House Votes Strict Drug-Penalty Bill : Punishment in Election-Year Measure Includes Death, Fines, Benefit Cuts

The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed an election-year drug bill that would dramatically stiffen the penalties for people who buy or sell illegal drugs, even casual users.

Approved by a 375-30 vote, the House-passed omnibus drug measure was hailed by conservatives as “a momentous step” and condemned by civil libertarians as an unconstitutional intrusion on individual liberties.

Drafted as an election-year response to the startling rise in drug-related violence in the nation’s cities, the legislation would impose the death penalty in murder cases involving drug dealers, deprive convicted drug users of many federal benefits--including student loans--and impose fines of up to $10,000 on drug users.

No Funding Provision

Although the measure calls for the additional federal expenditure of $2.1 billion to fund improved drug rehabilitation and law enforcement programs, the House has provided no means to pay for those provisions. The additional spending would mean that the budget would exceed limits already adopted by Congress.

The Senate is likely to pass an equally strong, although somewhat different, measure before Congress adjourns next month. Many of the most severe House-passed provisions such as the death penalty are likely to meet with a liberal filibuster in the Senate.

Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), a conservative, characterized the House bill as a first step toward holding drug users accountable for the dramatic increase in drug trafficking and violence that has taken place over the last few years. In the past, Congress has focused primarily on law enforcement efforts aimed at drug dealers and interdiction of drugs coming across U.S. borders.

“We’ve talked about the war on drugs for a long time, but we did nothing about the casual users,” Edwards said. “What we’ve done in the last two weeks (during House consideration of the drug bill) is declare war on the users of drugs.”

But Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), a liberal, said that House members in their election-year zeal to respond to the fears of their constituents have produced legislation under which “Americans will be less free.” He added: “Drug legislation plus election-year posturing equals assault on the Constitution.”

The most controversial provisions of the bill, most of them offered by conservative Republicans during the floor debate, would:

--Allow the death penalty to be imposed on anyone who intentionally kills a person while committing a drug-related felony or attempting to avoid arrest for that felony. As the result of an amendment offered by Edwards, the sentencing judge could consider a number of mitigating factors, including a previously clean criminal record and mental distress.

--Deny federal benefits such as grants, contracts, loans, housing and some veterans’ benefits to persons convicted of two or more drug-related offenses within a 10-year period. Liberals argued that the penalty would unduly punish the poor.

--Permit the introduction in federal criminal cases of evidence obtained in a search that violated constitutional protections under the so-called “exclusionary rule,” if the prosecution demonstrates that the search was undertaken in “an objective, reasonable, good-faith belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.”

--Impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation for possession of small so-called “personal use” amounts of marijuana, cocaine and other controlled drugs. Conservative authors of this provision said it was aimed at showing casual users that buying drugs is “not a victimless crime.”

--Conduct random drug testing of some persons on probation in the criminal justice system.

Many of these provisions, if they become law, are sure to be challenged in the courts--particularly the death penalty and the limits on the exclusionary rule. Even some members who voted in favor of the bill, such as Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N. J.), acknowledged that some of the provisions are “of dubious constitutionality.”

Critics said that the exclusionary rule, which has been law since 1914, results in the dismissal of only about 2% of cases brought to court and provides an incentive for police to adhere to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. But the Reagan Administration has long criticized the rule.

Likewise, the imposition of a new federal death penalty provision has been attacked by liberals, who claim that the death sentence is carried out primarily against blacks and other minorities. At present, the only federal crimes subject to capital punishment are murder during air piracy or espionage in the armed forces. But authors contend that the provision was written in strict adherence to Supreme Court guidelines.

Includes Steroids

In the final hours before the bill was passed, the House adopted a prohibition against the distribution of anabolic steroids without a prescription, establishing a penalty of up to three years in prison. If the provision becomes law, it is expected to have a profound impact on professional and even scholastic sports.

Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach) said that steroids are commonly used by athletes at all levels of competitive sports to increase their strength and that the use of steroids by young athletes has become what he described as “the entry level into drug abuse.”

But the House rejected a tough proposal offered by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) to limit federal highway funds to states that fail to revoke driver’s licenses of persons convicted of criminal offenses. Instead, the House voted, 281 to 119, in favor of a substitute by Rep. Glenn M. Anderson (D-San Pedro) that would give special grants only to states that do so.

Although McCollum had successfully defeated a federal mandatory seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases on grounds that it would violate the rights of the states, he argued that revoking licenses was of more importance. But Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) helped to defeat McCollum’s amendment by repeating the state’s rights argument.

“You can blackmail the states for a good purpose, you can blackmail the states for a bad purpose, but it’s blackmailing them just the same,” he said.

The House adopted an amendment by Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) that would establish a task force to formulate a program for cleanup of hazardous waste produced by clandestine drug laboratories.