As students fill out applications for federal student aid, they may give little thought to question 31 about drug convictions. For most of us, a simple check in the no box gets the job done, and we move on. For others, it is the difference between receiving a higher education or not.

Students with drug-related convictions are ineligible for federal student aid, and sadly, they are often the ones most in need. A strong correlation exists between poverty and crime, and drug convictions are no exception.

Over the years, sociologists have struggled to find a correlation between drug use and poverty. While some attribute that to an inability to obtain accurate information, others argue there simply isn't one. Confused? You might be if you didn't catch the subtle difference in wording. Impoverished Americans may or may not be more likely to use drugs, but they are certainly more likely to be convicted.

When the "crack boom" hit in the 1980s, President Reagan set the precedent that would ultimately doom the War on Drugs. He pushed for mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine users and an attack on inner-city drug use. Because crack was considerably cheaper than powder cocaine, it hit poorer communities hardest. And so it began, the War would be fought in the poorest neighborhoods, though they may not have been any more likely to be using drugs.

Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush all failed to change the minimum sentencing requirements and the locus of the War. For over 20 years, the poor have been convicted more often and have served longer prison terms than wealthier people who have broken the same laws.

While this by no means proves a government conspiracy against the poor, it does reveal a sad reality about America's financial aid policies. Question 31 is a remnant of the failed War on Drugs. Like mandatory minimums, exclusion from financial aid is probably not a deterrent against crime. Instead, it promotes crime by denying young men and women a chance at higher education.

Of course, it is easy to say drug users and dealers have no right to federal student aid. The argument seems convincing now, but 20 years down the line we won't be any further along than we are today. According the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture, making higher education more available to the poor is America's best chance at reducing violent crime and federal welfare expenditures. So giving America's poor, including drug users, a chance at a college degree isn't just the thing right to do, it is a sound investment.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that the federal government spent about $19 billion on the War on Drugs in 2003. By contrast, only $12.7 billion in Pell Grants was given for the 2003-04 school year. While countless economists have called U.S. drug policy a failure, few are arguing that more education for America's poor will not reduce crime.

I don't know about you, but I am ready to stop funding two wars at this point. I already have the first step planned out: Scratch question 31.