LET ALL POLITICIANS ANSWER DRUG QUESTIONS

I don't believe I have an absolute right to know whether George W. Bush -
and a lot of other prominent politicians - ever snorted cocaine. But the
information is relevant enough that I have a strong interest, and so do you,
considering that the Texas governor has a position and a record on the
prosecution of the drug war. As does President Clinton, of course, about
whom more credible allegations of possible cocaine use have been levied,
although the media haven't been nearly as fascinated by Them.

As a public figure and governor, Dubya has been a stalwart drug warrior -
not out on the "execute marijuana users" fringe, but clearly committed to
the notion that strong laws and firm enforcement are the way to deal with
the problem of drugs in this country. He signed a law that authorized jail
time for those convicted of selling or possessing less than one gram of
cocaine. He has been quoted as saying that "incarceration is
rehabilitation," but has not vouchsafed his thoughts on issues like
mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession or the disproportionate
sentences for crack possession as compared to cocaine, which means upscale
powder users often get off more easily than poorer, heavily African-American
crack users.

To be fair, of course, he hasn't vouchsafed much more than platitudes on any
topic at this stage of the campaign.

All right, there haven't been credible allegations by anyone elbowing his
way forward to say "I saw the guy do lines." But plenty of otherwise
respectable people did cocaine in the 1970s and his approach has been just
cute enough that the inference that he might have done coke is not
unreasonable. Steve Forbes' campaign manager simply answered "no, never,"
when asked if his candidate had done coke, and most people probably believe
it. Dubya and his people tend to launch into disquisitions on privacy and
media games, feeding the impression that he's a "Fifth Amendment cokehead."

What would be useful to an intelligent discussion of drug policy would be
for Dubya and other politicians who have admitted to illicit drug use -
Gingrich, Quayle, the non-inhaler, Gore, Judge Ginsburg, others - to talk
frankly and honestly about their drug use and what effect it had on their
lives and careers. It would have to go beyond the "I made a youthful mistake
but got on the right path" pieties.

The reason such a discussion would be useful is that one possible moral that
can be drawn from the fact that these and other powerful, successful and
prominent people in business, entertainment and sports have done drugs -
including some pretty scary ones - and somehow managed to live successful
lives (at least insofar as end-of-millennium American culture judges
success) is that under the right circumstances some people can use drugs and
still be successful.

How did this happen for these politicians? Are they uniquely endowed with
the capacity to experiment but beat addiction? Did they have lucky genes?
Would they have been even more successful if they had never walked on the
illicit side? Did drug use actually enhance some aspects of their lives, as
some drug users still maintain is possible? Or did their drug use hurt them,
or have virtually no impact on their lives?

The answers to these and other questions could be fodder for dozens of
systematic studies. But once such questions are dealt with, Dubya and other
prominent politicians (as well as leaders in other fields of endeavor) who
still favor jail time for drug possession will still need to answer one
question, not publicly perhaps, but very honestly:

At what point in my life would it have been good for me to get arrested and
go to jail, possibly losing my right to vote let alone any chance of running
for public office?

Go to a Narcotics Anonymous meeting or some other therapy program and you
will sometimes hear an addict or former addict relate how being arrested was
a good thing, bringing home to him how drug use was hurting his life, work
or marriage, how close to the "bottom" he came. It does happen sometimes
that arrest is the beginning of dealing with an addiction problem.

But would an arrest have been good for bright, successful up-and-comers like
Dubya, Clinton, Gingrich, Gore and others? Would it have been the salutary,
even necessary prod leading them to get control of their drug problem - or a
catastrophic event?

And if an arrest wouldn't have been the best way for Bill Bradley or Dubya
or Douglas Ginsburg to take control of their drug use situation, what makes
them think it's the best way for others to be prodded into dealing with
their own situation? Are arrests only for those who don't have promising
careers stretching out in front of them?

I don't think it was planned but to a great extent that's the way the drug
war works in practice. The young experimenters who have gone to decent
colleges and show enough promise that they at least hang out with wealthy
and successful people are pretty much left alone. Poorer, blacker people
tend to get arrested and have their lives entwined with the court and prison
system from an early age. African-American men are five times as likely to
be arrested for drug crimes as are white men, although most studies show
their rate of illegal drug use to be about the same.

Whether intentional or not, that's a serious, embedded injustice that ought
to attract the concerned attention of anybody who advertises himself as
thoughtful who advertises himself as thoughtful, compassionate, liberal or
concerned about equal treatment under the law or healthy diversity.