(2 of 3)
In a survey conducted last week for TIME by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman, 75% of respondents said they believe drug use in the country as a whole is very serious. (Some 17% said it is fairly serious, 6% somewhat serious and 1% not serious.) Only 35%, however, agreed that it is very serious in their own communities. While experts think regular cocaine use leveled off about six years ago, the number of Americans who say they know someone who has tried the drug has actually grown in the past 3 1/2 years. In March 1983, 24% said someone close to them had used coke; today the figure is 39%. Among people between the ages of 18 and 34, some 63% said they know coke users. Only 14% of all respondents admitted to having used coke themselves.
In the TIME poll, 69% of the public said they would favor a drug-testing program at their company, while 23% said they would be against it; 81% said that if given a choice they would agree to be tested. More specific questions, however, disclosed some deep ambivalences: 58% said they agreed with the statement, "It is people's right not to be tested if they do not want to be," and 44% with the statement, "There are too many questions about the accuracy of drug tests for them to be used to test people at work."
The $4 billion House bill, which has not yet been considered by the Senate, would provide significant new funding for drug interdiction, law enforcement, education, rehabilitation and treatment. Passed by a 392 to 16 vote, it contained several hastily drafted, and not always wise, amendments.
One would require the President to deploy, within 30 days after passage of the bill, military equipment and personnel to thwart drug trafficking. Although the posse comitatus act of 1878 generally forbids the armed forces from enforcing civil laws, the bill would allow the military to arrest dealers captured in "hot pursuit." Said David Westrake, an official of the Drug Enforcement Administration: "Increased military support is welcome and needed." But a variety of civil-liberties advocates immediately demurred, as did the Defense Department. Said Spokesman Robert Sims: "It is a bad precedent to use the Army as a police force." Other critics said the amendment would hurt military preparedness and questioned whether soldiers could be properly trained as law enforcers in 30 days. Proponents dismissed such caution. "This is war," declared Mississippi Republican Trent Lott. "If this isn't defending the shores, I don't know what is."
Another amendment would allow prosecutors to introduce into federal trials evidence that had been obtained illegally without a warrant as long as law- enforcement officials seized the material "in good faith." New Jersey Democrat Peter Rodino, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the amendment had not been considered in hearings by his panel. "All day long we've been fighting the war on drugs," said he. "Now it seems that the attack is on the Constitution of the United States."