Repealing drug provision makes fiscal sense

As college students around the country prepare for this semester's midterms, thousands of their would-be classmates don't have anything to study for because of a federal law that strips financial aid from people with drug convictions.

The policy is currently being reconsidered as Congress renews the Higher Education Act for the first time in seven years.

While the HEA was originally enacted in 1965 to make higher education more accessible and affordable for all Americans, the Drug Provision, added during the 1998 HEA reauthorization, is an unjustifiable roadblock in the path to college.

Over the past seven years, more than 175,000 students have lost their financial aid because of the HEA Drug Provision. Every student affected by this law has already gone through the courts. Taking away their financial aid punishes them twice for the same crime.

Drug crimes are the only infractions that students lose aid for — murderer and rapists are still eligible. And because of racial profiling and the discriminatory enforcement of drug laws, the policy disproportionately keeps people of color out of college.

Last month Congress' own researchers at the Government Accountability Office were unable to find any evidence the provision actually reduces drug abuse. In fact, other federal studies show that high school graduates not attending college are far more likely to use drugs than those in college.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, college graduates earn 62 percent more each year and $1 million more over their lifetimes than people with only high school diplomas. College graduates pay twice as much federal income tax than high school graduates.

The revenue-slashing aid ban is unacceptable in a time of budget shortfalls. Educated people are less likely to rely on costly social programs like welfare, food stamps and public housing.

Budget hawks should be outraged that this provision prevents people from pulling themselves up and becoming productive citizens.

College graduates are also less likely to break the law. People with only high school diplomas are 12 times more likely to be incarcerated than college graduates.

We should encourage people who have been in trouble with drugs to move beyond their past mistakes, but the HEA Drug Provision prevents them from getting their lives back on track.

Graduating more college students means greater economic productivity and increased tax revenue, while locking up more inmates means taxpayers must pay for skyrocketing prison costs. Keeping this policy on the books is fiscally irresponsible.

One pending proposal to scale back the law would help some students get back into school but would leave thousands behind. The minor change would stop the provision from affecting people with convictions in the past, but students busted while in school would continue to lose their aid, leaving the fundamental problems with the law unaddressed.

Since there are already minimum grade requirements for receiving aid, the partially reformed Drug Provision would still only affect students doing well in classes. Good students would continue to be removed from school for minor convictions, many never returning to finish their degrees.

The Department of Education reports that more than a third of students leaving college before beginning their second year don't return within five years.

More than 120 student governments have passed resolutions calling on Congress to repeal the Drug Provision. Concerned students and educators should urge their legislators to take the lead in helping young people stay in school where they belong.

Visit www.DAREgeneration.com or call (202) 293-4414 for more information.

Tom Angell

Students for Sensible Drug Policy Campaigns Director

> Comments