It’s a Monster

The Omnibus Drug Initiative Act now before the House of Representatives could have been conceived only in an election year. This behemoth, 375 pages long at last count and still growing, has many congressional fathers, all of them intent on demonstrating to voters come November that they are doing something to stop the drug epidemic. But, as amendments are piled on amendments, what is emerging in Washington is a bill so monstrous that we doubt that anyone will want to acknowledge paternity a year from now.

To some extent the measure reflects disenchantment with traditional anti-drug strategy, especially the federal government’s efforts to eradicate foreign marijuana and coca fields abroad and to interdict drug smuggling. These supply-side tactics, aimed at limiting the availability of drugs, have failed. Spending on interdiction has quadrupled in the 1980s while the supply of cocaine has doubled; crack, the cheap cocaine derivative favored in U.S. inner cities, has never before been so plentiful.

Lawmakers are understandably frustrated, but the anti-drug bill that they are assembling--a raggle-taggle collection of measures ranging from generally harmless to dangerously unconstitutional--isn’t much of an improvement over current law. The bill would increase the federal anti-drug budget by $2 billion, to $5.5 billion, and augment some drug rehabilitation programs, but mostly it is a punitive piece of legislation designed to show just how tough the House can be.

Take, for example, an amendment adopted last week that would impose the federal death penalty in drug-related killings. We oppose capital punishment in every form and doubt its deterrent effect, but even its proponents must recognize the drawbacks of this provision. As some prosecutors pointed out to Congress, this measure would make it nearly impossible to extradite drug offenders from abroad, because many foreign governments refuse to return a suspect facing execution. And why is a federal statute needed when 36 states already impose the death penalty?

Of doubtful constitutionality was another amendment, introduced by Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach), that would obliterate the exclusionary rule that keeps illegally seized evidence out of court. Lungren’s amendment, adopted by a 2-1 margin, would require judges in all federal criminal cases--not just those involving drugs--to admit tainted evidence as long as it was obtained in “good faith.” The U.S. Supreme Court increasingly permits searches without warrants or probable cause, but Lungren’s measure is an invitation to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment.

Just as misguided, in our view, are the provisions that would deny a raft of federal benefits--public housing, student loans, some veterans’ programs--to people convicted of certain drug offenses. We offer no brief for drug dealers or drug users, but it is wrong to evict children from a public-housing project because their father peddles drugs. Courts, not federal agencies, are the proper forums for meting out punishments, and we cannot figure out why drug offenders should be the only criminals denied such benefits. To be consistent, shouldn’t other felons be disqualified, too?

Consistency doesn’t matter much, however, to congressmen afraid of being branded “soft on drugs.” This week the House will vote on still more amendments that would impose extrajudicial punishments on drug offenders, including $10,000 “civil” fines for possession. House proponents say that such moves would promote “user accountability,” and, while we question the effectiveness and wisdom of these particular measures, there is a kernel of a good idea here.

Instead of focusing exclusively on cutting off drug supplies, instead of blaming Colombia and Mexico for the U.S. drug problem, Congress now has begun to consider how to reduce the demand for drugs at home. That slight shift in philosophy may be the only redeeming feature so far of the Omnibus Drug Initiative. Let’s hope that the Senate, where only one-third of the membership is up for reelection in November, will take that idea and develop it more constructively.