A $4,000 Fine for Opposing the War on Drugs

Jacob Sullum | January 26, 2006

Today Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education for what looks like a blatantly political response to the organization's request for federal financial aid data. In 2004 SSDP, which since its inception has opposed the denial of financial aid to college students who have been convicted of drug offenses, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Education Department for a state-by-state breakdown of how many students are affected by that policy. After jerking SSDP around for a year, the department announced that it could have the data for $4,124.19--a significant sum for a nonprofit group that runs on a shoestring budget. Such fees are supposed to be waived when releasing the information is predominantly in the public interest rather than the applicant's private commercial interest. But despite the ongoing debate about financial aid for convicted drug offenders, the department's chief FOIA officer, Mitchell Clark, decided there was no real public interest at stake. Furthermore, said Clark in a letter dated September 20, 2005, "review of the contents of SSDP's website, www.ssdp.org, and the materials submitted in connection with your fee waiver request [newspaper clippings about SSDP], reveal that the principal goal of your organization is 'to end the war on drugs.'" Clark concluded that "SSDP's campaign could directly benefit those who would profit from the deregulation or legalization of drugs."

Apparently Clark imagines that after marijuana is legalized, pro-reform organizations like SSDP will make a fortune selling it, despite their nonprofit status and lack of expertise in the mass production and marketing of dried psychoactive herbs. If the FOIA request had come from Philip Morris or R.J. Reynolds, Clark's reasoning would make a little more sense, although even then it would be hard to see the connection between letting students with drug offenses on their records get financial aid and repealing the Controlled Substances Act. If only it were that simple.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|1.26.06 @ 1:06PM|#

as i fill out my first ever fafsa worksheet (undergrad was cheap - law school, well, not so cheap) it asks me whether i have ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs.

however, it explains that the law suspends eligibility for some students with such convictions. such exempted students seem to be those who were busted before 18 (if not tried as an adult) or if the conviction was not a federal or state conviction.

as i am completely unfamiliar with drugs and their typical sentences - these exemptions may amount to pretty much zero people anyway. not sure.

i'm also not really sure what i'm getting at here other than that i think such a law is heavy handed.

i'm also curious about the libertarian position on student financial aid. oh, and how to best fight a speeding ticket - rough morning.

Mike|1.26.06 @ 1:15PM|#

I personally oppose government sponsored financial aid.

The easiest way to beat a speeding ticket is if the cop doesn't show up in court. Or talk to the prosecuting attorney beforehand and tell them you want a fine but no points, lots of them will play ball.

|1.26.06 @ 1:24PM|#

The article's title is a wee bit disingenuous don't you think? The group isn't being 'fined' for their views, they are being 'charged' for the information they seek. The current title had me imagining protesters being arrested.

And this 'aid' ... are we talking loans or grants?

|1.26.06 @ 1:26PM|#

Wait a minute, the court can decide not to assess points? I though that was the insurance company's call.

This is a blatantly political response to a blatantly political request. But you know what? Members of the public are allowed to make blatantly political requests. Shame on DOE for harrassing innocent people!

|1.26.06 @ 1:27PM|#

Do the eligibility for student aid turned off for all drug infractions, i.e. charged but not convicted, convicted of a misdemeanor, etc?

Speeding ticket: reasonable doubt.
"Officer, what model radar detector did you use?"

"Is that radar detector in good operational condition?"

"Was that RD working properly on the day you wrote my citation?"

"Have you read the operator's manual for that RD?"

"Are you familiar with page XX, that specifies the following maintenance and calibration?" Don't tell the cop what maintenance and calibration is required, ask him to cite the requirement.

"Did you calibrate the RD on the day you wrote my citation?"

"How did you perform the calibration?"

Generally the cop is not very familiar with the op manual, and if they calibrated at all, they did not follow the manual.

Judge will dismiss if you show there is reasonable doubt about the operator's understanding of the RD. If no RD, then pursue a similar line of questions with the intent to show that there is reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the speeding citation.

|1.26.06 @ 1:28PM|#

And this 'aid' ... are we talking loans or grants?

loans.

|1.26.06 @ 1:33PM|#

Let this be a lesson to you, downstater. If you are going to commit a crime and then try and apply for financial aid, don't commit a drug crime; try raping or murdering someone instead! Rape and murder don't disqualify you for financial aid, but drug crimes do.

