I don’t believe I have an absolute right to know whether George W.
Bush — and a lot of other prominent politicians — ever snorted
cocaine. But the information is relevant enough that I have a strong
interest, and so do you, considering that the Texas governor has a
position and a record on the prosecution of the drug war. As does
President Clinton, of course, about whom more credible allegations of
possible cocaine use have been levied, although the media haven’t been
nearly as fascinated by them.
As a public figure and governor, Dubya has been a stalwart drug
warrior — not out on the “execute marijuana users” fringe, but clearly
committed to the notion that strong laws and firm enforcement
are the way to deal with the problem of drugs in this country. He signed
a law that authorized jail time for those convicted of selling or
possessing less than one gram of cocaine. He has been quoted as saying
that “incarceration is rehabilitation,” but has not vouchsafed his
thoughts on issues like mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession
or the disproportionately sentences for crack possession as compared to
cocaine, which means upscale powder users often get off more easily than
poorer, heavily African-American crack users.
To be fair, of course, he hasn’t vouchsafed much more than platitudes
on any topic at this stage of the campaign.
All right, there haven’t been credible allegations by anyone elbowing
his way forward to say “I saw the guy do lines.” But plenty of
otherwise respectable people did cocaine in the 1970s and his approach
has been just cute enough that the inference that he might have done
coke is not unreasonable. Steve Forbes’ campaign manager simply answered
“no, never,” when asked if his candidate had done coke, and most people
probably believe it. Dubya and his people tend to launch into
disquisitions on privacy and media games, feeding the impression that
he’s a “Fifth Amendment cokehead.”
What would be useful to an intelligent discussion of drug policy
would be for Dubya and other politicians who have admitted to illicit
drug use — Gingrich, Quayle, the non-inhaler, Gore, Judge Ginsburg,
tons of others — to talk frankly and honestly about their drug use and
what effect it had on their lives and careers. But it would have to go
beyond the “I made a youthful mistake but got on the right path”
pieties.
Such a discussion would be useful because there is one possible moral
that could be drawn from the fact that these and other powerful,
successful and prominent people in business, entertainment and sports
have done drugs — including some pretty scary ones — and somehow
managed to live successful lives (at least insofar as end-of-millennium
American culture judges success). These cases suggest that under the
right circumstances some people can use drugs and still be successful.
So how did this happen for these politicians? Are they uniquely
endowed with the capacity to experiment but beat addiction? Did they
have lucky genes? Would they have been even more successful if they had
never walked on the illicit side? Did drug use actually enhance some
aspects of their lives, as some drug users still maintain is possible?
Or did their drug use hurt them? Or did it have virtually no impact on
their lives?
The answers to these and other questions could be fodder for dozens
of systematic studies. But once such questions are dealt with, Dubya and
other prominent politicians (as well as leaders in other fields of
endeavor) who still favor jail time for drug possession will still need
to answer one question — not publicly perhaps, but to themselves and
very honestly:
At what point in my life would it have been good for me to get
arrested and go to jail, possibly losing my right to vote let alone any
chance of running for public office?
Go to a Narcotics Anonymous meeting or some other therapy program and
you will sometimes hear an addict or former addict relate how being
arrested was a good thing, bringing home to him how drug use was hurting
his life, work or marriage, how close to the “bottom” he came. Many
recovering addicts believe this sincerely and for some of them it is
undoubtedly true that for some people an arrest marks the beginning of
dealing with an addiction problem.
But would an arrest have been good for bright, successful
up-and-comers like Dubya, Clinton, Gingrich, Gore and others? Would it
have been the salutary, even necessary prod leading them to get control
of their drug problem — or an unspeakably catastrophic event?
And if an arrest wouldn’t have been the best way for Bill Bradley or
Dubya or Douglas Ginsburg to take control of their drug use situation,
what makes them think it’s the best way for others to be prodded into
dealing with their own situation? Are arrests only for those who don’t
have promising careers stretching out in front of them?
I don’t think it was planned that way or was the result of
deep-seated institutional racism, but to a great extent that’s the way
the drug war works in practice. The young experimenters who have gone
to decent colleges and show enough promise that they at least hang out
with wealthy and successful people (even if they’re not there yet
themselves) are pretty much left alone. Poorer, blacker people tend to
get arrested and have their lives entwined with the court and prison
system from an early age. African-American men are five times as likely
to be arrested for drug crimes as are white men, although most studies
show their rate of illegal drug use to be about the same.
Whether intentional or not, that’s a serious, embedded injustice that
ought to attract the concerned attention of anybody who advertises
himself as thoughtful, compassionate, liberal, conservative or
concerned about equal treatment under the law or healthy diversity.
Maybe it doesn’t necessarily mean the drug laws should be repealed,
but it at least suggests strongly that they’re in need of thoughtful
discussion and serious revision.
And who better to lead such a discussion than powerful, successful
people who have been down the road of drug use and ought to be able to
bring back insights into how they managed to achieve success anyway?
