News (Media Awareness Project) - US VA: PUB LTE: Unfair Clause |
Title: | US VA: PUB LTE: Unfair Clause |
Published On: | 1999-02-22 |
Source: | The Cavalier Daily (University of Virginia) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-06 12:48:47 |
I am writing to express my disgust and disappointment in the ignorant
and self-righteous way that The Cavalier Daily pledged its support to
the Higher Education Act's provision to bar federal student aid to
students convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
The argument made in the Feb. 16 lead editorial that "if the
government funds a drug user's education, the government is in effect
subsidizing the drug use," is hypocritical, based on flawed logic and
shows a complete lack of understanding behind the ban.
If the government funds a student's education, and that student spends
his personal income on alcohol, then the government is in effect
subsidizing that student's drinking.
Before you hide behind the shield of the law, arguing that alcohol is
legal whereas drugs are not, remind yourself that the majority of
U.Va.'s student body, at any time, is under 21 years of age. If "it is
only fair that those who have stayed clean are awarded with aid over
those who have not," let's yank the financial aid from any U.Va.
student who has been convicted of an alcohol offense.
Because after all, like Erin Perucci states in her column ("Drug Use
Doesn't Deserve Aid," Feb. 18, The Cavalier Daily), "a primary
stipulation for receiving federal financial aid should be following
the laws of the same government that provides for their education."
Meanwhile, those convicted of rape, assault, or other violent crimes
are not automatically disqualified from student aid.
Also, the idea that this legislation will act as a deterrent is
laughable. Smoking a joint on a Saturday night will not have much of a
negative impact on a student's life. Losing a scholarship or grant
will. Why does the government insist on making the consequences of
drug laws more damaging than the consequences of drug use?
The lead editorial also falls into the trap of equating drug use to
drug abuse. While advocating, "responsible drinking," those who have
never taken drugs fail to realize that "responsible drug use" does
exist.
If I choose to smoke a joint on a Saturday night, how am I being more
irresponsible than if I relaxed with a few beers?
Most drug users do not have drug problems, just like most drinkers are
not alcoholics.
Jay Fenster
SCC IV
and self-righteous way that The Cavalier Daily pledged its support to
the Higher Education Act's provision to bar federal student aid to
students convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
The argument made in the Feb. 16 lead editorial that "if the
government funds a drug user's education, the government is in effect
subsidizing the drug use," is hypocritical, based on flawed logic and
shows a complete lack of understanding behind the ban.
If the government funds a student's education, and that student spends
his personal income on alcohol, then the government is in effect
subsidizing that student's drinking.
Before you hide behind the shield of the law, arguing that alcohol is
legal whereas drugs are not, remind yourself that the majority of
U.Va.'s student body, at any time, is under 21 years of age. If "it is
only fair that those who have stayed clean are awarded with aid over
those who have not," let's yank the financial aid from any U.Va.
student who has been convicted of an alcohol offense.
Because after all, like Erin Perucci states in her column ("Drug Use
Doesn't Deserve Aid," Feb. 18, The Cavalier Daily), "a primary
stipulation for receiving federal financial aid should be following
the laws of the same government that provides for their education."
Meanwhile, those convicted of rape, assault, or other violent crimes
are not automatically disqualified from student aid.
Also, the idea that this legislation will act as a deterrent is
laughable. Smoking a joint on a Saturday night will not have much of a
negative impact on a student's life. Losing a scholarship or grant
will. Why does the government insist on making the consequences of
drug laws more damaging than the consequences of drug use?
The lead editorial also falls into the trap of equating drug use to
drug abuse. While advocating, "responsible drinking," those who have
never taken drugs fail to realize that "responsible drug use" does
exist.
If I choose to smoke a joint on a Saturday night, how am I being more
irresponsible than if I relaxed with a few beers?
Most drug users do not have drug problems, just like most drinkers are
not alcoholics.
Jay Fenster
SCC IV
Member Comments |
No member comments available...