Posturing on Drugs

There ought to be a law against Congress’ legislating on drugs in an election year. That’s the only conclusion to draw from the reckless anti-drug bills that sped through the House and the Senate as lawmakers outdid each other in an effort to show how tough they can be on drug users. The Senate version is marginally less awful, but both bills teem with provisions that are unconstitutional, unenforceable or unwise. And, sad to say, even those less punitive sections that would boost federal funding for drug education and rehabilitation are more show than substance; Congress simply doesn’t have the money to fund the $2.6-billion program both bills would establish.

Neither house of Congress was in any mood to listen to reason. Over the objections of federal prosecutors, for example, the lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to expand the scope of the federal death penalty to include drug-related murders. That move was unnecessary--all but 14 states already have capital-punishment statutes--as well as contrary to U.S. interests. As the prosecutors warned, now it will be impossible to persuade countries opposed to capital punishment to extradite drug kingpins to the United States. Fortunately, the death provisions lack so many of the protections that the U.S. Supreme Court requires before a condemned man can be executed that neither would be likely to survive court scrutiny.

“User accountability,” the new slogan of those members of Congress who want to dry up demand for drugs by punishing the users, has unquestioned appeal. Reducing demand here at home makes more sense than pouring millions of dollars more into the drug-interdiction crusades that have repeatedly failed to stem the flow of narcotics. But, in implementing this idea, Congress went haywire, producing sanctions that would be laughable if the underlying problem weren’t so profound. Do lawmakers really believe that Congress’ threat to withhold student loans and radio station licenses from convicted drug users will keep Los Angeles gang members away from crack?

The other provisions adopted in the name of “user accountability” are downright Draconian. The House bill, for example, would authorize the attorney general to impose civil fines of up to $10,000 on someone found in possession of a single marijuana cigarette; the attorney general would act both as prosecutor and judge in meting out a punishment harsher than that available in most criminal courts. The Senate provision is a bit saner, allowing for a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt before the fine could be imposed. But nowhere is there any suggestion about how the court system can absorb this new caseload.

As Congress moves toward adjournment this week, some strategists believe that the House may be persuaded to accept the Senate bill in toto, to avoid a bruising conference. The Senate version is certainly preferable; unlike the House bill, it would not eviscerate the exclusionary rule, which restricts the use of illegally seized evidence at trials. And the Senate bill establishes a noble goal: 60% of federal drug funds must be directed toward education and rehabilitation and only 40% to law enforcement, reversing the current proportions. If more money were actually available, we might find some cause for optimism, but Congress has in hand only $450 million of the $2.6 billion these bills promise. The scarcity of funds underscores how the fight against drugs has deteriorated into election-year posturing. As Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) remarked on the floor: “Just to grow hair on your chest . . . so you can . . . tell everybody how tough you are on drugs is no solution.”