimes
and other felonious criminal activities have vastly less severe
consequences. Students may reapply for financial aid after a conviction
if they undergo a drug rehabilitation program but the kinds of programs
that qualify as rehabilitating are not stated. In light of all these
clear problems in the internal composition of this bill, it is surprising
that only four representatives voted against it.
Some people feel that being "soft" on marijuana
will lead to legalization of the drug for medicinal purposes, then
for general purposes, and then ultimately the legalization of all
drugs. Advocates, though, of the legalization of medical marijuana
ask legislators to look realistically at the problem at hand. Medical
marijuana has exceedingly beneficial effects on people that are
seriously ill, mostly because marijuana can be inhaled as a vapor.
Not only does this provide relief of pain, but it can also be ingested
by a person who is throwing up (they can't really swallow a pill
now can they?).
Representative Gerald Solomon has been one of the
most overwhelming supporters of anti-drug legislation in the past
few years. In one day, he introduced nine bills relating to drug
use, including mandatory pre-employment drug testing for all federal
employees, random drug testing for all executive, legislative, and
judicial branch employees, prohibition of federal organizations
from doing research on the possibility of legalization of
any drug, removal of judicial discretion from a hearing involving
punishment for a drug-related crime (meaning you can't get an appeal,
you have to accept the fixed time before you get federal funding
back), and reducing the number of marijuana plants one needs to
possess in order to get the death penalty by half. Solomon's
view is best expressed in the following quote: "What we cannot
be proud of is the unshaven, shaggy-haired, drug culture poor excuses
for Americans." Say what? Not every marijuana user is
a drain on society, and to generalize in such a fashion only weakens
Solomon's arguments.
This controversy may find itself resolved, though,
thanks to the Constitution. Thank goodness for that one, right?
The American Civil Liberties Union sees legislation like Solomon's
as an "undue government burden" in addition to having
other problems. Within the next few years, Congress will most likely
have to find a Constitutional way to fight the war on drugs&
without waging a war on students.
|
