A NEW FRONTIER

U.S. Rep. Rob Portman, who has established himself as a national
leader in the war on drugs, recently opened a new frontier. He and
several others in the U.S. House introduced legislation aimed at
boosting state enforcement of laws against drug impaired driving.

The broad goal of getting drug-impaired drivers off the road is
obviously one that should command broad support. And this is a
generally restrained push in that direction.

But there are legitimate objections to certain of the bill's
assumptions -- and every reason in the world to suspect that what's
being touted today as a carrot to help states will eventually turn
into a stick used to punish those that don't climb onto the wagon.

Proponents of the bill cites statistics by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration which suggest that illegal drugs (often
in conjunction with alcohol) are used by between 10 percent and 22
percent of drivers involved in crashes. Portman says that nearly 11
million people drove under the influence of illegal drugs in 2002. And
there is no shortage of horrific local examples about what can happen
when motorists drive under the influence of marijuana, cocaine and
alcohol.

In nine states, the mere presence of illegal drug residues in the body
is regarded as evidence of drug-impaired driving, regardless of
concentration or whether there's evidence the motorists ability to
control a vehicle really was compromised. The bill acknowledges,
however, that the technology for identifying illegal drugs in the body
is inadequate, and authorizes federal grants to develop it.

The bill would also:

. Authorize grants to train police officers and prosecutors about drug
impaired driving.

. Require the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to develop model
legislation for use by states.

. Support research into impaired driving -- and the dissemination of
results to judges, prosecutors, policymakers and others.

. Require annual reports to Congress on what states are doing about
drug-impaired driving.

The bill proposes a modest boost in funding for such purposes, to $2
million annually from the $1.2 million being spent now.

Some advocacy groups (see the guest column on the opposite page)
complain the bill promotes a double standard by criminalizing trace
amounts that can stay in the body for days after any incapacitating
effect has worn off.

The bigger concern, we submit, is Washington's intention over the long
haul.

State motor vehicle laws are not properly a federal issue. You don't
see federal prosecutors handling drunken driving cases before federal
judges, and Washington isn't picking up the cost to incarcerate or
treat folks convicted of DUI. But that didn't stop Congress from
threatening to withhold federal highway funds from states that refused
to lower their DUI blood-alcohol levels to .08 percent. Nor has
Washington seen fit to reimburse state and local governments for the
costs of what was functionally a mandate.

There is every reason to expect the same pattern will eventually play
out with drug-impaired driving. At a time when most states, for
financial and policy reasons, have decided that drug abusers don't
belong in prison, and when casual marijuana use has effectively been
decriminalized, we might well see Congress turning the screws to get
more people into the criminal justice system via driving laws -- and
sticking state and local governments with the tab.

If the states want to put drunken and drug-impaired driving on equal
footing -- genuinely equal footing -- fine. Punish behavior -- that
is, those who drive while impaired -- and direct most resources at the
alcoholics and addicts who are by far the greatest risk to the
motoring public. But the federal role here ought to be quite limited.
Besides, a government as hideously indebted as this one doesn't need
to be looking for new spending agendas.