I would not consider myself an avid reader of The Guardian, but rather a casual acquaintance to the papers more sultry subjects. I was, however given an opportunity today by a fellow classmate to read the latest issue containing the sensationalism of our drug laws.

 I must first state my immense surprise that there are students in our community of intellectuals that are unaware of the drug policies regarding financial aid compliance and eligibility.  I will commend our University in its known attempts inform the student body of these expectations, and reprimand the students failure to pay attention.  Although the piece was directed toward the existence of an increased number of arrests, it was evident that the policy was previously unknown to far too many students.

Now, I must address the policy itself.  I can see how one of moral integrity would applaud such a policy that seeks to deter individuals from pursuing a life involved in, or built around the use of drugs; however, I do not see how that individual could ignore or dismiss the obvious fallacies of the agreement.

This policy is the overstep of government control.  The road to civil liberty infringement is one of slippery agendas masked by ‘positive’ political policies.  Many can advocate the interest of the people and the positive, intended effects of this policy: keeping drugs off campus, ending drug addiction, etc…; but one should ask themselves “What are the total effects?”.  Yes, students should not “be able to use their federal loan to subsidize a drug habit”, as Mr. Kohler so eloquently put it, but in reality that is an assumptive argument with little foundation. 

It is the penurious masses who are enduring the ramifications of this policy.  I must highlight the lack of punishment for those individuals who stand independent of the need for financial aid.  If my parents are able to afford my education alone, I am without punishment for my ‘wrong’ doings and am able to go free to continue my studies harmoniously.  However; those in need of the aid do not.  Furthermore; why is it that if I murder someone I do not lose my financial aid?  This is a fair policy?  If it is drug use, addiction and drug related entrepreneurialism on campus that the government and its constituencies are trying to defeat, then should the question not be the consent of a student to continue there studies?  The burden of punishment should not fall on the shoulders of the needy alone.  

In conclusion it is my goal to highlight the simplicity of fact that this policy, which Mr. Feur has so graciously brought to the attention of the students, is unfair, inconsistent, and illogical.  It is also to show the evidence that this rule is a part of an overall policy agenda that resembles that of moral policing.  Unfortunately, it is obvious that there are students who are uniformed of the policy, and therefore the question of blame falls upon themselves. 

I urge those intellectuals who see the faulty nature of this particular policy, and others similar in nature, to go forth with the idealistic belief that individuals should not be confined by policy conducted by those who are more interested in politicking than in the body of individuals they represent.  If it is the end of drug use that ‘we’ pursue with this rule, then let us find policies that incorporate fewer injustices and instead result in greater achievements.

“That the principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.  That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” John Stuart Mill, On Liberty