Halting Drugs Intensifies as Political Issue

Mobilizing the military to combat drugs is only the beginning. Congress, the Reagan Administration and the political parties are considering a host of other, equally far-reaching ways in this election year to bring down the full weight of the federal government on illegal drug trafficking.

Establishing a Cabinet-level drug czar, permitting capital punishment in drug-related killings, penalizing drug abusers by revoking their student loans and driver’s licenses--these and other ideas will be debated in coming months as politicians of both parties seek to capitalize on voter fears about the rise in illegal drug trafficking.

Despite the budget deficit, neither Republicans nor Democrats intend to be restrained in pledging more money for improved law-enforcement and drug-treatment programs. Democrats estimate that the cost will be about $2.6 billion a year; Republicans appear to be willing to spend at least that much.

“We are tired of being outspent by Democrats on this issue,” remarked a House Republican who asked not to be named.

At the root of this election year’s anti-drug frenzy are polls showing that many Americans view illegal drug trafficking as the nation’s single biggest problem. Political analysts believe the public has been upset by a drug-related crime wave in the nation’s cities as well as by the news that the Reagan Administration had knowingly cooperated in the past with Panamanian leader Manuel A. Noriega, despite alleged links to Latin American drug cartels.

Democrats See Issue

Democrats see drugs as a particularly fertile campaign issue. They will try to link Vice President George Bush, who has locked up the Republican presidential nomination, with President Reagan’s reluctance to fund anti-drug programs and his recent failure to achieve Noriega’s ouster.

And they hope the Administration’s controversial policy of “zero tolerance,” which calls for the seizure of assets of any person found transporting even the smallest amount of drugs into the United States, will damage the Republicans.

“Democrats smell blood,” said William Schneider, a political analyst for The Times. “And whenever they smell blood, there’s a feeding frenzy.”

Democrats are even refusing to appoint representatives to a newly created presidential commission on drugs. Instead, they are drafting a legislative package of their own that they hope will be adopted by Congress and incorporated into the Democratic platform.

Republican Proposals

Likewise, Republicans in Congress are trying to distance themselves from Reagan’s policies by coming up with their own anti-drug proposals. Ironically, it is the conservative Republicans normally opposed to expanding the federal bureaucracy who are proposing the most heavy-handed federal role--including a new focus on punishing casual drug users.

Nearly every sector of the government appears to be involved in the search for new measures. Separate studies are now being conducted by the House Democratic leadership, a House Republican task force, Democratic Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, the Senate Republican caucus, a National Drug Policy Board headed by Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, the White House Conference for a Drug-Free America, a special commission created by President Reagan, a number of federal agencies and members of both the Democratic and Republican platform committees.

Resistance to Proposals

Political resistance to many extreme proposals has diminished dramatically over the last two years since Congress passed its last election-year anti-drug legislation.

In 1986, for example, the Senate firmly resisted a House-passed amendment calling for an increased military role in the war on drugs.

This year, however, a similar proposal, requiring the military to fly more surveillance missions along the nation’s Southern border and to permit U.S. sailors to arrest drug dealers on the high seas, passed the Senate overwhelmingly as part of the fiscal 1989 defense authorization bill. It now must be reconciled with a much tougher House-passed measure that would give the military 45 days to substantially halt the flow of drugs across U.S. borders.

Similarly, support seems to be mounting for legislation that would invoke the death penalty for racketeers convicted of murder when drug dealing. The Senate, which two years ago rejected a House amendment calling for capital punishment under such circumstances, recently refused to kill a similar measure put forth by Sen. Alfonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.). D’Amato’s proposal will come to a vote in the Senate on Wednesday.

Proposals for Czar

Proposals for a drug czar to oversee the federal government’s anti-drug efforts are also popular, despite opposition from the Administration. According to sources, it will be one of the chief recommendations of the recently concluded White House conference on drugs.

A plan to create a full-time drug czar with Cabinet rank also was endorsed last week by a group of House Democrats headed by Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), who predicted that it would be part of the Democratic platform as well as legislation to be unveiled next month by House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.).

At the same time, many Democrats have been quick to disavow the most radical proposals coming from their ranks--the idea of making drugs legal. Rangel’s study group strongly rejected that idea, which has been proposed by Democratic Mayors Kurt Schmoke of Baltimore and Marion Barry of the District of Columbia, among others.

Controversial Proposals

Indeed, the most controversial proposals to get tough on drug dealers and users are coming from Republicans, not Democrats.

For example, Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), who has made the battle against drugs a centerpiece of his reelection campaign, is a leading proponent of mobilizing the military, employing the death penalty and denying foreign assistance to Mexico for its role in the drug trade.

A House Republican task force headed by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) has advanced a number of ideas, such as establishing stiff civil fines for possession of drugs based on a percentage of the user’s income. McCollum also would require states to revoke driver’s licenses of convicted drug offenders and he would withdraw government benefits such as student loans--but not welfare payments--from convicted drug dealers.

‘Going After Yuppie’

“We’re going after the yuppie--the voluntary drug user,” said McCollum, who echoed First Lady Nancy Reagan’s view that the casual drug user is an “accomplice to murder.”

The House GOP Task Force said: “Whether they intend to or not, drug users finance organized crime, finance revolution against democratic nations, purchase arms for communists and other revolutionaries, finance the murders of law enforcement officials . . . finance public corruption, drain health resources, spread disease, reduce productivity and safety and threaten the health and well-being of future generations.”

Likewise, some Administration officials are getting attention with their ideas for fighting drugs. Customs Commissioner William von Raab recently called on the government to flood the illegal drug market with “benign, look-alike pseudonarcotics.”

Drug-Free Workplaces

One highly controversial Republican proposal authored by Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.) has gained so much attention that many Democrats now support it. Walker’s amendment, which has been attached to four appropriations bills, would require federal aid recipients to pledge that their workplaces are drug-free.

Although members of both parties agree that an expanded federal anti-drug role will cost money, there is no consensus on where to find it. Increased spending on law enforcement and drug treatment would exceed the budget limits for fiscal 1989 that were agreed upon last December by Congress and the President.

That did not stop the Senate from adding $2.6 billion for the drug war to the fiscal 1989 budget. The Senate said the provision would not bust the budget because the money could be raised by tightening Internal Revenue Service tax collections. But House members, skeptical of that argument, rejected the provision and it did not become part of the budget.

A ‘Dire Emergency’

Despite that setback for anti-drug forces, Congress will probably declare the war on drugs a “dire emergency” to circumvent the spending limits imposed by last December’s budget agreement with Reagan, a knowledgeable Senate source said. “I don’t know who would say it’s not a dire emergency,” he said.

For all of the political maneuvering over the drug issue, there is reason to hope for some useful results. Experts note that the anti-drug legislation enacted in 1986, dismissed at the time as a purely political document, has since been widely hailed as an effective bill, primarily because it increased funds to local law enforcement agencies.