Editorial:
The
Highest
Office
in
the
Land
1/15/00
Adam J. Smith, Associate Director, [email protected] On your marks... Get set... Next week, the campaign for the U.S. Presidency gets underway in earnest, with the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary kicking off a frantic period of condensed primaries for both major parties. And while drug policy reform has not been a major issue for any of the four contenders, the drug issue, in the form of questions about past use and its relationship to current federal policies, is sure to rear its head once again. On the Republican side, George W. Bush has denied, sort of, using cocaine, at least since 1982, or 1974, depending upon how one decodes his series of responses to questions posed late last year. While Bush has been at least partially successful in quieting the issue, in the absence of credible witnesses or other hard evidence, his inability to give a straight answer to the question – have you or haven’t you – leads one to believe that somewhere out there, there are people who can substantiate the rumors. If that is the case, it is likely that such accusations will surface, given the visibility of a presidential campaign and all that is at stake. On the Democratic side, both Bradley and Gore have admitted to "experimenting" with marijuana, though both have denied ever using cocaine. Bradley has said that his drug use happened during his NBA days, while Gore claims to have imbibed during his college years. As to Gore, rumors abound in Washington that his drug use stretched long beyond college graduation. If anyone does come forward to substantiate these, it would surely be a major story. Senator John McCain, a Republican, is thus the only major contender to have credibly denied ever using an illegal intoxicant. This would seem to fit with McCain’s upbringing, as a child in a military family, who joined the service at a young age. The issue of "did they or didn’t they, and, if so, what, when and how much," has relevance beyond its prurient value. That is, how would a man justify overseeing a budget that is likely to approach or surpass $20 billion, the lion’s share of which will be spent to find, prosecute and incarcerate drug users, when "there but for the grace of God" (or perhaps daddy’s money) went he? How can he stand, straight-faced and tell the American people that nearly 700,000 marijuana arrests (85% for simple possession), the incarceration of more than one million non-violent offenders, the creation of the world’s most lucrative black market, and the diminution of constitutional protections is the way that the nation should deal with people such as himself? The President of the United States? The next three months will determine who, among these four, will carry the banners of the two major parties into the race for the highest office in the land. If it turns out that one or both nominees would have qualified for the very prisons that the President, ultimately, holds the responsibility of filling, then there will certainly be some explaining to do. Especially to the families and loved ones of those non-violent drug offenders who will never have the luxury of claiming that their "youthful indiscretions" ought not disqualify them from making the most of the rest of their adult lives.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
