This is the first of a two-part story analyzing federal laws that strip student aid
When filling out the FAFSA application, every student comes across the question: Have you ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?
Tom Angell, campaign director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, says approximately 175,000 students nationwide have checked the "yes" box for that question and as a result have been denied financial aid.
The controversial law that allows the government to block aid from students convicted on drug charges, but not other convictions like rape, is under heated debate once again as this year Congress is overhauling the original legislation in the 1998 Higher Education Act.
According to Angell, the decision could affect every student who relies on financial aid, such as Pell Grants, and work study.
If it is their first offense, students convicted of drug possession lose financial aid for one year. For a second offense, financial aid is lost for two years, and for the third offense, financial aid is lost indefinitely. Those students who are convicted of selling illegal drugs their first time lose financial aid for two years and after their second offense their aid is lost indefinitely, according to Angell.
This year Congress is reconsidering the policy for the first time in seven years since its enactment, but Angell said it is unknown when Congress will make its decision.
"It could be sometime this month or even as late as January," he said.
The main purpose of the policy is to deter the nation's drug use, but have questioned its effectiveness.
"Congress's own researchers failed to show that this discriminatory law does anything to solve our nation's drug problems," said Scarlett Swerdlow, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy in a press release.
Marisa Garcia, a junior sociology major at California State University at Fullerton, knows firsthand the affects this policy can have on education. In January 2000, Garcia was convicted of possession of marijuana only a month before starting college.
"It was my first and only offense," she said. "I had no idea the affect it would have on my student aid."
After filling out her FAFSA and mailing it in, Garcia received a letter in the mail explaining that she had missed the drug question on the form.
Garcia answered "yes" and soon discovered she was denied financial aid for one full year.
"I wasn't sure what I was going to do," Garcia said. "I thought I might have to drop out of school because I would not be able to afford it."
Lucky for Garcia, she found a way to save money to continue her education. With help from her mother as well as working extra hours at work, Garcia was able to get through the year.
"Without my mother I would've been unable to go to school," she said.
Angell said he believes that because of racial profiling, and the discriminatory enforcement of drug laws, the policy disproportionately keeps people of color out of college.
As a Mexican-American student, Garcia said she feels this issue primarily affects people of color.
"I feel we are more targeted," Garcia said.
At UB, Terri Mangione, senior associate vice provost for Student Academic Records and Financial Services, said she would rather not comment on the issue.
"We follow regulations," she said.
James Raymond, junior communication major at UB, said he personally has a problem with the whole financial aid situation.
"Many of the people being convicted of drug possession are students of low wealth and live in the inner city. It is the job of the government, through much legislation, to make sure that these students are not left behind," Raymond said.
"This law is not very well written and has not helped anyone, and I know because I have been through it," Garcia said. "There are addicts who want to continue their education after turning their life around and they get the door slammed in their face if they can't afford it."
Even if they have a drug conviction on their record, college graduates are less likely to break the law and become costly drains on the criminal justice system. People with only high school diplomas are 12 times as likely to be incarcerated than college graduates, and jailing one prisoner costs $26,000 per year, according to Angell's organization.
Raymond, like many students, said he feels government funding should be used more wisely.
"We are not all from Long Island and struggle day to day paying for school," he said. "Instead of the government wasting its money on busting up kids with less then five dollars of weed, they should invest more money into aid."
According to Angell, drug crimes are the only infractions that students lose aid for-murderers and rapists are still eligible.
"Just because I got caught having a dirty pipe, I almost lost my education," Garcia said. "If I were to have killed someone I still would've received my aid."
"This law pushes people back down and discourages education instead of letting them grow and move up in the world," Garcia added.
Gabriel Degrazia, a senior theater major, said he'd rather be sitting in class next to a stoner than someone who can potentially slit his throat.
"For the most of the time, drug use in college is just experimentation," Degrazia said. "College years are the years for having as much fun as you can, and if that includes booze and drugs, then so be it. Plus, most people know that once they graduate and it's time to grow up, the drugs have to go, and they do."
"Everyone is going to smoke," Raymond said. "It's just a matter of fact that most of us won't get caught, and for some reason I feel that people that are in low-condition housing where crime is rampant have a way better chance of getting caught than you or I."
Peter D'Angelo, a senior finance major, said he feels there should be little connection between drug use and financial aid.
"I'm sure that the money that goes to help for financial aid is scarce, and should only go to the most deserving, but I don't think this is a very good way to deter drug use and divvy up funds," he said. "The policy is too impersonal. Everyone makes mistakes, and denying someone's chance to further their life because they made one may only lead them down an even worse path."
The second part will look at the law's proponents and the reasoning behind the legislation.
