Only days after George W. Bush defeated the other Republican candidates in the Iowa Straw Poll, rumors regarding illicit drug use began to surface.

Even though the incidents are more than 20 years old, some feel his personal conduct of two decades ago is relevant to the current campaign for President.

But I bet the American public agrees with me that whatever Bush did back in the ’70s is of no concern to us now, and definitely not something that needs to be brought up.

The issue also illustrates the need for a revision of our nation’s drug laws.

First, whatever he did behind closed doors must be considered a personal matter. Private citizens take their solitude for granted, while celebrity figures are constantly in the spotlight.

Every public gaff by a celebrity becomes a hot news story just because he is in the public eye. The legions of fans he has guarantee it.

But what happens behind closed doors is private, and no person has the right to barge in and make a spectacle of others. As long as George W. Bush kept his matter private and avoided doing something in public, his personal privacy should be respected and the matter dropped.

Also, the time frame in which this rumored drug use happened must be taken into account.

The ’70s were the same period in which half the country was in a marijuana-induced haze, and when society becomes accepting of something despite a law on the books against it, enforcement of the law becomes difficult. Speeding on public roads comes to mind.

The thing to keep in mind is if somebody did something two decades ago but hasn’t touched the stuff since, what does it matter?

This is not a current problem where the man was arrested with an eight ball in his pocket last year. Instead, it is ancient history that took place before you or I were born.

Even the courts have a statute of limitations where they consider anything past a certain time frame irrelevant. Bush considered it a mistake of youthful indiscretion.

Despite the arguments that this is old news and a private matter, some of his rivals insist on bringing up the issue.

Orrin Hatch said, “If there is drug use in Bush’s past, he should acknowledge it.” Gary Bauer went a bit further and stated that Bush will “have to answer questions that go to law breaking.”

Those two candidates, who lost big at the straw poll, can demand that Bush come clean all they want. I doubt the American people are listening.

When Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Bill Bradley all admit to marijuana use in college and still get elected I think we get a pretty clear picture that past drug use has no bearing on one’s political viability.

Bush called it a youthful indiscretion, while the Democrats labeled it “experimenting.” The fact is, everybody is young only once,, and people are naturally curious.

The candidates now consider what they did a mistake but can chalk up their past as a result of youthful stupidity. None of them would have admitted anything if they weren’t worried about being trapped in a lie later in the race.

That’s fine because I don’t consider drug use a red badge of courage for the candidates — otherwise we’d have a field of people claiming to have had the worst drug addiction problems and telling us how they overcame them.

I take issue with the fact that all the candidates are downplaying what they did back when they were young, calling it experimenting or youthful indiscretion.

But I am sure that is of small consolation to the millions of people on probation or in prison for drug possession charges. After all, the only thing that differentiates the pretenders to the throne from the cast of “Dazed and Confused” is that they were never caught.

I think it’s time our legislators took a long look at rewriting the drug laws. To say it was okay when you were young and stupid and then incarcerate those who were caught is hypocrisy.

Likewise, there is little justification to say marijuana use in college is acceptable but that other narcotics are not. Both impair your ability to drive a car or pass a federal drug test.

You can argue addiction rates but most doctors will tell you that alcohol addiction is far more widespread than any other form, and looking through the police blotter will demonstrate the prevalence of people arrested while under the influence of America’s only legal drug.

This is not to say that alcohol is evil, but it must be recognized that substances like alcohol and marijuana elicit similar reactions in people. They both alter mood and perception, as well as affecting physical reaction times.

The message our leaders are sending to our kids is confusing.

On one hand, you are permitted to make mistakes when you are young, but on the other hand, we imprison people whose only mistake is getting caught.

While I don’t think cocaine should be sold in every corner gas station, decriminalizing some aspects of drug use does seem logical.

Drug offenders constitute a decent percentage of our prison system. Reducing incarceration terms would free up resources to focus on violent criminals, not the stoners staring at blank television screens.

But not everybody sees it that way. Elizabeth Dole told the National Foundation of Women Legislators that she would lead a crusade against illegal drugs if elected president.

That sounds good to all the parents who wonder what their kids are doing while they play an extra round on the golf course, but proper parenting seems a better way to prevent drug use than any draconian campaign to lock everybody up.

I guess I am confused because in this instance balance must be sought.

Drugs are a means of escaping reality, but then again so are most legal forms of entertainment. Most foods exhibit a drug-like effect.

Doing something in the privacy of your own home should be permissible, as long as no one is hurt as a result of your actions. Republican John McCain agrees that Bush’s past is personal and that his privacy should be respected.

Most of us who have skeletons in ourclosets would agree.

But if we are to OK the past actions of our leader, we should consider the message it sends.

Every person is permitted a few mistakes in his life and George W. Bush made his at an early age.

If he was having addiction problems that impaired his ability to hold public office, I know most Americans would not vote for him.

If we can forgive national leaders, we should be able to understand the problems others face and not simply arrest them.

Personally, I can forgive drug use two decades ago if it will elect the man who has presided over the biggest tax cuts in Texas history. It bodes well for the rest of us.

---

Aaron Woell is a senior in political science from Bolingbrook, Ill.