TOUGH ANTI-DRUG LAWS TARGET AMERICA'S MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS

- -special to the post-intelligencer-

BOSTON -- There are some questions worth answering, no matter the
consequences. And that is the case in Texas, where George W. Bush, the
leading aspirant for the Republican presidential nomination, has evaded
reporters' insistent queries on unsubstantiated rumors that he used cocaine
in the distant past.

He has employed such circumlocutions as, "When I was young and
irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."

But the questions will not go away, nor should they. Contrary to what some
pundits would have you believe, the stakes are far higher on this matter
than with the superficially similar matter of a candidate's sexual
misbehavior. That's because we are prosecuting a "war" against illegal
drugs in this country with an unprecedented intensity.

Bush's cavalier dismissal of inquiries about past behavior and his vague
references to youthful indiscretions provide a striking contrast to the
tough-on-crime image he has cultivated throughout his political career in
Texas.

In his successful gubernatorial campaign in 1994, he went out of his way to
characterize Ann Richards, the incumbent, as soft on crime. A major plank
in this effort was a commitment by Bush to toughen the juvenile justice
system.

After his election, he did precisely that, tripling the number of inmates
in state juvenile prisons, lowering the age at which juveniles can be sent
to adult court and increasing the maximum sentence for youthful offenders
to 40 years. Clearly, if one is going to be "young and irresponsible,"
Texas is not the place to do it.

But Bush is not entirely to blame for this situation. In large measure he
was merely telling the voters of Texas what they wanted to hear. And, when
it comes to drug use, a justified concern for the welfare of children has
led voters to demand sharply punitive policies against the selling and
possession of controlled substances. As a result, hundreds of thousands of
Americans, mostly nonwhite and mostly poor, have had to pay a very high price.

Anti-drug law enforcement is the single most important cause of sharply
rising prison populations, in Texas and across the country. Yet, despite
all the effort, drugs such as cocaine and marijuana are available just
about everywhere in America. Why? Because millions of people with time and
money to burn, mostly not poor and not black, are willing to spend billions
of dollars in the hedonistic pursuit of a proverbial good time.

I speak from experience about this temptation: I used illegal drugs for
several years, and in 1988, when I was a professor at Harvard and after
being considered for a top position in the Department of Education, I was
arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana.

I was never convicted, and the charges were dropped after I complied with
the court's requirement that I attend a drug treatment program.

One need not be an advocate of drug legalization to see that the current
debate brings up troubling questions of public morality. There is a failing
of character in our society that knows no racial or class or geographic bound.

Yet, we have encouraged politicians to promote a drug policy that imposes
the bulk of its cost on our most marginal citizens. We make "them" the site
of the moral struggle, when in fact this is really a fight for our own souls.

No, I do not believe that Bush should be disqualified from holding high
office if he acknowledges using cocaine or any other illegal drug a
quarter-century ago. I suppose I could hardly believe otherwise, given my
own history.

But neither he nor anyone else seeking public office should be given a pass
on the question of past drug use. Indeed, the question itself, "Did you use
cocaine?" highlights our society's appalling hypocrisy on drugs.

Instead of dealing with the consumptive habits of our society, we instead
vote for politicians who promise to be tough on crime and to punish
thousands of inner-city youths who are less fortunate but no less virtuous
than a middle-class guy like me.