Further, the proponents of this argument fail to recognize that the misuse of alcohol, a legal drug, is by far the more common cause of student absenteeism and failing grades. The second argument has some validity because others are paying for the education of some. Almost without exception, drug use is consensual and nonviolent, unlike other crimes not included under this provision. Perhaps one could reasonably argue that hard core drug dealers shouldn't get financial aid. But a blanket ban like this does harm to those young people who are most at risk, because it only affects lower-income students whose parents can't afford to send them to school in the first place.
Education is a life preserver for students who have previously had a brush with the law.
By slamming the doors to education we only open the doors to prisons. This is not a wise way to invest in the future. Supporters of this law point to the treatment provision as a way out for ex-convicts to redeem themselves and regain their eligibility. Treatment is primarily available to those who can afford to pay for it, which your typical drug law violator cannot. Yet both support the drug war and the criminal justice approach currently in vogue.