Posted on 05/15/2006 12:02:33 PM PDT by radar101
After Marisa Garcia was busted for possessing a pipe with marijuana residue, she pleaded guilty, paid a $415 fine and thought she had paid her debt to society.
She was wrong: When she applied for federal financial aid to attend Cal State Fullerton, she learned she was ineligible because of the misdemeanor conviction.
"I was thinking I made this horrible mistake which is going to ruin my access to education," said Garcia, 25, of Santa Fe Springs. The sociology major's mother is refinancing her home mortgage to help pay Garcia's fees . "You've already been punished and now you get punished twice … and I don't think that punishment is benefiting anyone," Garcia said.
She is among hundreds of thousands of students denied federal student aid or who didn't apply for it because drug convictions made them ineligible under a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act intended to deter student drug use.
The huge number of denials has sparked a backlash by students, educators and civil libertarians who are seeking to repeal the drug-conviction provision through Congress and the courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
This is a very stupid law.
It is but didn't see such an uproar over the Launteberg amendment. Have a case of domestic violence in your past and you can't get a gun permit. Lost a few soldiers over this since the law was retroactive.
Heck, don't plead guilty to anything. If the judge ask, you can state these two laws as your reason to take your case to trial.
Great idea!
A CLINTON ERA law, none the less.
Why is that bad?
I had to fight to get into college; not because of drugs, but because of selective service. I was in the Navy when the requirement to register for selective service was enacted. We were told at the time that active duty military personnel did not have to register. We were told wrong. You cannot get admitted to college if you did not register for selective service, nor can you be hired for a federal job.
I finally had to get a letter from the selective service that says, basically, that the fact that I served my country honorably is de facto evidence that I was not attempting to avoid military service, and am therefore exempt from the registration requirements. Along with every college application, and any time that I apply for a federal job, I have to show this letter along with my DD214, and go through the battle with administrators all over again.
Some laws really are stupid.
How many college graduates in the past 30 years never used any type of illegal substance?
Apparently private lenders are allowed to act rationally, but the taxpayer is not permitted to.
This law is a wise law indeed, and unlike most laws governing the allocation of tax money it will actually save money.
"This is a very stupid law."
Why is it a stupid law, mlcnnnn? Why should we be financing the college education of druggies? If we're serious about not encouraging our youth to go ahead and use drugs, then this should be a good deterrent, don't you think?
I'm a little puzzled.
Suppose they had a law that denied college financing to young women who had abortions?
Unbelievable!
"How many college graduates in the past 30 years never used any type of illegal substance?"
I don't know. However, it's pretty easy to find out how many were convicted of drug offenses, isn't it? I'm still puzzled at your objection to this law. I thought you were all about objective morality.
The article is wrong. See my post #8. Failure to register for selective service is another trigger, even for people who were in the military. Nowadays, they automatically register military personnel for selective service during the discharge process. They had to do this because there are a lot of people like me out there.
Because people grow up. However, the article does say that the ban on drug use is only for one year for people that have only been convicted once. Also, they are not talking about just grants, they are also talking about student loans and college admission.
Based on this article, it seems like the girl did not know her ability to get a federal student loan would be lost by pleading guilty to a minor charge. If she knew the consequences, she may have been able to make a plea deal to a different charge to avoid a trial and to keep her eligeabilty for federal aid. I think the schools need to stress this issue from the very beginning - get a drug conviction, no $ from Uncle Sam for college.
The sociology major's mother is refinancing her home mortgage to help pay Garcia's fees
Your "horrible mistake" is not ruining your access to education. You are perfectly within your rights to PAY FOR YOUR OWN DAMN COLLEGE!
If she is this stupid what good will college do her?
This law is dumb. They shouldn't lose their money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.