Don't reward students who use, deal drugs

Drug use on college campuses is still a significant problem despite a generation of public school drug education courses and hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars spent on anti-drug advertising. Instead of drug prevention, many of these courses demonstrated how to use drugs while lacking a zero tolerance message.

Congress decided in 1998 that it would send a clear message about drug use among students. If you are convicted of possessing or selling a controlled substance, you are ineligible for federal financial aid.

The law is actually very lenient. To lose federal financial aid permanently, the student has to be convicted three times for drug possession or two times for selling drugs.

For those with fewer offenses, aid is lost for one or two years. The law reinstates eligibility for students who complete a drug rehabilitation program, including two unannounced drug tests.

At least four institutions of higher education, including Yale University, are sidestepping the law by reimbursing students who lose federal financial aid after being convicted of a drug-related crime.

If elite schools such as Yale are so desperate for students that they prefer drug addicts and dealers, then Yale can establish a private scholarship fund to pay the $38,000 annual per-student cost to attend. In setting up scholarships for drug dealers and addicts, one would expect law-abiding students and their parents who often foot the tuition bill to be outraged. While Congress cannot stop Yale or others from awarding such scholarships, it can certainly prevent tax dollars from being used for federal financial aid. With the great number of students vying for federal aid, law-abiding students should be at the front of the line. Receiving an educational check from Uncle Sam is not an entitlement as some want it to be; it is a privilege granted to a few.

Denying federal financial aid to students convicted of drug offenses will hardly deny students an education. It forces those students to take responsibility and face the consequences of their crimes.

Students must realize that making bad choices and breaking the law, such as using and dealing drugs, come with a price. If they are considering Ivy League schools, it's a substantial price.

Students lacking their own funds to afford Yale still have educational options. One does not have to possess a Yale or Harvard degree in order to be educated. Community and public colleges have good programs and are affordable enough to pay your own way. Or if the financial aid loss is only for a year, students can get jobs until eligibility is reinstated.

During the Clinton administration, the drug-free student aid provision was not enforced. The Washington Times recently reported that aid was awarded to thousands of students who left blank the drug conviction question on the federal financial aid application. The Bush administration has made the right decision to enforce federal law by insisting that every question on the application be answered.

Repealing this law would put the federal government in the business of financing and enabling students on drugs to maintain their habits and lawbreaking. Using tax dollars to support students who may still have drug problems is harmful to the student, other students and the academic environment.

The 1998 drug-free student aid provision puts drug rehabilitation first. Helping dealers or addicts get an education must come after they are clean and recovered.

The heart of this debate is not about education but whether to legitimize and legalize drug use. Drugs are wrong and harmful, and their use should not be rewarded

Mrs. Waters is a contributing writer for PurePolitics.com and has been a guest on Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, and Beyond the News, CNN Talk Back Live, ABC's Politically Incorrect, MSNBC, United Radio Network NewsMaker, USA Radio Network, and numerous other programs.