# Get Caught with Pot - No Pell Grant



## sunshinestarr (Jan 5, 2006)

from Building Block

THE FOLLOWING CONVERSATION, TRANSCRIBED FROM MEMORY, TOOK PLACE BETWEEN TEXAS SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON'S LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT AND CHRISTOPHER LARGEN. (sorry for the CAPS LOCK, I cut and pasted and don't feel like typing it all over again)









"Hi, I'm one of Senator Hutchison's constituents. I'm calling in regard to the Higher Education Act of 1998."

"Yes sir."

"Well, I was reviewing the text of this act, and I was wondering, if I get convicted of possessing a marijuana cigarette, does this mean I will lose all my federal financial aid to go to college?"

Read the rest on the site...


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

Wow...


----------



## herbanmama (Jun 10, 2005)

That's so scary. I mean, I knew this info, but to see it in print is mind-numbing.







:

Blegh.

Thanks for the link. It'll come in handy.


----------



## sunshinestarr (Jan 5, 2006)

Bizarre, huh??!


----------



## REDBREAST (May 6, 2006)

I did not know this before reading what you posted, sunshinestarr. I feel wow, sick to my stomach, crying becuase it is so very wrong, as I already believe that anyone who rapes a child should be locked away forever and ever. So, someone who rapes a child is not only free to go to school but also to get money from the government?


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunshinestarr*
Bizarre, huh??!

VERY.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

this just further demonstrates why I don't trust the govenment.

Or doctors, lawyers, telemarketers, authors, authorities, police....


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

The law is not QUITE as extreme as this site makes it sound.

For possession of illegal drugs, you are ineligible from the date of conviction for:
* 1 year for a first offense
* 2 years for a second offense
* Indefinitely for a third offense

For sale of illegal drugs, you are ineligible from the date of conviction for:
* 2 years for a first offense
* Indefinitely for a second offense

Convictions before you turned 18, unless you were prosecuted as an adult do not count, nor do convictions removed from your record. And no matter how many convictions you have, or what type, you can regain the ability for financial aid by completing drug-rehab. You still qualify for non-federal aid, (from state and school) and student loans (I think, couldn't find this for sure to double-check).

I don't really have too much of a problem with these rules, I wouldn't weep to see them over-turned, but they aren't that bad. It's not like they're taking the money out of the system, it's just going to go to the next person down the line to qualify. The idea is you don't want to waste money on someone who hasn't gotten their s--- straight yet. You want to spend your money in the most cost-effective manner. People who won't be on the dole five years from now. If someone has a drug problem, an education won't help them until they deal with the drug problem.

The child-rape comparison is just stupid, I mean if you rape and murder a child, you're probably not getting out anyway, and you're not going to qualify as a corespondence student because you'll be in a FEDERAL prison.

If by some chance they do get out as a child rapist or whatever they're already OUT (which is the bigger problem) and I'd want them to have the best shot at bettering themselves as possible. Having a harder life, more stress, working whatever job they can get (even one next door to a school, etc.) is just going to make them more likely to re-offend. Going to college will place more emphasis on CHOOSING their path, will likely be guided by a parole officer, and could help them find a career where they're away from temptation.

I have much MORE of a problem with the federal tax credit restrictions--granted, they only apply to felony convictions, but you do not qualify for the Hope credit, EVER, if you have a felony drug conviction. That's $3000 that is NOT going to go to another student somewhere, just more money collected in taxes from a probably struggling student working their way through college.


----------



## sunshinestarr (Jan 5, 2006)

Thank you Gendenwitha! What you're saying makes sense. I was never comfortable with the rape a child = get a grant analogy to begin with.


----------



## Erin H (Jul 24, 2006)

Greetings everyone,

Christopher Largen asked me to post his reply on this topic, as he's short on time right now.

*Thanks for sharing your concerns, Gendenwitha.*

>I was prompted by a message board to read the story about your conversation with Senator Hutchison's assistant. The law is not quite as extreme as the site makes it sound. I looked around your site a little and it sounds like you're doing a lot of good work, without taking the impractical "lock them up and throw away the key" approach that some similar groups propose. I also agree that drug laws and accompanying prison sentences are out of control. However, I think making the sensationalist "Rape a child, receive a Pell grant" statement discredits you by eschewing the facts.
>
> For possession of illegal drugs, you are ineligible from the date of conviction for:
> * 1 year for a first offense
> * 2 years for a second offense
> * Indefinitely for a third offense
>
> For sale of illegal drugs, you are ineligible from the date of conviction for:
> * 2 years for a first offense
> * Indefinitely for a second offense

*And for crimes of rape, child sexual assault, armed robbery, burglary, reckless endangerment, DWI, vandalism, etc. a criminal is ineligible from the date of conviction for:

NO TIME for a first offense
NO TIME for a second offense
NO TIME for a third offense*

> I don't really have too much of a problem with these rules, I wouldn't weep to see them over-turned, but they aren't that bad. It's not like they're taking the money out of the system, it's just going to go to the next person down the line to qualify.

