Federal Judge Tosses Suit Over Financial Aid for Those With Drug Convictions

This is a shame. Students for a Sensible Drug Policy reports that on Friday, a federal judge granted the Bush administration's motion to dismiss an ACLU and SSDP lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law that strips financial aid from college students with drug convictions.

SSDP says it's more important for people to contact Congress and demand the repeal of this harmful and unfair penalty that has denied educational opportunities to nearly 200,000 would-be students.

The judge's ruling is here (pdf).

< Cheney Calls for the Shredders | CNN Brings Bloggers to D.C. for Election Night >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, yeah (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:14:53 PM EST
    Unless the ruling completely misrepresents their arguments, they're just plain weak.  Bordering on goofy.

    Does the ACLU refund donation?

    Correction (none / 0) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:16:57 PM EST
    You mean 200,000 would-be draftees.

    Compassionate conservatism strikes again. All those pot heads are never going to get anywhere anyway, right?

    It's all right for you (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:24:44 PM EST
    It's OK to drink yourself into a drunken stupor on a weekly basis "at taxpayer's expense". What hypocrisy, and from a court of law. Students get loans. They are required to pay them back. What they do in their own time is their business, not Sallie Mae's.

    hmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:55:07 AM EST
    based on the rulings in the "sex offender registry" cases, this was probably a foregone conclusion.

    however, two interesting things:

    1. if you're convicted before or after you get a loan, grant, etc., you're ok.

    2. the suspension isn't permanent, at least for a first offense.

    the first seems kind of odd, the second makes it not quite as draconian as i had thought.

    Re: (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 08:13:26 AM EST
      For first offenders, it's a one year suspension of financial aid for those who convicted while receiving the financial aid and the penalty for such a conviction is expressly stated in the loan agreements. If the students stay out of trouble and comnplete a counseling class they can be reinstated. Of all the policies involved in the "war on drugs" this might be the very least objectionable.

      I'd also sure love to see how they support the claim that this law has affected 200,000 students.


    What's next? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 10:23:29 AM EST
    Let's talk about ability to pay. After all, that's what lending is all about, isn't it?

    No loans if you have too many speeding tickets. I mean, chronic speeders have an increased risk of getting killed in a car crash. The govt would lose that money.

    OK, let's talk about risky behavior. Risk takers have a higher rate of default...by default.

    How about sky divers?
    What about BASE jumpers? Motocross riders?
    How much more of your lives do they need to regulate before you see the trend?

    The law is a ass. The people who write laws like these are the real criminals.