I can see Dale's point, but I don't really think it would be an equitable act of society to deny a college education to somebody convicted of posessing or even selling drugs, especially if they've already paid their debt to society.  Hell, I'm sure a lot of kids with low-income backgrounds see selling as an easy way out, even if it really isn't. We have to much to gain by helping them to escape that trap. 

I'd be supportive of a clause that doesn't deny an otherwise qualified candidate for financial aid, but would instead pay the school bills directly for them.   Wouldn't that eliminate any misuse of the funds?