*Such as the rapist, child sexual assailant, burglar, drunk driver, vandal, etc.*

>The idea is you don't want to waste money on someone who hasn't gotten their act together yet.

*Such as the rapist, child sexual assailant, burglar, drunk driver, vandal, etc.*

You want to spend your money in the most cost-effective manner. >People who won't be on the dole five years from now. If someone has a drug problem, an education won't help them until they deal with the drug problem.

*Just because someone gets charged with a drug "crime" (including misdemeanor marijuana possession) doesn't mean they have a dependency on drugs, any more than some college student with a beer is automatically an alcoholic. But of course they automatically have a "drug problem", because the law gives them problems. Would we deny college aid to a student who was convicted of public intoxcation, on the basis of a supposition that the particular student was an alcoholic?*

> The child-rape comparison is just stupid.

*So glad you enjoyed it.*

>I mean if you rape and murder a child, you're probably not getting out anyway, and you're not going to qualify as a correspondence student because you'll be in a FEDERAL prison.

*But if all you do is RAPE a child, there's a good chance you won't even serve A SINGLE DAY in jail. Plus, you can get a Pell Grant to pay for your tuition, books, and lubricant.*

> If by some chance they do get out as a child rapist they're already OUT (which is usually the bigger problem) and if they are trying to rehabilitate I'd want them to have the best shot at bettering themselves as possible.

*I agree. Same goes for users of illegal drugs, many of whom are survivors of violent crimes. Right?*

Having a harder life, more stress, working whatever job they can get (even one next door to a school, etc.) is just going to make them more likely to re-offend.

*Same goes for users of illegal drugs, many of whom are survivors of violent crimes. Right?*

Going to college will place more emphasis on CHOOSING their path, will likely be guided by a parole officer, and could help them find a career where they're away from temptation.

*Same goes for users of illegal drugs, many of whom are survivors of violent crimes. Right? After all, the National Institute on Drug Abuse claims that survivors of sexual assault have 4-10 times greater likelihood of using illegal drugs, as they are trying to self-medicate the symptoms associated with depression, anxiety and Post-Traumatic stress.*

> I have much MORE of a problem with the federal tax credit restrictions--granted, they only apply to felony convictions, but you do not qualify for the Hope credit, EVER, if you have a felony drug conviction. That's $3000 that is NOT going to go to another student somewhere, just more money collected in taxes from a probably struggling student working their way through college.

*Or a survivor of rape, who developed a drug problem, who is denied access to Pell Grants, but is also being forced to pay for her rapist's education. It happens infrequently, but it happens. Promise.*

> Granted, the more sensationalist approach gets you attention, but if it sacrifices your credibility it's not worth it. I think you could make similar statements to get noticed while sticking to more reasonable comparisons, and closer to the facts, such as inconsistent rape sentences vs the mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws.

*I don't believe the article is factually incorrect, though I will concede it is incomplete. In my conversation with the aide, I did NOT go through and itemize the levels of penalties for each offense, so I did not do so in the article either. But in response to your suggestion, I will include a link to the full text of the law, so people can further educate themselves. Nice suggestion. Thanks.*

> I'd also like to see someone address the issue of how to encourage former abuse victims to protect their children, either from spouses and boyfriends they suspect of abuse, or from the same person who abused them. So many people, usually women, for some reason need help realizing that the father or uncle that abused them will be the grandfather or great-uncle that abuses their child. There are a lot of frustrated friends and relatives who would love to have a reference, a link, an article, to pass on to these women who don't get it.

*I will pass this on to my co-founders, and see what we can come up with. This is very important. Good work.

Thanks again,

Christopher Largen*

Erin Hildebrandt, Co-founder
Building BLOCK
P.O. Box 541
Lafayette, OR 97127
(503)841-9975
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.Building-BLOCK.org


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Great post Erin.


----------



## Gendenwitha (Apr 2, 2002)

First of all, FYI this is based on an email I sent to the author of this website, basically re-stating what I said here. Since I sent this email to him under my IRL name, I want to thank you for protecting my privacy here. I will send this back to him as a courtsey, but I would rather not continue the debate with him personally because I think we basically agree and he's doing some wonderful work and I'm sure his time is put to better use with other things than arguing minutia with me.

I think you're still missing the idea I was trying to express. No one was sitting around the room trying to find a way to further punish drug users when this law was created--or probably more aptly, the people who were looking to further punish drug users woudn't have been able to get it past the majority on that basis alone.

