AGENCIES' STANDARDS VARY ON DRUG QUESTION

WASHINGTON -- If George W. Bush were a candidate for a White House job or a
Cabinet post today, he'd have to answer a question he's been unwilling to
address.

White House employees and senior presidential appointees must answer "yes"
or "no" to an employment-form question about whether they've illegally used
marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics, amphetamines,
depressants, hallucinogens or prescription drugs.

"Your answers must go back to your 18th birthday," instructs the worksheet
handed to White House appointees.

Texas Gov. Bush, the front-running Republican presidential candidate, said
last week that he hasn't used illegal drugs since at least 1974, when he was
28, and has refused to discuss it since.

Some critics think Bush may have a hard time avoiding charges that he has
set up a double standard when it comes to past drug use and government
employment.

"Anybody applying for a position in his administration presumably would have
to answer the questions that Bush thinks are improper to ask," said Eric
Sterling, president of the liberal Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.

But C. Boyden Gray, who was White House counsel when Bush's father was
president, argued that the younger Bush is within his rights not to answer
such questions publicly because background forms for government employees
are confidential.

"I don't think he ought to have to answer publicly questions that aren't
asked publicly of any of his potential appointees or of reporters," Gray
said.

Security threat

Federal agencies treat drug-use issues seriously, in part because people
with histories of drug use can be vulnerable to blackmail and other problems
that could endanger government operations, classified documents and even the
security of the president.

But the rush of baby boomers into government jobs has complicated what can
be viewed as acceptable drug use. During 1993 congressional hearings, for
example, it was disclosed that the Secret Service had balked at granting
permanent passes to about a dozen White House staff members because of
concerns about their drug use within the previous five years.

Gray said that during his tenure in the Bush administration, applicants were
disqualified from senior positions if drug use had occurred within the
previous 15 years. That standard was reduced to 10 years because Bush
administration officials found casual drug use so common among baby boomers.

The Bush administration did not treat individual cases differently, Gray
said, noting drug use was "virtually disqualifying" no matter whom it
involved.

The Clinton White House, which has asked appointees to disclose all drug use
dating to age 18, doesn't immediately disqualify someone who has used drugs.

"At the White House, decisions about suitability for employment are made on
the basis of answers to a number of questions, which would include questions
about drug use. But judgments are made on a case-by-case basis," spokesman
Barry Toiv said.

Categories of sensitivity

The government essentially classifies would-be hires in three categories:

"Non-sensitive positions" with no access to classified or secret documents.

"Public trust," which requires good conduct and character and usually
involves skilled jobs, such as air traffic controllers, loan officers and
prison guards.

"National security positions," reserved for senior government jobs,
particularly those requiring security clearances.

The questionnaire for non-sensitive positions asks job applicants if they
have used illegal drugs within the last year. The forms for the two other
categories ask if the applicant or appointee has used drugs in the last
seven years.

White House employees and presidential appointees requiring Senate
confirmation, though, are instructed to ignore the seven-year limit and
disclose any drug use or alcohol abuse going back to age 18.

The Clinton White House supplemental instructions add: "List and explain if
you have ever abused any legal/prescription drugs to the point of
dependency. In addition, list any treatment for drug and/or alcohol abuse."

People selected for White House jobs undergo review by the White House
security office and interviews by FBI agents, who raise questions about drug
use.

Federal agencies have wide leeway in deciding what standards to set for past
drug use and how much time and money to invest in background investigations.

The Drug Enforcement Administration requires prospective agents to list all
previous drug experience, including the names of all drugs used and the
dates of use. A "degree of subjectivity" regarding past marijuana use allows
for "youthful indiscretions," said DEA spokeswoman Rogene Waite. But use of
any drugs beyond marijuana, without a prescription, would automatically
disqualify the person.

A little marijuana use long ago would not derail an applicant to the FBI,
but anything beyond a casual puff in college would likely be regarded as
serious.

Would-be FBI agents are automatically disqualified if they have used
marijuana within the previous three years; have used marijuana a total of 15
times; have used any other illegal drug in the previous 10 years; have used
any other drug more than five times; have sold any illegal drug for profit;
or "used illegal drugs, no matter how many times or how long ago, while in a
law enforcement or prosecutorial position, or in a position that carries
with it a high level of responsibility or public trust."

The rules are somewhat more flexible at the CIA, where officials employ a
"whole person criteria." CIA agents -- and anyone else granted access to
classified materials -- are governed by a directive that suggests any past
drug use could be disqualifying.

But it also says several factors should be taken into account when assessing
an applicant, including whether the drug use was "not recent," "isolated or
aberrational," and whether the user has demonstrated an "intent not to abuse
any drugs in the future" or completed a drug-treatment program and received
a solid prognosis for staying clean and sober.

While confessing to a particular indiscretion may not hurt job chances at
some agencies, someone caught trying to cover up drug use could be fired and
perhaps even criminally prosecuted.