DRUG BUST CAN SMASH STUDENT LOAN

Millions of students each year apply for federal financial aid to help pay
rising college costs, but most have no idea a drug conviction can get their
application tossed in the trash. Any drug conviction from age 18 on is
grounds for rejecting a federal financial aid application.

Marisa Garcia, 20, of Santa Fe Springs, Calif., knows first-hand how costly
a minor drug conviction can be. Garcia was convicted of misdemeanor
possession of marijuana in March 2000, fined $415 and then subsequently was
denied federal aid for one full school year.

"I pretty much thought it was done with after my conviction," said Garcia,
who is now a sophomore at California State University, Fullerton. "Usually
that's how it works. When you get punished, you only get punished once."

Since last year, students filling out the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid are asked if they have ever been convicted of possessing or
selling illegal drugs.

A large number of blank responses led the U.S. Department of Education to
ignore the mandatory nature of the question last year, but now a response
is being strictly enforced by the department.

A total of 279,100 students out of 10.1 million applicants for aid left the
question blank in 2000. They were then sent a separate letter, giving them
a second chance to respond.

Some, like Garcia, answered the question, and were then denied aid. But
many students who left the question blank were not denied aid. That won't
happen this year, officials said.

After processing 6.97 million applications thus far for the 2001-2002
school year, the Department of Education has declared 7,139 applicants
ineligible for student aid based on their answers to the drug question.

That is up from 1,835 ineligible students from all of last year's applications.

Only convictions that occurred after people have turned 18 or in cases
where they are tried as adults can result in a denial of aid. Students can
avoid a penalty if their conviction has been wiped from their records.

For possession convictions, students are barred from receiving aid for one
year after a first offense, two years for a second offense, and
indefinitely for a third offense.

The penalty is harsher for those convicted of selling illegal drugs, with
convicted persons losing aid for two years for one conviction, and
indefinitely for a second conviction.

Despite the penalties, students can regain their eligibility for aid or
lessen the time they are barred from receiving aid by enrolling in
"acceptable" drug rehabilitation programs, according to the U.S. Department
of Education.

Acceptable programs have to qualify to receive funds or actually be run by
either the local, state, or federal government. Other acceptable facilities
include those run by federally licensed hospitals, health clinics, or doctors.

However, those programs are not easy for lower income people to enroll in,
as Garcia attests. She called a number of rehab facilities in her area, and
was met at each one with a prohibitive cost. That cost amounted to $200 to
enroll, $20 a week for the six-month program, and a $25 per drug test.

Since Garcia had a job, she was not eligible to receive aid to enter the
program. That job was necessary for Garcia to attend college, so the
addition of an expensive rehab program was not an option, she said.

Garcia, who had no drug history prior to being cited for having an empty
pipe with marijuana residue in it, was faced with the large expenses for
college. In order to make up for the lost federal aid, Garcia signed up for
more hours at the flower shop where she earns $6.75 an hour, and her mother
took out loans.

According to Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties Union, the first
cases of people being denied aid for their answers on this year's form
admitting to drug convictions are just becoming known.

"I don't really take issue with the Department of Education enforcing the
law as it's written," said Boyd. "I take issue with the law itself."

One argument made by student groups and the ACLU has been that the drug
information is private and confidential. Martin Margulis, a professor of
law at Quinnipiac University's School of Law, dismissed the notion, since a
conviction is a matter of public record.

"A convicted drug user is not a protected class, it's not like race,
religion, gender, or something like that," said Margulis. "No special legal
protection, constitutional or otherwise, is attached to the status of being
a drug user, period, much less a convicted drug user."

Steve Yandle, associate dean of the Yale School of Law, who oversees
financial aid operations there, does not see the question as optional for
respondents.

"You don't have an entitlement to federal loans," said Yandle. "As long as
there is a rationale to the question, it'd be hard to challenge."

One of the leading opponents of the question is U.S. Rep. Barney Frank,
D-Mass., who has worked to repeal it for three years because he feels it is
biased against low-income people.

"There's a real problem ... of who gets convicted, and who doesn't," Frank
said recently.

Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, a two-year-old organization, has been
leading a coalition of groups hoping to repeal the amendment. According to
SSDP, the amendment is discriminatory, especially to African-Americans, who
make up 12 percent of the population, 13 percent of drug users, and 55
percent of convicted drug users.

"Drug laws in general have a discriminatory impact," said Alex Kreit, a
member of SSDP's board of directors. "This law is one more way of keeping
people down who have historically been oppressed."

Even U.S. Rep. Mark Souder R-Ind., who helped write the law, said it is not
fulfilling his original intentions. "The law was originally designed for
people who have some sort of drug conviction while they are receiving aid
or while their application is pending," said Seth Becker, Souder's press
secretary. "It was not supposed to be retroactive."

Becker also stated that the law is supposed to function as a sort of
deterrent for young students. Garcia said the law does not work like that,
as many students, like herself, are not aware of until it affects them. "I
think that when people are out there getting pot, school is the last thing
on their minds," said Garcia.

Boyd partly agreed with Souder. "What the Department of Education is doing
is improperly interpreting the law."

Despite these arguments, chances of changing the interpretation are not
good. The courts would not likely "second guess what political
decision-makers do," Margulis said.

While Souder has qualms about the enforcement of the law in its present
state, he is not willing to go as far as Frank and repeal it.

"We are hoping solutions to this will come out of the Bush administration,"
Becker said.

On the other side of the aisle, Frank's office is gaining bipartisan
support for a repeal. As of July 20, 54 congress men and women had signed
on as co-sponsors of the bill, according to Joe Racalto, Frank's
legislative assistant on education.