This was a financial decision. They weren't looking at the individual person any more than people who pass vaccine laws look at the individual child who's harmed by them. I realize not every person who uses drugs has a problem, but if you look at the nation as a whole and say how can we better spend our money and not waste it on people who won't put it to good use, this sorta seems like a good plan... especially to a bunch of suits who are totally out of touch with mainstream working-class Americans, many of whom smoke a little pot on the weekends to relax and it's no big deal.

That's why I think the comparison is "stupid" (sorry, I could have worded that better, let's say it mixes apples and oranges) They passed the law in the name of fiscal responsiblity (I'm not necessarily defending that as an effective way to accomplish that). I don't think that finding additional ways to punish people who recieve inappropriately short sentences is the best direction to move towards. What needs to be done is push for the correct sentencing guidelines to begin with.

I also have concerns about the trend to punish people after they're out of jail because it's a slippery slope. If you say okay, sex offenders can't get a pell grant, then you say well, why should someone convicted of manslaughter, or forgery get a grant. Then you say, why should they get welfare, food stamps etc... As it is now, you can't get certain welfare benefits with a felony conviction. Only recently in my state did they acquiesce to at least giving felons food stamps.

There's so many issues tied up in this: over-population of prisons, over-zealous drug laws, lack of treatment for sex offenders, and drug offenders, lack of counseling and support for sexual abuse survivors the privatization of prisons that provide a financial incentive to keep the extrodinary high percentage of our population in jail, the amount of offenses that are being considered felonies now... and I think we agree for the most part. I just disagree with the way you're presenting it.

I don't think you're being clear and your arguments are emotionally-laden and sarcastic (and yes, I know,--it works). Is it that we need ways to further punish sex offenders who get short sentences? Or we need to punish drug-users less? What are you encouraging people who contact their senators to say? This emotional-based tactic of "they can use their pell grant to buy lubricant" is the same sort of tactic they use to pass cuts to welfare benefits by perpetuating the stereotype of the crack whore mom welfare queens who are using taxpayer money to buy dope. There's an element of truth in each, but neither is a good basis for creating policy.

Also, I am someone who believes that a lot of people smoke pot occassionally and it's no big deal, and that it should be legalized, both medicianally and recreationally. Although I get the impression you agree with me on that, your argument that people use it to self-medicate depression due to sexual abuse is not a good argument to present. It furthers the stereotype that if you do drugs it must be a problem or you must have a problem. Yes, many abuse survivors self-medicate with drugs and alcohol, but a lot of people smoke pot just because they want to, and it's not an addiction or an escape. It also perpetuates the victim role of abuse survivors as helpless. As if drug use is an inescapable consequence of abuse.


----------



## Primigravida (May 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunshinestarr*
from Building Block

"Well, I was reviewing the text of this act, and I was wondering, if I get convicted of possessing a marijuana cigarette, does this mean I will lose all my federal financial aid to go to college?"

Only if your're dumb enough to plead guilty to a felony!







:


----------



## mamaofthreecats (Aug 17, 2006)

i'm disturbed. its interesting that i went to college with some guys that had been convicted of rape and spent a few years in prison, and they got grants to go to school when i couldn't get financial aid because my parents made too much money.







:

don't get me wrong, i'm all about second chances, but rapists are dangerous and they're screwing us out of money.


----------



## menudo (May 21, 2002)

At least in NJ, most ex-cons and drug offenders fall into the same category as SPECIAL NEEDS peopel when it comes to help getting employment. A neighbor worked for an agency that helped special needs people (mostly disabled mentally or physically) obtain employment. the ywere so protected and te hprogram si great, it helps the mget decent jobs. BUT, she also had to assist ex cons-including rapists. This occured while I knew her.

Meanwhile, DH is out of work. Never in jail, not on drugs, never in rehab, etc. He has no advocates. He is eligible for antoher program but it caters to ex-cons and those in or leaving rehab. He is a low priority now. He was treated as so, never got help needed, etc. 2 of my neighbors are in the program-one OBVIOUSLY still uses and always has his $$ (ss) etc. and never keeps work but they cannot drop him b/c of his needs. CRAZY. Other got a great job imemdiately upon leavign jail, DUE to his status. WHO KNEW? The system is soooo backwords.


----------



## art4babies (Mar 6, 2004)

Very interesting. Too bad that for some victims of rape, the only way they can manage with such things as say... going to the same school as their rapists, is by self medicating themselves with small doses of marijuana. I just can't help but think that those who are totally against the legalization of marijuana are totally ignorant to its effects. I would think that is is a lot safer than most anti-depressants (side effects can include suicide) and certainly than all those other legal drugs. Just my $0.02.


----------

