TO REPEAL, OR NOT?

In the debate over the Higher Education Act provision that disallows
students with drug convictions from receiving federal financial aid
for college, it is unclear who's right. Should the provision be
repealed, as the Students for a Sensible Drug Policy group says,
because of unconstitutionality?

One of the gripes of the national SSDP is that the provision violates
the Fifth Amendment guarantee against "Double Jeopardy," or being
tried with the possibility of conviction for the same crime twice.
The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that an individual can
only be tried for a crime once, but is taking away a convicted
student's financial aid the same as convicting them again? It's
stretch to say that taking away a student's financial aid is the same
as parole, community service or jail time. Financial aid and going to
college aren't rights afforded to all U.S. citizens; these are earned
responsibilities.

As the SSDP says, the provision "punishes individuals twice for the
same infraction," but the second punishment isn't a verdict passed
down from the courts. Claiming the Fifth Amendment doesn't fly here
because the students aren't again being tried with the chance of
conviction. A punishment is different from a conviction.

We at the Cigar do sympathize that the law doesn't seem to have any
real purpose except to keep drug dealers and users out of U.S.
universities. But there is also a thought that maybe this is
necessary to create a better atmosphere for students without drug convictions.

SSDP also says that this provision will make it "more likely" that
students will drop out of school and become drug abusers,
non-taxpaying delinquents and criminals. Well, they're already
criminals and probably drug abusers when they get convicted, but
isn't this contrasting the SSDP message that responsible drug
policies will create a more responsible population? Here's what this
SSDP claim seems to be saying: "If you're in school, you should be
able to do drugs and you're not a criminal. Get rid of their student
status and they're suddenly criminals." Wrong. The drugs these
students are convicted for having are illegal; students are subject
to laws just like everyone else and have to take the penalties.

This is not to say that the provision is steadfast and perfect. As
the American Civil Liberties Union points out: other convicts "from a
murderer to a shoplifter, can receive financial aid." So, how can
this be remedied? Would it be better to make financial aid available
for everyone (even "murderers") or disallow financial aid to anybody
who has ever been convicted of a crime? A middle ground? All ways
seem imperfect.