NO ONE WILL LEAD ON DRUG ISSUE

AL GORE AND George W. Bush are pushing drugs for the elderly. But neither is
pushing for change in our nation's failing war on drugs.

The war on drugs rumbles on, destroying lives and neighborhoods, filling
prisons with non-violent offenders, consuming billions of dollars. But the
major-party candidates barely talk about it. They're too busy quibbling over
who'd hand out more goodies -- tax credits, tax cuts or tax-paid benefits.

Both have official positions with the standard drug war rhetoric.

Gore pledges to "toughen our fight against illegal drugs," and stresses more
testing of parolees.

Bush calls for "a balanced policy of education, treatment and law
enforcement," including "character education in our schools" and
"faith-based" treatment. But he's a big believer in fighting the drug war
overseas and at the border, despite all the evidence that it doesn't work.

Both Gore and Bush support U.S. military aid to Colombia, a $1.3 billion
policy that bears an eerie resemblance to the early days of the Vietnam War.
Except we had a better chance of defeating the Viet Cong than we do of
ending cocaine abuse in the U.S. by sending advisers, helicopters and
herbicide to the jungles of Colombia.

Both candidates oppose racial profiling. Neither mentions why federal
customs agents and state troopers started using profiles: To look for drugs.

At the second debate, Gore was eager to bring up a grisly racial murder in
Jasper, Texas. He attacked Bush for not pushing a hate crimes law,
apparently unaware that Texas has such a law increasing penalties for
racially motivated crimes. (The bill Gore mentioned added gays.)

In beating the hate crimes drum, Gore offers symbolism to black voters. He
isn't offering real protection against a far more dangerous destroyer of
black lives, the war on drugs. That's where the body count is high.

"Ostensibly colorblind, the war on drugs has been waged disproportionately
against black Americans," concludes a Human Rights Watch report, "Punishment
and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs"
(www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa).

Blacks make up 62.7 percent of all drug offenders sent to state prison, the
report found. That's 13.4 times the rate at which white men are imprisoned
for drugs.

While blacks and whites have similar rates of drug abuse, blacks are more
likely than whites to be arrested for drug offenses, more likely to be
convicted if arrested and more likely to be imprisoned if convicted; blacks
also get longer sentences for similar crimes.

Some drug offenders serve more time than murderers and rapists.

Black youths charged with drug offenses are 48 times more likely to be
sentenced to juvenile prison than whites charged with similar offenses,
according to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Federal law discriminates against sellers of crack cocaine, who tend to be
black. They get five years for five grams of crack cocaine, while powder
cocaine dealers, more likely to be white, must be caught with 500 grams to
get the same penalty.

Both Gore and Bush have questioned whether the disparity is justified. But
neither has made it an issue, or come up with a proposal to change the law.

While 49 percent of crack users were white in 1998, according to federal
estimates, only 6 percent of those convicted in federal court for crack
sales were white. Blacks, 34 percent of users, were 85 percent of federal
convicts.

Federal "mandatory minimums" also discriminate against women. A woman who
takes a phone message for her dealer boyfriend can be charged with
participating in a conspiracy; her sentence will be set by the weight of the
drugs, not by her complicity.

While the guilty can get lighter sentences by testifying against others,
those in the girlfriend category usually don't know enough to help convict
anyone else. So they can get longer prison sentences than mid-level and
high-level dealers.

Bush, happy to brag about his state's increase in juvenile prison beds, may
be OK with long prison sentences for minor offenders.

But what about Gore? If he's really "fighting" for the underdog, he should
be fighting against federal and state policies that discriminate against
minorities and women, create enormous injustice and suffering, cost billions
of dollars -- and don't work.

Repealing unfair mandatory minimum sentencing laws would be a first step to
new drug policies. Neither
"compassionate" Bush nor no-profile Gore is willing to lead.