Will president veto D.C. bill to help legalize drugs?

Pushed by extremists, Democrats in Congress are supporting a soft-on-drugs agenda at least for our Nation's Capital.

The vast majority of them in the House and Senate opposed the annual federal spending bill for Washington, D.C., even though it cracks down on drug offenders, streamlines inefficient bureaucracies, strengthens education, gets foster kids into permanent homes, and cleans up the foul.Anacostia River. Thanks to Republican votes the bill passed both chambers.

Now these Democrats and the liberal Washington Post are asking President Clinton to veto the bill.

Of course, these opponents won't admit that being soft on drugs is the actual issue. They wrap it in rhetoric claiming that it's all about home rule and local control for the District of Columbia.

Legal Marijuana, Free Needles

Just what do they want to give the District the power to do-over the objections of Congress?

One, to legalize marijuana, despite federal laws to the contrary.

Two, to use taxpayers' money to provide free needles for drug addicts.

Three, to use taxpayers' money to launch a lawsuit asking courts to ignore the IT.S. Constitution and give the District of Columbia full votes in Congress, as though it were a state.

These same federal restrictions were in the bill signed by Clinton last year. They also were in this latest D.C. spending bill when it first passed the House of Representatives earlier this year, and three-fourths (156) of the Democrats then voted for the bill.

But pushed by D.C's Democratic delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, with the approval of Virginia Rep. Jim Moran-the ranking Democrat on the D.C. Appropriations subcommittee-Democratic "yes" votes shrank on final passage September 9 from 156 to just 5.

Yet these restrictions in the bill-which Democrats ranted and raved were the reason for their "no" voteshadn't changed since July 29 when 151 Democrats voted for the bill. So what had changed?

Norton became upset that the House-Senate conference on the bill didn't miraculously reject the very same riders that the President had signed into law only a year Warning! OCR inputs differ greatly

Although Norton complains that her lack of a vote ond yieldthe House floor means she has no clout, her Democratic colleagues in fact blindly bowed to her wishes, and yielded their consciences to her anger. She wanted give D.C. the power to choose- even if the District chooses to legalize now-illegal drugs.

That choice would come at the expense of many better choices.

Congress, although not required to so, noted D.C.'s recent progress and volunteered extra funding to help the capital city's recovery. The bill provides severance costs to trim district's workforce, creates a multimilliondollar scholarship fund for D.C. students, funds a new drug-testing program that will incarcerate felons on probation or parole if they don't stay drug-free, underwrite incentives for families to adopt thousands of foster children and provides money for the Anacostia River cleanup.

It also ratifies the historic tax cuts approved by the local control, the bill approves the identical city budget that the mayor and council requested.

A presidential veto would trade this away all for the sake of a pro-drug policy.

If the President vetoes this bill, as urged by the Democrats in Congress and by his own liberal advisors, he will expose his party's soft-on-drugs policy. He will also expose our Nation's Capital to renewed ridicule over drug use-reminding the whole nation of the days of cocaine-using Mayor Marion Barry-and will hijack D.C's progress on the road to recovery. Legalized marijuana and free needles for drug addicts are not the stuff that Americans adore. They're hardly the way to continue cleaning up Washington's tarnished image with the rest of the country.

Friends Could Keep Stash

Is this whole dispute really about home rule for District of Columbia? Or is it part of the foot-in-the-door strategy of those whose ultimate goal is to legalize drugs?

D.C. last year voted on an initiative on legalizing marijuana for "medical purposes." Congress blocked both the vote count and changes to the law. This year's bill allowed the vote count-which turned out 69% favorable-but doesn't change the law.

Proponents of rewriting the law-including much of the media-try to play down the significance of such a change since it supposedly would involve only "medical" marijuana. But under the terms of the proposed law, no actual written doctor's prescription would be required; an oral suggestion would be enough. And anyone who claims his doctor said OK, even casually, is allowed to authorize four friends to also keep a stash, just to assure constant availability.

Just imagine what "Saturday Night Live!" could do with this! Or Jay Leno, or David Letterman!

Under the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), Congress is given the right to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsover" over the District of Columbia. If Clinton vetoes the D.C. spending bill, it's hard to guess who will get the biggest black eye-the President, his fellow Democrats, or Washington, D.C.

But those who write late-night comedy monologues will get a ton of new material.

Rep. Istook, a Republican who represents Oklahoman's 5th District, is chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the House Approriations Committee.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Oct 1, 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved