Candidate Drug Use (posted August 26, 1999)

Texas Governor George W. Bush's recent admission that he hadn't used cocaine in the last 25 years set off a frenzy about when and under what conditions candidates should discuss past drug use. In the last decade, it has become more common for reporters to quiz candidates about financial holdings, drug problems, and marital infidelities. It is part of the confessional era in which we live.

Yet despite press interest in these matters, the public has remained fairly consistent in its view that such matters do not belong in political campaigns unless they are recent and relate directly to how the person would perform the job under consideration. In the Bush case, for example, public opinion polls found that 81 percent of Americans did not think drug use more than 25 years ago mattered and that Bush's admission would not alter their vote plans.

It is time the press accepted a statute of limitations on personal background questions. Certainly, if a candidate currently or in the recent past used illegal drugs, that should be considered a legitimate part of political discourse. Or personal behaviors such as alcoholism or excessive gambling that might cast doubt on an individual's ability to do a job are quite relevant. But those types of circumstances notwithstanding, there should be a ceasefire in the quest to probe into candidate's personal background. There are more important questions to ask them, such as how they plan to address major problems and what their political vision is.