Drug Frenzy

Topic A on the nation’s agenda these days is drug abuse, with Congress and the White House falling all over each other to get in on the act. Maybe even some good will come of it.

But when Congress acts in haste in response to a perceived emergency and with an election near, it frequently acts in error. Frenzy rarely helps sound decision-making, particularly in legislative bodies.

The latest evidence of this is the anti-drug bill that the House of Representatives approved last week by a lopsided margin. Even though many members knew that parts of the bill were seriously wrong, only 16 congressmen were willing to risk the wrath of their constituents by voting against it. More of them should have, for the measure contains provisions that are anathema to our country’s respect for civil liberties and to the proper role of the military in a civilian government. Besides, there is scant evidence that the extreme measures would work.

The widespread use of narcotics and other illegal drugs is a deeply troubling problem. Citizens are calling on the government to do something , and the House responded by passing a bill to stiffen penalties for drug-related crimes, to provide more manpower and equipment for the fight against drug smuggling and to increase drug education and treatment. A good case can be made for reinforcing drug-related education and police functions. But the members of the House could not stop there. They accepted in addition panic amendments that pose more danger than they would prevent.

Among the most glaring excesses is a mandate for the Pentagon to use military forces to guard the country’s borders to stop smuggling. This idea flies in the face of a long and appropriate tradition, backed by law, that the armed forces should not be involved in civilian law enforcement.

Another part of the bill would allow the use of illegally obtained evidence at drug trials as long as the police made a “good-faith” effort to follow the law--a flagrant challenge to protections of the Constitution. A “good-faith” exception to the exclusionary rule of evidence is a loophole so large that nearly everything can pass through it, jettisoning the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Furthermore, the House bill would authorize the death penalty for drug smuggling that intentionally caused a death. What that means is anybody’s guess. But the political expediency of intruding extreme and controversial elements into this piece of legislation could serve only to divert the police and the courts from the pursuit and punishment of drug marketers.

Meantime, the Reagans’ address to the nation Sunday night will help draw attention to the dangers of drug use. The President and Mrs. Reagan were right to say that the problem can be solved only by eliminating the demand, not by police work. Yet this Administration has cut the funds for drug education and treatment. It seems to have chosen widespread testing over other programs that might work.

The causes of drug use are deep and complex, and eradication must be mounted at many levels. Voters will not confuse expedient solutions and theatrics of extreme measures with the steady, costly kinds of program that will eventually bring this problem under control.