Pubdate: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA) Copyright: 1999 San Francisco Examiner Contact: http://www.examiner.com/ Forum: http://examiner.com/cgi-bin/WebX Author: Steve Heilig DRUG IRRELEVANCY How many voters really care if a presidential candidate once tried some illegal drug? The past use of drugs by any candidate is irrelevant, as long as the candidate is no longer impaired by such use. The real problem here is the fact that candidates feel the need to evade the question or outright lie about it. Stigma attached to drug experimentation, including addiction, only defeats any long-overdue attempts to prevent and treat this disease (recognized as such by the American Medical Association) and every other reputable medical organization) as just that - a disease. Any candidate, regardless of past experimentation or addiction, could make a brave and historic point by focusing on effective, nonjudgmental education and access to treatment for drug problems. And much more of that focus should be on legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco - which harm and kill many more Americans than illegal drugs ever have. What we really need from politicians is honesty. Former first lady Betty Ford attained heroic status for publicly facing up to her problems in this regard. Why can't potential presidents show such leadership? Steve Heilig, San Francisco Medical Society, San Francisco - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D