This week: What are they on?

Bob Dole's latest stump speeches and ads focus on the Clinton Administration's drug policies and whether Clinton himself was just waiting to inhale. Are drugs a primary campaign issue for you? If not, what issues matter?

A new Politics & Community survey is published each Thursday.

---

almiller: If drugs were the most important issue of the campaign, I would vote for neither Dole nor Clinton. Their bogus accusations that their opponents are soft on drugs, are a bunch of political hogwash. The Reagan-inspired "War on Drugs" was a bigger waste of taxpayers money than the Vietnam War. Spending billions on drug enforcement and prisons has only made the trafficking of drugs more profitable. When illegal drugs become more expensive, addicts must resort to more desparate actions to support their habits; the final result is an increase in violent and property crime. If drug laws were abolished, there would be no windfall profits for dealers and smugglers, and economies of certain third world countries might even collapse. Legalizing drugs would put the "drug lords" out of business, and all that DEA money could be put to better use. Money would be available for treatment of drug addiction and alcoholism, as well as education (as opposed to propoganda) about substance abuse.

If the two major candidates continue to insult my intelligence with these negative campaigns on drug issues, I may have to vote for Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party, because he offers the only logical answer to the drug/crime problems. I have already ruled out Bob Dole for his likening of marijuana to addicting drugs. Anything consumed in excess is harmful, but pot is not addicting like tobacco or alcohol; nor does it lead to violent behavior like cocaine or amphetamines.

Since Harry Browne and Ross Perot have been shut out of the debates, they now have less chance of getting electoral votes than the Saints have of winning the Superbowl this year. More than half the people my age have at least tried pot or have been exposed to it in their lifetime. Who cares if Clinton inhaled or not? At least he is more connected to reality and the times than Dole.

Economic and foreign policy are more relevant issues of the presidency; environmental preservation and health care reform are also issues that were underrated before Clinton took office. Declaring war on drugs and crime will do nothing to prevent these problems from happening in the first place; it will only increase the burden of law enforcement, the court system, and the penal system -- while at the same time causing our individual liberties to suffer in this increasing police-state.

Mur: There is the ever-present question, "Why won't they let me do what I choose to do." (within the limits of hurting no one else). Of course there are people who abuse drugs, just like there are people who abuse cigarettes, alcohol, and even coffee. People abuse fat, sugar, and high-speed driving. But the overwhelming majority of us *do not* and therefore we should have the freedom to do what we will as long as it harms no one.

hcm: No, they don't. In the end, neither candidate will do anything substantially useful about drugs. We already understand that "Just Say No" was ridiculous in the extreme, and wrong for all kinds of reasons. Drug usage is one of those highly emotional issues that any candidate can use to stir emotions in voters, and of course, we all know drug users don't vote, right?

Redbone: I was actually going to vote for Dole until he came out so strong for the "War on Drugs." Have they become so insulated in those dusty towers that they have failed to see what the rest of us have known for a long time - that the war on drugs translates into a "War on the American People?" Drugs are a personal issue and way down on my list of priorities. Let's stabilize the economy, make Kuwait the 51st state, and redefine foreign policy. And why should the U.S. have a balanced budget; when I never have...

jordanrb: Clinton's position on drug abuse (it's no big deal) is a reflection of the overall bankrupcy of his entire "administration." It is clear to me that the overriding theme of his regime is to implement socialism as the form of government in the U.S.

Applecheeks: Dole is wasting his and our time focusing so much on drugs. Over 25% of high school students whose parents have made a point of talking to them about drugs still try them. About the same percentage of Americans use drugs (typically marijuana) on a regular basis. The government would like everyone to think they are anti-drug, but then we find out THEY sold drugs themselves! All of our politicians should be doing more about better education, quality medical care for ALL, and LESS spending.

MikeLittle: Many, many people use drugs, including alcohol, out of boredom and frustration. We need to cultivate a society in which people can find real jobs and real hope. To say that drugs is the problem is merely a smokescreen to protect those who are gaining wealth at unprecedented rates while increasing numbers of people fall into poverty. It's a diversionary, derisive tactic. Furthermore, we lie to our young people about drugs. We lump marijuana in with cocaine and heroin. The kid tries pot, sees the she/he has been lied to and wonders about the others. So what that today's pot may be stronger. Vodka is stronger than beer. If I drink 24 ounces of beer it does not follow that I'll drink 24 ounces of vodka. Folks just smoke smaller amounts of stronger pot. Tell kids the truth!!!!

TBlackmore: "Just say No" was a lot more effictive drug policy than anything the Clinton administration has come up with. Clinton's statement of "Not Inhaling" is a sure sign he was as big a phony then as he is now.

starfly: Throwing more money away on a drug war is not what this counrty needs! Legalize drugs, and collect revenue to help with other needs.

xprof: Politicians and the government have always been duplicitous on the subject of drugs; while they were publicly condemning drug use, the CIA has been frequently instrumental in smuggling drugs into this country (since the Eisenhower administration). And Ronald Reagan was channeling money to the Contras so they could flood us (U.S.) with illegal drugs. For more reading, try this article published in the "San Jose Mercury."

naving: It is painfully ovbious that Dole is hitting the drug issue so hard becuase he thinks that is his best bet for winning the election. So, we will have fewer drugs in the country that has a screwed up economy, no foreign policy, and over all a very one sided veiw of everything! Also, do you think that when teenagers are lighting up their crack pipes or doing whatever they do they are going to say, "Hmmmm the president says doing this is bad... so i think ill go completly straight edge from now until he stops saying so." Of course not! This teenager has been told and knows that drugs are bad or at least not endorsed, but this person has a motive that he or she thinks outweighs the bad effects!

