THE LONG REACH OF COKE

The questions lit up by the rumor about Gov. George W. Bush and the use of
cocaine, followed by his refusal to talk about the subject, have
opened up broad discussions in which the governor is integrally
involved. Now the question has become less, Did George W. do it back
then? than, Does George W.'s situation merit a re-examination of drug
policy?

Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico volunteered his own history on a radio
program. Yes, he had used marijuana, as also cocaine. He regretted
having done so but thought the time had come to ask the central
question: Is it good policy to pursue and handle drug users in the way
we are now pursuing and handling them?

Sixty percent of the prison population in Texas is there for drug
abuse. Eighty million Americans have used illegal drugs. Forty percent
of black Americans in their 20s are under scrutiny of the law, in
prison, on parole or under investigation -- mostly for drug offenses.

Now Mr. Bush is centrally involved in the drug-policy question
because, of course, he is running for office as chief law-enforcement
agent and has staked out a position on law and order. That position
has been described aphoristically as "incarceration is
rehabilitation," which translates to: Put them in jail, and crime will
decrease, inasmuch as criminals can't practice their profession while
in jail.

But the fundamental question, neatly raised by Gov. Johnson, has to do
with the definition of crime. If possession of marijuana is a crime --
which it is in 47 states -- then 80 million Americans are going about
our business notwithstanding a "criminal" past. On the graduated
question of cocaine, one notes that the United States has 5 percent of
the world's population and consumes 50 percent of the world's
production of cocaine.

Conceive a fantasy: You are required to push the A button or the B
button. The A button would instantly incarcerate all illegal drug
users. The B button would drop charges against illegal drug users.
Which button would you depress? Does your allegiance to law and order
propel you to put millions of people in jail? Or are you inclined to
modify your opinion about what should be a jailable offense?

Gov. Bush is up against it. One letter-writer in St. Paul, Minn., put
his point acidulously: "I think a cocaine-besmirched George W. Bush
should run for president only after he has waited out the number of
years that a cocaine possessor might be sentenced to under his own
Texas drug-prohibition law." The writer engages in a paralogism
- --George W. isn't asking the public to condone past behavior, no more
than St. Augustine did in his "Confessions." But the governor could
contribute something on the order of an Augustinian review of the
moral history of the whole problem, and it would begin by
acknowledging that mandatory sentences for drug offenses are miscast
ideas, requiring among other things a new look at what is or ought to
be a drug offense.

Gov. Bush could do this, could comment on the recommendation of the
Nixon commission back in 1973, which argued against the wisdom of
prison sentences for those found in possession of marijuana for their
own use. Certainly he could opine on the disparity in the federal law
against cocaine use and against crack cocaine.

The temptation, surely, will be to say that as chief executive of the
state of Texas, his warrant is to apply the laws, as passed by the
Legislature. But just as, if he becomes president, he is called upon
to make recommendations to the Congress, he has made recommendations
to the Legislature in Austin, and two of these have touched on the
drug problem. Gov. Bush signed in 1997 a bill mandating that judges
sentence first-time felons convicted of possessing a gram or less of
cocaine to a minimum of 180 days in a state jail. That position
contrasted with that of his predecessor. Gov. Ann Richards gave
first-time offenders automatic probation with drug counseling.

It is, of course, possible that after three, five, 10
weeks, the problem will simply go away, even as Mr.
Clinton's problems -- adultery, draft evasion,
marijuana, lying -- went away. But Gov. Bush has the
special hardship Republicans (and indeed
conservatives) have, which is that they tend to be
judged by tougher standards. That is as it should be,
but San Mateo, Calif., letter-writer Dr. Tom
O'Connell writes persuasively in the Chicago Tribune:
"Speaking as the parent of three now-mature Baby
Boomers, (I say that) I'm reluctant to vote for
anyone who grew up during that era in our history and never
experimented with drugs even once. The only person
I'm even more reluctant to vote for is someone who
did -- but now refuses to come clean."

But then that is Pontius Pilate time: How do you define
clean?

Write to William Buckley at Universal Press
Syndicate: 4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo.
64111.