NOT AN IDLE QUESTION

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.

Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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 our
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 of this effort, drugs like 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 Governor 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 youth who are less fortunate but no less virtuous than a
middle-class guy like me.