DRUG WAR AND CLASS WAR

DURING the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush was asked
whether he had ever tried cocaine. His answer was that he hadn't used
drugs for 25 years. I take that as a "Yes."

That same year, Lincoln Chafee was running for the U.S. Senate from
Rhode Island and was asked the same question. He gave a more
forthright response, admitting that he had sniffed coke while a
student at Brown University.

Possession of cocaine, a felony, did not interfere with either
politician's Ivy League education. Nor did it stop them from seeking
and attaining high public office. Today, taxpayers cover both men's
salaries and health-care costs, and will eventually provide their
government pensions. All, apparently, is forgiven.

But when some low-income kid gets convicted of smoking a joint (a
misdemeanor), America gathers up its moral indignation and strips him
of his federal student loan. This is a sick double standard, and it
will continue unless changes are made in the Higher Education Act.

Congress is now reauthorizing the 40-year-old law, which was created
to help students pay for college. The aid comes in the form of
grants, student loans and work-study programs. In 1998, Congress
added the Drug Provision, which bars students ever convicted of the
sale or possession of illegal drugs from participating in the program.

There's an effort in Congress to lessen the Drug Provision's burden
on poor and working-class students. But anything less than its total
elimination tramples the American ideal of equal opportunity.

As things now stand, police swoop down on some college party and drag
off the pot-smoking kids. Come the next semester, rich daddies write
the usual checks, and the children of doctors, lawyers and U.S.
presidents are back in class. Poor and working-class students go
home. So far, 175,000 young people have lost federal student aid
because of the Drug Provision.

The whole War on Drugs is a lesson in class discrimination. "A ton of
drugs are taken by middle-class kids," says Tom Angell, a director of
Students for Sensible Drug Policy. "Middle- and upper-class people
often don't get caught. And they can afford good lawyers to avoid a
conviction in the first place."

A possible case in point is Mitchell Daniels, Republican governor of
Indiana. As a student at Princeton, Daniels was charged with the
possession not only of marijuana, but also of LSD. He was never
actually convicted, but did plead guilty to a disorderly-conduct
charge for smoking pot. He paid a fine, and his studies continued.

During the campaign for Indiana governor, Daniels's rival, Democratic
incumbent Joe Kernan, admitted to smoking pot while in his 20s. And
so it goes. These examples barely scratch the surface on the
histories of illicit drug use by our political leaders.

The "war" is also racist. Seventy-two percent of all drug users are
non-Hispanic whites, according to government numbers. Blacks account
for only 13 percent of the population and 15 percent of the
illicit-drug users. But they are 57 percent of the inmates doing time
in state prisons for drug offenses.

The Drug Provision was the handiwork of Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana
Republican. Its intention was to deter young people from taking
drugs. In practice, it deters poor people from getting a college
education. Would someone please explain how denying poor kids the
money for college is going to save them?

The House version of the revised Higher Education Act leaves the drug
question on the financial-aid application, but removes punishment for
drug convictions before college. In other words, high-school students
caught smoking pot in a park would no longer have their futures
ruined. But that would still happen if a student is convicted while
in college and receiving assistance.

In the Senate bill, students would not be grilled about convictions
for possessing drugs, either in high school or while getting aid. But
they would nevertheless be asked about convictions for selling drugs.

Here's the War on Drugs in action. Without shame, the political
elites hunt for ways to make examples of lower-income people for
doing what they did. Given the society-wide use of illegal substances
and uneven application of drug laws, singling out poor students for
special punishment is, excuse the expression, hypocrisy on speed.