Mike|1.26.06 @ 1:34PM|#

Loans or grants, I oppose both. The reasoning is that a lot of students only go to college because of pressure from their parents. They tell them that the government is giving them "free money" to go to college. The end result is that many people go to college who shouldn't, this jacks up the prices for those of us who actually pay for the whole thing. I think it should all come down to scholarships. I got a free ride to a college, not because I needed aid, but because I graduated from high school with a 3.9 GPA and had high SAT scores.

|1.26.06 @ 1:34PM|#

according to the form i'm looking at it specifically says "convictions". there is nothing about charges disqualifying you if you have not been convicted and convictions must be on state or federal charges.

what i'm fearing for is the expansion to include alcohol if you are under 21 to combat binge drinking on campus. i mean, you ARE illegally using a drug.

any takers?

|1.26.06 @ 1:39PM|#

thanks jennifer, now i have one less thing to worry about as i plan my rape/murder spree! at least i won't be in trouble at school!

man, the more i think about your point, that REALLY IS nuts, and that's saying something since i don't type in capitals very often.

Mike|1.26.06 @ 1:39PM|#

I wonder if you lie on the form, do they even do a background check?

|1.26.06 @ 1:46PM|#

How could ending the war on drugs possibly be a legitimate political goal? That seems to be the government's thinking on the matter. And it is of a piece with the DEA now going after legalization advocates, as if the DEA was charged with not only enforcing drug laws, but seeing to it that those laws are never repealed.

|1.26.06 @ 1:51PM|#

"SSDP's campaign could directly benefit those who would profit from the deregulation or legalization of drugs."

As in... the public. Hence, "public interest". This seems to be another argument that in Mr. Clark's mind is ended with the undeniable truth that Drugs Are Evil. Since drugs are evil, any release of information to someone who wants to legalize them cannot possibly be in the public interest.

|1.26.06 @ 1:52PM|#

You could also, you know, just pay the goddamned speeding fine and consider it the cost of doing business, i.e. going faster than the posted speed limit. It costs $X to do that, so pony up.

Nothing pisses me off more than people who want to both actively and deliberately break fairly innocuous laws, then go unpunished for it while posing as martyrs. Well, something probably does, but not at the moment.

|1.26.06 @ 1:57PM|#

"i'm also curious about the libertarian position on student financial aid."

I tend to share Ayn Rand's view that self-financing government student aid programs (i.e., loans) are acceptable.

|1.26.06 @ 1:59PM|#

"I wonder if you lie on the form, do they even do a background check?"

I know they randomly audit a certain percentage of applications each year (having been the victim of one), so they probably go ahead and run a background check on at least those particular applicants.

Pooh|1.26.06 @ 2:03PM|#

The tail wags the dog, per usual. Nothing to see here, move along.

Warren|1.26.06 @ 2:06PM|#

zach,
I'm with you. The ubiquitous expectance of "Drugs are bad Mmmm-kay" is so fucking depressing. I'll be in the bar.

Phil,
How about a law-enforcement scheme designed to maximize fines and extort money on behalf of the insurance industry?

|1.26.06 @ 2:12PM|#

I resent the implication that as someone who would benefit from the deregulation or legalization of drugs, I'm not part of "the public."

|1.26.06 @ 2:16PM|#

I don't see how SSDP could possibly lose this suit.

Then again, I'm still scratching my head over Raich.

|1.26.06 @ 2:17PM|#

"I wonder if you lie on the form, do they even do a background check?"

Yes. When you apply for federal financial aid using the FAFSA, a number of different criteria are matched against databases: SSN, citizenship, etc. All applications are processed electronically, whether you use the paper form or the online form. If you fail one of the tests (your SSN doesn't match your name, you're not a citizen, you have a drug conviction), the school receives a match code which tells it not to compute your financial aid. I was a financial aid director, and while I never received a drug conviction return, I certainly received plenty of SSN/name match problems or citizenship questions. Usually it happened that the student had only recently become a U.S. citizen, so perhaps you're okay if your drug conviction is merely recent in origin.

|1.26.06 @ 2:20PM|#

Phil,

I know, speeders bother me, too. I'm usually a cautious driver and rarely exceed the speed limit, but I've got two speeding tickets myself within the last three years. The reason? Speed traps set up at different small towns in Ohio. The first time was going from a 55 to 35 zone, and I was slowing down, but not quick enough, I guess. The second time was going from a 35 to a 55 too quickly. Both times the police officers were so hidden that I was actually surprised to see flashing lights in my rear view. During the second time, the cop had his girlfriend in the patrol car, for crying out loud. Small towns use these traps as revenue generators and target out of towers. And, I don't think arguing about the radar detector's calibration in court would've worked, either, because I would think the local judge would not be too accommodating to an out-of-town motorist.

