How George W.'s Drug Dilemma Could Prove Positive

(2 of 2)

Find somebody else to vote for? Thats democracy. Among the top tier of candidates, though, blunder years are not hard to come by. Bill Bradley admitted in his book that "several times in the early 1970s I had taken a few puffs of marijuana"; Al Gore also admitted to inhaling in those magical years. On the GOP side, Bushs eight rivals have all flatly denied using any illegal drugs, and looking at that bunch, one is inclined to believe them. (Hypocrisy watch: Only Gary Bauer has so far claimed the right to bring it up as an issue in the campaign.) If a clean legal-moral bill of health makes or breaks this campaign, look for John McCain to coast to the White House next year. The country could do a lot worse. But a country with voter turnout under 50 percent and a general distaste for its public servants and one that sneers at monarchy but shows a clear proclivity for political dynasties (comfort with a known quantity, perhaps?) could look at this election as a golden opportunity to start doing a lot better.

There is one good reason to elect George W. Bush, whether he ever says the word "cocaine" or not, and especially if he does. Its as good a time as any for America to grow up. If the baby boom generation cast a curious eye on drug use (and let those of us in the media not give Al and Bill too much slack for smoking weed if were to take George W. to task for snorting coke), then anecdotal evidence suggests that their sons and daughters are no different. If drugs arrived in the '60s, theyre here to stay, and the only way the U.S.'s war on them can ever really be won is if users learn to be responsible enough with them to stop getting caught. In this generation and the succeeding ones, America will no doubt produce legions of smart, strong, honest, driven, innovative, adventurous people who have experimented with illegal drugs (Silicon Valley is an excellent place to start looking). If the privacy is forever gone from American politics, then some of the fear ought to go too, along with our own hypocritical standards for our leaders. As an electorate, we might just find it invigorating and rewarding to make our choices from among the many instead of the few.