BAD NEWS IF BUSH'S NOMINEE HAS A LOCK ON DRUG POLICY

Darryl Strawberry and Robert Downey Jr. could probably use a drink
right about now. The two celebrities -- one an ex-baseball star, the
other a soon-to-be ex-movie star -- have waged very public, losing
battles against drug addiction over the past several years. Because of
their celebrity status, though, both were given breaks by the judicial
system that Joe Schmo, bricklayer or carpenter, would have never received.

Continual short sentences or probation or house arrest -- punishments
that most people could serve standing on their heads -- and
court-ordered treatment followed nearly each time Strawberry or Downey
was busted. They were treated less like criminals and more like
celebrities in a star-struck society.

Another way to look at it, though, is that they were treated just as
people with illnesses -- which many enlightened souls consider drug
addiction to be -- should be treated.

If President Bush's nominee to head the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, John Walters, is approved by Congress, the national
emphasis on treatment and education will almost surely decrease while
the emphasis on interdiction -- that is, keeping drugs out of the
country in the first place and -- will increase.

That's why Downey and Strawberry, and anyone else who might have
anticipated compassion and treatment, may head down to the corner bar
for a drink.

Bush conspicuously avoided referring to a "war" on drugs during the
announcement naming Walters as his choice for drug czar, but that was
a mere technicality. The nominee represents the outmoded views of drug
use that prevailed during the senior Bush's administration: lock 'em
up and throw away the key.

Alas, that policy didn't work then and it won't work now. The country
can't afford such a policy -- not just because it is ineffective, but
also because it is too expensive. Think about it: in order to lock 'em
up and throw away the key, you have to have some place to lock 'em.

Many of our prisons are already overcrowded to the point of
unconstitutionality -- forcing judges in some instances to mandate the
release of violent criminals to make room for others, many of whom are
guilty of first-offense, nonviolent drug crimes. Even Bush has begun
questioning the efficacy of such a national policy.

Nobody thinks our drug policy should be dictated by Hollywood, but the
award-winning movie "Traffic" dramatized the futility of a policy
based on keeping drugs out of America.

Pulitzer-Prize-winning columnist Bill Raspberry, in a column on this
page earlier this month, cited comments Bush made in a CNN interview
in which a ray of enlightenment actually escaped the president's lips.
"I think a lot of people are coming to the realization that maybe long
minimum sentences for first-time users may not be the best way to
occupy jail space and/or heal people from their disease."

"Disease?" Hey, somebody'd better tell Walters, because he is of the
opinion -- stated publicly and forcefully -- that getting tough on
drugs is the best solution.

Bush, in the same interview cited by Raspberry, also promised to look
at the disparity in drug sentences for young black men, an undeniable
reality which Walters dismissed as one of the "great urban myths of
our time." He has said that "Crime, after all, is not evenly
distributed. It is common knowledge that the suburbs are safer than
the inner city, though we are not supposed to mention it."

Of course, it probably never occurred to Walters that a reason for
this is that the young white dudes from the suburbs come to the inner
city to get their drugs. And while most studies show that the rate of
drug use among blacks and whites is pretty much equal, they also show
that blacks are arrested at six times the rate of whites.

Boy, come to think of it, having someone heading the drug fight who
would overlook or minimize such evidence is enough to make me take a
drink. Move over Darryl and Robert. Yo, bartender!