Drugs and George W. Bush

Oh, I was like that when a lad!

A shocking young scamp of a rover,

I behaved like a regular cad;

But that sort of thing is all over.

I’m now a respectable chap

And shine with a virtue resplendent

And, therefore, I haven’t a scrap

Of sympathy with the defendant!

Those words were penned more than a century ago by the great
satirist W.S. Gilbert for his and Arthur Sullivan’s comic opera, “Trial
by Jury.” They are sung by 12 Victorian gentlemen contemplating the
roguish young man who is the defendant in a suit for breach of promise
of marriage.

How remarkably they apply to George W. Bush, who seems inexorably
headed toward the Republican presidential nomination. Mr. Bush has all
but admitted, reluctantly to be sure, that he used cocaine or other
illegal drugs prior to 1974. But as governor of Texas he supports tough
laws
against people who use those drugs peacefully. In his state, thanks to
Gov. Bush, someone possessing less than a gram of cocaine can be
sentenced to prison.

This is all we need to know to understand why it is fair to ask Mr.
Bush, or anyone else running for president (or Congress or governor or
state legislature) whether he has ever used drugs that are today
illegal. It is irrelevant that Mr. Bush’s alleged consumption of drugs
is merely rumored and that there are no witnesses. As a matter of
principle, all candidates should be questioned closely on this matter.

To so ask is not to invade the candidate’s privacy or to practice the
“politics of personal destruction.” It is to root out two-facedness. At
the same time, it does not follow that private citizens should be
quizzed about possible drug use. That, indeed, would violate their
privacy. The reason for this distinction is that private citizens do
not enforce our barbaric laws against drug users and sellers.

If Mr. Bush used drugs when he was in his 20s, he perforce believed
at that time that he should be free to decide such things for himself,
that it was his decision and no other’s. He also presumably believed
that he should not be hunted down and jailed by the state for his
decision. Whether he “should” have used drugs is not relevant. Nor does
it matter that he now presumably believes he made a mistake back then.
(His advice on how baby-boomers should deal with their children rings
hollow: He used drugs and alcohol, yet may well become the next
president of the United States.
Where exactly is the argument that young people will ruin their lives by
indulging?)

What is relevant is that he refuses to recognize in others the rights
and liberty he claimed for himself more than 25 years ago. It will do no
good for him to argue that people can harm themselves with drugs. That
is useful information for prospective drug users, but it has nothing to
do with liberty. An adult has the natural right to take risks with his
life. Twenty-year-olds are free to skydive and hang-glide and fly small
planes, all of which are risky (and habit-forming) activities that kill
more than a few people each year. Nevertheless, we properly leave that
decision to individuals. Why are things different with cocaine, heroin,
marijuana, and the other “controlled substances”?

With respect to the presidential race, the issue is hypocrisy.

When a particular application of individual freedom — the choice to
use drugs — mattered to Mr. Bush, he believed the right to decide was
his and his alone. Now that it is no longer important to him, he
enthusiastically favors persecuting others who believe as he once did.
This is not unlike Bill Clinton’s opposing the draft only when it would
have sent him to war.

---

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation
in Fairfax, Va., and editor of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty.