STUDENTS PROTEST FEDERAL LAW CUTTING AID TO MINOR DRUG OFFENDERS

Students Protest Federal Law Cutting Aid To Minor Drug Offenders

Nathan Bush had the bad luck of being a passenger in a vehicle pulled
over by police who uncovered a small stash of marijuana inside. The
political science major at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was
charged with felony drug possession.

Craig Selken, now a senior majoring in history at Northern State
University in South Dakota, was charged with a misdemeanor when
officers found a small amount of marijuana in the common area of the
dorm room he then shared with two roommates.

Bush later had his felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor. The story
would end there, but because of their drug-related convictions both
students lost their eligibility to receive state and federal financial
aid under a 1998 provision of the Higher Education Act.

The loss of financial support was disastrous for Selken and Bush, both
good students with GPAs over 3.0. They now each work at least one
part-time job in addition to their full-time course loads, and they
have spent considerable time attending drug counseling.

"If you want to rehabilitate somebody, you don't want to kick them out
of school," Selken said.

The two young men were among many voices heard at a four-day
conference at Georgetown University Law School Nov. 17-20. The
conference was organized by the group Students for Sensible Drug
Policy to raise interest and support for changing what the group
considers to be unfair drug laws.

The foyer where the conference was being held was practically empty at
10 am Sunday morning, when the first speaker of the day was scheduled
to begin. Attendees leisurely set up tables where they would hand out
pamphlets and news articles and sell t-shirts, hemp hackie-sacks,
refrigerator magnets and other items to drum up funds to promote their
aims.

Over 180,000 potential students have been denied financial aid for
college because of drug convictions since the fall semester of 2000
because of the drug provision of the Higher Education Act, according
to literature provided at the conference.

With help from the American Civil Liberties Union and Students for a
Sensible Drug Policy, Bush and Selken challenged the penalty through a
complaint filed in the District Court of South Dakota.

They argued that the policy is illegitimate because felons, murderers
and others convicted of criminal offenses enjoyed access to financial
aid, but any party convicted of even a minor drug charge lost such
rights. Families with the means to continue sending their kids to
school are not affected in the least, but those dependent on federal
and state support would be hard pressed to find relief.

The judge acknowledged the inequities of the law, but said there were
no constitutional grounds on which to rescind it. The judgment stood,
but the matter may still proceed to higher courts.

Billy Murphy, a former judge and now a prominent criminal defense
attorney who attended the conference, said the drug provision is part
of the wider War on Drugs, which he said began in 1968 and originally
targeted inner-city blacks.

"White folks use 75 percent of drugs in America," he said. "Blacks use
13 percent. But 75 percent of people in prison are black."

He said his goal was not necessarily to support the particular aims of
the attendees, but to congratulate them for taking a stand on
something they believed in and encourage them to extend their activism
to other areas of concern.

"If we don't watch, look and listen, all that you stand for will be
for naught," he said.

A law enforcement component was also represented at the conference by
the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization that consists
of 700 officers in 50 states and seven countries. The group advocates
the legalization and federal sale of all drugs as an alternative to
the current War on Drugs, which it considers cost-prohibitive and
impossible to win.