gee phil,

didn't mean to piss you off today. if only more people would just pony up their money when they are nickel and dimed by innocuous laws then you could live your life without being bothered and just go about your business peacefully.

you've also inferred way too much from my post.

anyway, i truly do apologize to you personally - phil - for disrupting what is hopefully an otherwise blissful martyr-free day for you.

Gimme Back My Dog|1.26.06 @ 2:21PM|#

When I was recently in speeding ticket school, they brought in a cop for a Q&A. When someone brought up questioning the radar gun's calibration, he said that he was certified on visual speed detection, and could write a ticket based on seeing a car and deciding that it was going too fast.

|1.26.06 @ 2:41PM|#

"When I was recently in speeding ticket school, they brought in a cop for a Q&A. When someone brought up questioning the radar gun's calibration, he said that he was certified on visual speed detection, and could write a ticket based on seeing a car and deciding that it was going too fast."

Maybe so, but on the ticket it lists the source of speed determination. If the cop says, "I am not certain about the calibration of the radar gun, but it does not matter because my finely calibrated eye-ball tells me you were speeding...", I think it won't wash with the judge. Of course, it is all subjective and if the judge wants to ream you he will. But, it does not hurt to try to defend yourself.

By the way, I generally support the notion of speed limits, and citations for exceeding them, but as somebody earlier pointed out, speed traps are often used as revenue generators. When the town/county/state uses speed traps to extort money from vitims/citizens then I think one is justified in using nearly any tactic to defend one's self.

|1.26.06 @ 2:45PM|#

phil,

incidently, i generally share the same view as you and i have no problem paying such a fine.

however, it does raise questions in my mind about the ability of someone to combat such a fine if it was suspect to begin with.

as i am not one who wants to "both actively and deliberately break fairly innocuous laws, then go unpunished", i am genuinely curious as to how such an innocuous fine (glad to know you're doing well enough that $75 is chump change for you) is combatted. i think if my intentions were as you perceived them to be, i may have figured such a thing out by this stage.

anyway, it was completely off topic and added to the end of my original post as a simple vent - not as a howl of martyrdom for being oppressed by the system nor a serious call for ways to beat the rap.

okay, back to drug charges and financial aid.

|1.26.06 @ 2:52PM|#

I didn't mean it to sound as harsh as it did, downstater, it's just . . . you know, either don't speed, or be willing to pay the fine when you do. You can't have it both ways. Think of it as a market in lawbreaking: If you aren't willing to pay the $75 price of a speeding ticket, don't put one in your cart.

wayne, I'm not ignorant of the use of traps as cash cows, but if you concede the need for limits and punishments for breaking them, how do you recommend those citations be issued?

|1.26.06 @ 3:00PM|#

Look, damnit. Speed limits are not about safety; they are about money. Drivers travelling at exactly the limit statistically have more accidents than those traveling 10-15 over.
A competant driver can determine what is safe and appropriate based on his or her ability, the car, and conditions.
That doesn't mean we should abolish all speed limits. It does mean that we should recognize that as most limits stand, they are about revenue for governments and insurance companies.

|1.26.06 @ 3:04PM|#

i knew you were a cool guy - i could tell from other posts i've read. we seem to be largely on the same page.

in regards to the question about issuing the citations, unfortunately i believe the only way to do so is arbitrarily.

also, i would not always consider speeding to be reckless driving.
in light of this, are tickets given because of the danger the driver is creating or simply because the driver surpassed an arbitrarily derived speed limit?

speeders don't necessarily bother me. truly dangerous drivers, otoh, do.

|1.26.06 @ 3:14PM|#

"wayne, I'm not ignorant of the use of traps as cash cows, but if you concede the need for limits and punishments for breaking them, how do you recommend those citations be issued?"

Fairly. Reasonably. Unfortunately, it often comes down to the cop writing the ticket. If he wants to be a prick, then he can, and you are pretty much screwed. If you treat the cop like an a-hole, then you are pretty much screwed.

Speed limits are sometimes reasonable, but just as often they seem unreasobable, at least to me. Somebody driving 65 in a 55 zone is usually not at all dangerous, at least here in the west. In the east, with your narrow, winding lanes, 65 in a 55 might be dangerous. I guess it all comes down to judgement.

Still, in a court of law you have a right to a defense. Downstater, if you are going to law school then why try a little lawyering?

Dave W.|1.26.06 @ 3:16PM|#

I heard that Reason's annual budget is 2.5 mill. Which gives me an idea . . .

|1.26.06 @ 3:24PM|#

wayne,

i don't intend to do any lawyering because i was actually speeding. caught is caught.

even if i wasn't, time and other considerations may make it less of a burden to pay it then to fight it - which i'm sure is their hope in such cases - but it works, cause it's true.

anyway, student loans are great. i have no problems with them whatsoever.

|1.26.06 @ 3:26PM|#

while we're off-topic, I'm not sure if it was here or elsewhere I first read about this libertarianish traffic planner guy. Maybe we don't need any signs at all.

|1.26.06 @ 3:34PM|#

It does mean that we should recognize that as most limits stand, they are about revenue for governments and insurance companies.

And if they weren't around, they'd probably make up for it by taking extra cash out of our paychecks for doing nothing. So I can't say I mind the existence of fines and such for the penalty (especially being a non-driver).

MP|1.26.06 @ 3:43PM|#

either don't speed, or be willing to pay the fine when you do. You can't have it both ways. Think of it as a market in lawbreaking: If you aren't willing to pay the $75 price of a speeding ticket, don't put one in your cart.

Screw that. Why should one sullenly accept the punishment for breaking what they consider an unjust regulation/rule/law? Fight it all the way.

Larry A|1.26.06 @ 3:54PM|#

Check and see if your state lets you take a defensive driving course that will keep the ticket off your record.

The courses cost money, and usually use up a day or so, but going this route generally saves on a couple of years of insurance premiums.

For most companies in Texas, for instance, you can take a DD course to wipe out a ticket and, instead of seeing your insurance rates go up for the citation, actually qualify for a multiple-year discount.

|1.26.06 @ 4:00PM|#

They should seek out a sympathetic congress person and have them get the Congressional Research Service to do the footwork for them.

|1.26.06 @ 7:04PM|#

"i don't intend to do any lawyering because i was actually speeding. caught is caught."

If you can't stand up for yourself on a simple speeding ticket, how are you going to represent all the dirt-bag pedophiles, rapists, druggies, whores, pimps, and other colorful characters you will serve when you become a defense lawyer?

|1.26.06 @ 7:25PM|#

Drivers travelling at exactly the limit statistically have more accidents than those traveling 10-15 over.

First of all, Morbo Demands Cites! Second of all, are we talking 65 in a 55 zone, or are we talking 40 in a 25? Because the latter, given the areas that tend to be zoned 25, is a vastly different matter. I can dig most people going 65-70 on the freeway; whipping down residential streets at 40-50 is a no-no.

A competant driver can determine what is safe and appropriate based on his or her ability, the car, and conditions.

Yeah, except that living in the greater DC area, I can tell you that most drivers are not particularly competent. Quite the contrary, actually.

MP, if you feel that a law restriciting you from driving 50 through a narrow residential street is "unjust," I can't imagine how you get through the day without collapsing from the sheer unfairness of it all.

Standard disclaimer: In a perfect libertarian world, privately owned roads, blah blah blah.

|1.26.06 @ 7:56PM|#

|1.26.06 @ 8:13PM|#

"There is a method of visual speed detection involving a known length of road travelled and the time it takes to cover that distance. IIRC it is called VASCAR. Usually, aircraft uses that system and a ground unit contacts the offender. That system could work on the ground too if the officer knows what he is doing. To sum it up, it's possible."

Believe it or not, a police officer can simply testify that, in his opinion and based merely on observation with no "measuring" devices whatever, a person was speeding (65 in a 55, etc) and that is admissible in a court. So, what I am saying is that a cop don't need no stinking "known length of road", etc. To me that seems entirely unreasonable, but it passes muster in a court of law.

|1.27.06 @ 11:11AM|#

If you can't stand up for yourself on a simple speeding ticket, how are you going to represent all the dirt-bag pedophiles, rapists, druggies, whores, pimps, and other colorful characters you will serve when you become a defense lawyer?

i wanna be a defense lawyer?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements