US VA: EDU: GETTING HIGH COULD COST RECIPIENTS OF FINANCIAL AID

Students who are convicted of marijuana possession could lose their
federal aid, and in some severe cases, have their aid revoked indefinitely.

Barry Simmons, director of scholarships and financial aid at Virginia
Tech, said that only one student in the past five years has been
affected by this policy.

Finding students who may be affected has become less common with time.

"We had to dig to find the one that we had," Simmons said.

He explained that there are several exceptions to the policy.

"You have to be convicted while enrolled, and that's been a recent
change," Simmons said.

Also, in some cases, a student may be enrolled and still have their
financial aid unaffected.

"If a student is a freshman and convicted with possession in May
after filling out FASFA in February, and FASFA has already found the
applicant eligible, then their federal aid goes unaffected," Simmons said.

In addition to these loopholes in the system, there is also no
requirement by the university financial aid department to perform any
background checks. Simmons said that because of this, the department
must rely on the student's honesty in telling the school they were
convicted of marijuana possession. The courts can, however, step in
and reveal a student who was convicted if they see fit.

"There is a drug abuse hold file that a judge can activate on an
individual when they apply for FASFA; but this doesn't appear to
happen that often," Simmons said.

A student undergoing their first conviction for possession of
marijuana will lose eligibility for federal aid for a year. A student
who is convicted of intent to sell marijuana for the first time will
lose their eligibility for two years.

A second conviction for marijuana posses-sion will cause students to
lose two years federal aid. Those who have been convicted of intent
to sell marijuana for a second time will lose their federal aid
indefinitely. A third conviction for marijuana possession will also
result in the loss of federal aid indefinitely.

Simmons explained that if a student's eligibility has been suspended
indefinitely, they are able to regain eligibility by enrolling in an
approved drug rehabilitation program.

The changes in policies have fluctuated so much recently that the
policy is gaining a futile reputation.

"It's changed so much over the years that it's almost meaningless for
the most part," Simmons said.

Geoff Allen, Virginia Tech community outreach officer, said that in
2004 there were 34 arrests for the possession of marijuana. In 2005
there were also 34 arrests, and, in 2006 there were 20.

Simmons said though arrests have declined, it may be due to less
regulation rather than fewer students using the drug.

"The way the tide has been flowing, each year this regulation has
been softened a little bit," Simmons said. "Unless there is a major
change in Washington, I really don't see it being strengthened or
tightened down on."

Kris Reinertson, a senior political science and sociology major, and
president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), agreed with
the new development in regulation.

"Kicking students out for academic failure is one thing, but kicking
successfulstudents out for drug use rather than guiding them toward
better health isonly perpetuating the problem, and is
counterproductive to the philosophy of ouruniversity policy," Reinertson said.

Relating illegal drug use to a student's federal aid seems to only
complicate the red tape students have to hurdle through to receive
their aid every year.

"One reason financial aid is so complex is because different people
over the years have tacked on requirements that have nothing to do
with financial aid," Simmons said. "(The conviction of marijuana
possession) is just something a social issue that is tacked onto
something that shouldn't be tacked onto."

Irina Alexander, a sophomore psychology major and vice president of
SSDP, also feels that the link between financial aid and marijuana is
unnecessary. "Any law that directly targets lower and middle income
families, stripping theirchildren of means to an education, is
unjust," Alexander said.