Antidrug Or Antipeople?

Although it was officially titled the Omnibus Drug Initiative Act, the 375- page bill that came up for debate in the House last week seemed more like all-purpose aid to electioneering, an irresistible chance to prepare for the coming campaign by taking a get-tough stand against dope dealers. The legislators swiftly tacked on six amendments, including one to provide the death penalty for certain drug-related crimes and another to permit the use of illegally obtained evidence in drug trials. The House also packed into the measure an array of harsh sanctions against drug abusers. All that was too much for Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. "Some of the things that sound rough and mean and antidrug," said Rangel, "really are antipeople."

As Rangel pointed out, one of the House-approved sanctions could punish the innocent family of a drug user by evicting it from public housing. Similar amendments, added Detroit Congressman John Conyers, "assaulted a great many Bill of Rights provisions."

Republican Dan Lungren of California, sponsor of the illegal-evidence amendment, scoffed at complaints about probable unconstitutionality. That, he said, is the case you make "when you've lost the argument." The author of the capital-punishment provision, Pennsylvania Republican George Gekas, claimed that his measure would be a "swift and certain" deterrent against drug-related killings.

By a lopsided 335-to-67 vote, the House adopted the amendment to deny such federal benefits as public housing and student loans to anyone convicted of one offense of drug distribution or any two other drug offenses, including possession, within a ten-year period; it also denies housing and education assistance to veterans dealing in dope. Another proposal: to withhold road money from states that fail to suspend the driver's license of a convicted drug user.

The welter of proposals was the work of ten separate committees, so House Majority Leader Thomas Foley and Minority Leader Robert Michel decided simply to throw the measures with the strongest support into a single package and let the courts weed out constitutionally objectionable provisions later. Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd vowed to "make every effort" to get the drug bill out of Congress before the election recess. But since even a single Senator can hold up the bill with a filibuster, some controversial amendments, such as the death penalty, are likely to be dropped or modified.

Amid the avalanche of tough-sounding proposals, it was easy to forget that the bill would also add $2.1 billion to the $1.7 billion already being spent on drug-prevention and -treatment programs. That amount would bring Congress very close to the Gramm-Rudman-Holli ngs limit on federal expenditures -- and doom other popular election-year proposals, such as $2.5 billion in support for child care.