|
|
| SA Disputes Drug Question |
|
Posted by FoM on April 13, 2002 at 09:00:33 PT By Joe Gidjunis Source: GW Hatchet 
GW students are joining others around the nation in fighting a law that strips them of financial aid for past or current drug offenses.Question 35 on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form asks students if they have been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs while over the age of 18 (tobacco and alcohol are excluded). If they leave it blank, aid is delayed. If they have been convicted, aid can be permanently restricted. On Tuesday the Student Association joined more than 100 student governments around the nation in signing a petition encouraging Congress to remove the question because it unfairly denies students needed funds. "This law unlike any other law pulls students out of the classroom for minor mistakes," said junior Sam Mcree, president of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, at the SA meeting. "This law is preventing people from bettering themselves." During former President Bill Clinton's administration, the question was more vague and students often left it blank, leading financial aid offices to assume the student had no conviction, said Daniel Small, director of student financial assistance at GW. But the Bush administration has taken a stiffer policy on the question, forcing students to answer yes or no. The online FAFSA form no longer allows students to submit a form with a blank question 35. "The financial aid community does not like it," Small said, adding that a financially dependent student could lose up to $12,000 in many forms of federal aid including loans, grants and work-study pay. Sophomore Eric Daleo (U-CCAS) sponsored the bill, which passed 16-5-1. "Drug use is an illegal action, and this doesn't prevent people from getting an education," said SA Sen. J.P. Blackford (G-SEAS), who voted against the measure. "Not every person can attend GW whether or not they are convicted of drug use." Some senators voted against the bill because they felt they would be advocating drug use by allowing their taxes to fund rehabilitation, said SA Sen. Maureen Benitz (G-CCAS). Small said he does not know if any GW student has lost federal aid under this provision yet, but students have left the question blank in the past. Yale University now reimburses students hurt by the law. While GW President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg said that is not a reality at GW, he said he does not agree with the law. "I would like to tie it (financial aid) to murder," he said. Russ Rizzo contributed to this report. Source: GW Hatchet (DC) Related Articles & Web Sites: Students For Sensible Drug Policy Yale's Policy Makes Stand on Drug Law U.S. Rep., Yalie Debate Higher Ed. Act Drug Policy Missteps Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #3 posted by Dan B on April 13, 2002 at 15:26:07 PT:
|
| Some senators voted against the bill because they felt they would be advocating drug use by allowing their taxes to fund rehabilitation . . . Think about this: these people have the police state so far engrained in their minds that they vote against rehabilitation! They believe that punishment is the only legitimate response to drug use, and therefore drug users must be punished at every turn. This is barbaric, to say the least. God help us! Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Patrick on April 13, 2002 at 11:26:44 PT |
| While the nation is on CODE YELLOW for terror we here at cannabisnews.com are petitioning a motion to raise all institutes of higher education to CONDITION DARKER YELLOW. This is in light of current intelligence in the field. The terroristic arm of the federal government will not remove question 35 from the form for financial aid completely. Sources said. COLOR CODE CHART: http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/ [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on April 13, 2002 at 11:15:21 PT |
| "This law unlike any other law pulls students out of the classroom for minor mistakes," said junior Sam Mcree, president of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, at the SA meeting. "This law is preventing people from bettering themselves." That's the basically point of the law. It's a pogrom against marijuana users, like Cossacks riding into a shetl in 1905. Of course it prevents people from bettering themselves. If we have potheads graduating from Yale or Harvard, how can the Cossacks continue to ride against them? This is not about chemistry, it's about cultural destiny. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |