'IDIOT' BOARD WRITES POOR EDITORIAL ON DRUG OFFENSES

I read Thursday's editorial ("Groups sue for financial aid for drug
offenders," March 30) with a bit of dismay. Now I've seen my fair
share of poor critical thinking skills and general subpar
intelligence displayed in the Opinions pages of the Exponent before,
but this one elevates it to a new level; in particular, this piece
demonstrates inherently flawed logic, naked ignorance and laughable arrogance.

First, the flawed logic: to paraphrase the editorial board, the
government shouldn't give financial aid to convicted drug offenders
because they violated the law, knew the risks, and darn it, you just
can't be sure that they'll rehabilitate and make it worth the
taxpayer's money. Yet clearly denying them funds doesn't make
rehabilitation any easier i? 1/2 in fact, it makes it extremely
difficult, if not impossible. Without the opportunity to earn a
degree, how are they best supposed to make a respectable living, one
most likely to be drug-free? A punishment should not be more harmful
to the individual than the actual crime warrants. I'm not familiar
enough with the suit to know how it (allegedly) breaches
constitutionality, but this looks arguably like "cruel and unusual
punishment" to me.

The "idiot" board also seems to think that while drug users are
unilateral liabilities, drug-free students are impervious to wasting
financial aid. Sorry, but we all know that's a fallacy. And how about
all the other crimes that don't prevent one from receiving aid? Sex
offenders? Multiple DUIs? Nope, they're magically A-OK; I would say
this is blatant unfairness.

Finally, the laughable arrogance is evident in the last paragraph:
"The Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the ACLU should withdraw
their lawsuit before they embarrass themselves more." No, you should
withdraw your moronic opinion, because the SSDP and ACLU's
well-thought out argument embarrasses yours.

Robert Fink

Senior, School of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering