DEFENDING THE DRUG OFFENDERS

According to press secretary Jennifer Gore, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is
submerging into the trenches of the nation's drug war. Frank and 55 other
Congress members launched bill H.R. 1184, also known as the Removing
Impediments to Student's Education (RISE) Act March 9. The act is designed
to repeal a 1998 drug provision of the Higher Education Act (HEA).

If the bill were to pass, students denied financial aid due to previous
drug misdemeanors, felonies and state or federal drug offenses would
receive financial aid instead of losing it. Presently, an amendment to the
Higher Education Act proposed by Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) withholds
financial aid from students under those circumstances.

Over 100 student government organizations, 180 community organizations and
56 co-sponsors, such as the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) and Faces and Voices of Recovery, are championing
the bill before the 160,500 students denied financial aid since year 2000
increases.

"Students who have drug convictions but don't come from families that need
financial aid are not affected by this law," Frank said, through
information provided by Gore. "I don't condone drug use and believe that
someone who commits a violent offense or is a major drug trafficker should
be denied financial aid. But preventing students with minor convictions
from being able to pursue an education is counterproductive and excessive."

There have been no hearings on the RISE Act as of yet and the primary
committee dealing with the act, the Education and Workforce Committee,
hasn't scheduled any either, Gore said.

Similar attempts for legislation to repeal the 1998 drug provision are
simultaneously occurring. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) is introducing the
S371, a higher education bill similar to the RISE act. In another similar
attempt, the Arizona General Assembly came to a bipartisan resolution and
introduced the "concurrent memorial" on Feb. 3.

A significant flaw with the 1998 drug provision is that it targets
minorities, primarily young African American males, according to the NAACP
and Students for Sensible Drug Policy's web site (SFSDP). African Americans
make up 13 percent of the population and 13 percent of the drug users, but
account for 55 percent of the drug convictions, according to the Coalition
for Higher Education Act Reform (CHEAR). Further information shows 36
percent of blacks are arrested in drug violations, 42 percent are sentenced
to federal prison and 57 percent are sentenced to state prison, according
to figures from the Justice Department.

According to CHEAR, there are various issues besides discrimination, such
as the harm it causes lower income families, punishing students twice for a
crime and steering students from returning to college. Thirty-six percent
of students that left four-year colleges before the beginning of their
second year did not return within five years, according to the Department
of Education.

A situation similar to Marisa Garcia's, a junior at California State
University-Fullerton convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia, defers
students from returning, according to CHEAR representative Chris Mulligan.

"The HEA drug provision created an immense burden on me and my family, but
I had a support structure to help get me through this - many others are not
so fortunate," Garcia said, according to raiseyourvoice.com. "This law is
fundamentally flawed."

The 1998 drug provision possesses three ironies according to CHEAR. The
first irony is that the drug provision fails to hinder students convicted
of rape or other violent offenses. Second, it does not target the country's
primary drug problem, alcohol abuse. Third, the HEA already withholds
financial aid from students earning lower than a "C" average, causing the
drug provision to target students doing well.

"I have a hard time finding the justification and rational for this
provision," said Tom Angell, a member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy,
according to blackamericaweb com. "Souder's first instinct was to strip
students with drug offenses without even thinking about other offenses such
as rape or arson."

The intent of the provision was to provide a deterrent to keep students
from committing drug offenses while enrolled in higher education, according
to information provided by Souder through the National Association of
Student Financial Aid Administrator's website. Supporting students that use
drugs contradicts the government's war on drugs, according to an SFSDP video.

"Students have to realize that their choices have consequences, and if they
break the law, then they should have to pay their own way through college,"
said Lori Waters, a participant in an SFSDP video.

Students do not have to attend college - there are other alternatives, such
as working their way through community college, Waters said in an SFSDP
video. Federal money is not a necessity, especially when we should think
about awarding illegal behavior, according to Waters in an SFSDP video.

The HEA was enacted in 1965 under then President Lyndon B. Johnson for the
purpose of extending the opportunity of secondary education to minorities
and low-income families. The 1998 drug provision proposed by Souder denies
financial aid based on set periods of time for students with drug convictions.

Students that marked anything but "no" on question 35 for their FAFSA form
are required to fill out an extra worksheet that determines their when they
may begin to receive aid again. Ineligibility lasts for one year for first
time possession, two years for a first dealing offense and is indefinite
for repeat offenders.

In 1998, the drug provision slipped into funding for the HEA and Congress
would have to vote against completely funding the HEA or allow the drug
provision to stay and keep the HEA, too, according to Gore. Since the drug
provision went into effect, congressmen have persistently reintroduced the
RISE Act to repeal the provision. Presently, The RISE Act is still pending,
Gore said.