srider: Drug use is a cultural issue. Just say NO to politicans.

scottsch: The issue of drugs is not one that should concern the federal government for several reasons: it has no Constitutional authority to act on the issue, it is not right for government to act as our Big Brother, and drug prohibition creates crime (as did alcohol prohibition). It has some importance in and of itself, but most of its importance comes from the candidate's position on this issue drawn into a wider context (i.e. freedom or 1984).

mszippy: With crack having caused an out of control crime wave, you would think that this would be on the top of the list of 'drug' problems to be dealt with. Speed is on the rise. So what is Clinton doing? Spending valuable time and resources on restricting smoking, even on private property, making smokers second class citizens and put many business oweners out of business. Smoking is legal. Prohibition, as we have already experienced, causes festering crime. If he wants to outlaw smoking, then you would expect him to outlaw wearing perfume as well. This is something that many people have an allergic reaction to as well as being obnoxious to be around in general. In conclusion, all smokers are now drug addicts, although it's ok for Clinton to smoke an occasional cigar. This will be the first time I do not vote for the Democrat.

Dole is worse. Talk about un-American! We all have to believe in 'his' God. He thinks marijuana is like heroin. A woman shouldn't be allowed to make a personal decision about abortion. Just what we need are a bunch of unwanted, neglected children further ruining our already nearly hopeless youth. Neither candidate is supporting our right to the persuit of happiness, freedom of choice, and privacy.

This will definitely effect the way I vote. I am a liberal Democrat, yet I will vote for Dole just to keep Clinton out of my house and business. I know he will still win, but I will know I have taken at least one vote away from this two-faced, dope smoking, adultering, scam artist. He's so full of crap I can smell him from here.

cmtaylor: Neither of the major candidates addresses the real issues related to drugs. What changes need to be made that will demonstrate that use of any addictive drug (including alcohol and tobacco) is an inappropriate response to life's potential? Our society can be more life affirming by addressing issues like the spread of the gap between rich and poor, our overweaning materialism, and the many people whose needs are being ignored. As we deal with these needs, the need for drugs will diminish. People need something to say "yes" to. Another point: why do neither of the major candidates, or for that matter the major media, address the CIA connection to Nicaraguan Contra leaders who were supported in their money-raising by winking at, or perhaps participating in, the sale of crack in L.A.? Can it be that our own government sacrificed the walfare of many inner city youth to their need to support an illegal war on our neighbors to the South?

ChuckDiesel: This is just another example of how out of touch the Dole campaign is with middle-class America. I believe that all the benificial uses of marijuana far outweigh any "harmful" effects. Legalizing marijuana would bring back the farming industry, provide for medical use, and halt the deforestation of the country. It would also create many jobs and ease spending for the war on drugs. As far as other illegal drugs, I don't think that the increase in use can be attributed to Bill Clinton being president. If you really want to halt this, money must be put into education, and bringing this nation out of poverty. Put money into rehabilitating inner-city youth, etc.

GooRoo: After reading some of the feelings expressed here, I was almost NOT going to say anything, but I couldn't resist. Having lived through the sixties I recall the biggest fear (and that IS what this item is about) associated to drugs, was that the communists would get our society so involved with drugs that we would be an easy target.

The control of drugs is a family and health issue in my mind. I have two teenagers that are very against drugs. And they know that I would not tolerate drug use from them and for good reason. They see what kind of "normal" problems only get magnified when drugs are involved.

Our government will never (as proven) be the total answer to any drug problem. Granted, I am glad they are doing *something* to curb the *amount* of drugs coming into the U.S. and I hope they don't stop.There are more important issues at hand: health,education, and increasing the standards and quality of living for many people. The continued view of hopelessness, I feel, is what drives people down anyway. We cannot however, have an uneducated society and hope for the best. We cannot have an ill *baby boomer* situation on our hands when a large part of them/us reach retirement and beyond.

Those items, in my mind, are more important, and a more compassionate and educated society we have, the more value we will place on each other, and the less likely chance that drugs will offer the escape that they do; because, there won't be as much a *need* to feel that escape is the only way to deal.

FreeMe: Drugs should be legalized! I think that the arguments in favor of legalization far outweigh those against.

flsmo1: Drugs are an issue but not a primary issue. The fact that heroin is on the upsurge is quite frightening. "Weed" aside, there is ample evidence that the present administration has turned a blind eye to drug abuse even within its own staff. We cannot afford to pay for the rehab of more and more people.

stark9: Prohibition is a big issue because it is the number one excuse the polytheoricians are using to take away the Bill of Rights. That two-headed monster, the republicrat party, is unanimously pro-prohibition, and that is just one of the many reasons to vote for Harry Browne (Libertarian).

rab: I've long known that the Republicans were totally out of touch with reality when it comes to such issues as drugs. Although I'm not a Democrat either, until the last few years I was at least willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the drugs issue, but they too have shown a total lack of intelligent comprehension of the real-world effects of the insane War on Drugs. And I won't even bother to mention the big-eared Texas fascist.........

I have no plans to use illegal drugs myself, but this is still a primary issue for me: if those in power can't get such an obvious civil-liberties issue right, then how can I trust them to do anything else correctly?

I'll be voting for Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate, as he is the only national candidate who is exhibiting a lick of sense on this and many other issues. The bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates can snub their noses at alternative candidates, but such are where the future of our free country lies. And I don't intend to waste my vote on "more of the same" ClintonDole, thanks.