TOM CAMPBELL, LOCAL CONTROL AND DRUG LAWS

MANY INSIDERS believe that if the pro-choice Rep. Tom Campbell had won the
GOP nomination in the U.S. Senate race in 1992 instead of the anti-abortion
Bruce Herschensohn, Democrat Barbara Boxer never would have won that race.

For voters who think there are no principled politicians, Campbell is
tonic. He voted in favor of impeachment of President Clinton, and he voted
against re-electing Newt Gingrich as House speaker because Gingrich had
misled the House Ethics Committee.

When Campbell announced that he would run for the U.S. Senate seat held by
Dianne Feinstein, he seemed a shoo-in to win the primary and be a contender
in the general election.

Then came the news that Campbell supports allowing cities to distribute
illegal drugs like heroin to addicts -- and insiders started to wonder if
that would hurt him in the general election. But at a debate with GOP
rivals at the state GOP convention Friday night, Campbell demonstrated that
his proposal is consistent, conservative, humane -- and maybe even savvy
politically.

Start with the Republican mantra of ``local control.'' Repubs can't use the
phrase enough -- until someone proposes something they don't like. Then
suddenly they want the federal government to wield a big fist. When his
rivals, state Senator Ray Haynes and San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn,
criticized Campbell's drug proposal, he lobbed the ``local control'' tenet
back at them. As Campbell argued: different locales, different solutions.
Under his proposal, the federal government would not distribute drugs.
There would be no new federal program. The law simply would allow locals to
try a different approach. If the idea's a bust, it won't catch on and will
die a deserved death.

Campbell points to Switzerland, where an experimental program that
distributed heroin to addicts reduced crime rates, drug deaths and the
spread of HIV. In that the drug war is wrought with failure, there is
something to be said for letting communities that want to try such an
approach see if they could reap similar benefits.

Why not allow cities or states to decriminalize drugs, which would be a
more libertarian approach? Under his proposal, Campbell answered, ``The
addict won't be paying money to a pusher.'' Decriminalization would enrich
drug dealers and increase drug use. Campbell has no desire to do either.

He added, ``The value of the territory to push drugs stops. The addict
won't be committing crimes to get the money for drugs. There will be less
crime between gangs fighting to sell drugs. Deaths from HIV/AIDS and
hepatitis and other diseases of a dirty needled will be reduced.

``Now none of those might happen, but the results from the Swiss study were
so positive on all those fronts that the Swiss government took it to a
public referendum'' and the Swiss voted to allow the program to continue.

Will it hurt Campbell in the general if he wins the primary?

Some 56 percent of California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996.
Perhaps those voters would be open to alternatives to the way in which
Washington has waged this drug war.

What's more, Campbell is thoughtful about the issue. He doesn't recklessly
suggest that all drugs be legalized -- and minimize the consequences for
children. He doesn't even claim that the Swiss experiment will work in any
U.S. cities. He simply believes that if desperate local governments want to
try something different, they be given the chance.

Which means Tom Campbell really believes in local control, he doesn't just
say he does. And he's willing to stand on principle, instead of spouting
platitudes that he thinks people want to hear.

How will the voters reward him?