Chris Dodd Introduces Bill to Stem College Aid Loss for Drug Offenders

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:11:57 PM EST
Tags: marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Cheers to Sen. Chris Dodd for introducing S. 2627 this week. The bill would amend the Higher Education Act to end mandatory elimination of financial aid to students with drug convictions. Loss of financial aid would only occur if the state or federal judge sentencing the student orders aid suspension.

The bill adds a new paragraph to the aid loss section of the statute that reads:

This subsection shall only apply to a student if the Federal or State court that convicted the student of an offense described in paragraph (1) has ordered that the student's eligibility for assistance under this title be suspended in accordance with this subsection.'.

Students for a Sensible Drug Policy says:

Although the penalty should be repealed outright, the judicial
discretion bill would tremendously reduce its impact by turning it into an opt-in punishment instead of an automatic one. Take action now by spending one minute to edit and send a pre-written letter to your senators!

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. So far there are no co-sponsors.

< Time to Talk About Marijuana | NORML to Challenge Mass. Pot Law >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Chris Dodd Introduces Bill to Stem College Aid Loss for Drug Offenders | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

But should the responsibility (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:15:44 PM EST

be placed on the sentencing judge, who, like members of Congress, must stand for election?

federal judges don't get elected (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:18:17 PM EST

neither do many state court judges. Our's are appointed and then run for re-election.

This is an opt-in law. I doubt a judge's omission of a provision stripping the student of aid would even be noticed. Or that anyone would care.


: In CA, state superior court (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:32:17 PM EST

judges may be appointed or, if there is an open judgeship through death, retirement, resignation, etc., run for the open seat. All superior court judges must run for re-election, assuming there is an opponent.

Good for Dodd. (none / 0) (#2)
by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:16:43 PM EST

I had no idea this financial aid penalty even existed.

I'm reminded of Chef's saying from "South Park": "Children, there's a time and a place for everything. And that place is called college."

The fact is there is a lot of drug use in college, whether one views it as harmful or not. This kind of penalty affects only those unfortunate enough to get "caught" doing what a lot of students do.

time for Obama and Clinton to co-sponsor (none / 0) (#5)
by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:44:41 PM EST

risky for the GE I know, but let's see some guts.

: That's what I was thinking - (none / 0) (#6)
by Josey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:25:00 PM EST

risky for the General.

Great Bill (none / 0) (#7)
by Raheem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:56:51 PM EST

I support it... u get convicted with a gram of marijuana and now you cant get student aid? its ridiculous

This is cool I guess.... (none / 0) (#8)
by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST

but frustrating. Why bother with the financial aid issue, or the medical use issue? Why not just tackle the root problem...prohibition?

Losing federal student loan assistance (none / 0) (#9)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM EST

for a pot conviction was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1998. In 2006 GW signed into law an amendment to Bill's law that reduced the power of Bill's law and allowed many more students with convictions to get fed student aid. fwiw.

I've been googling but have found no research on the efficacy of the law. iow, I assume the idea behind the law was to discourage kids from breaking the law by using illegal drugs, but I've not found any info as to the effect Bill's 1998 law has had on drug arrests among fed student aid recipients in particular.

My guess would be that it does have some postitive effect on lessening illegal drug use among fed student aid recipients.

The question to me is: whether or not the law is effective, is it right?

My thoughts are that if you support a student losing his fed student aid for being convicted of breaking fed drug laws then you should be consistent and support the loss of all fed aid for any person convicted of breaking any fed law, ie., those convicted of breaking fed law would lose their right to Child Care Tax Credits, the fed portion of SCHIP, disability benefits, food assistance, etc., etc.

Clearly that would be obscene, and therefor so is losing fed student aid.