The abrupt resignation of Japanese Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa on February 17, 2009, is a reminder of the high cost to political careers, of public drunkenness. Nakagawa, whose position as finance minister made him the second most powerful politician in Japan, resigned after an episode of apparent drunkenness at a G-7 meeting.

Considering that heads of state are politicians who have faced extraordinary occupational exposure to alcohol, it is remarkable that in recent history so few have suffered from obvious alcohol problems. Former Russian President Boris Yeltsen was often drunk in public, but such obvious public intoxication is extremely rare among high public officials.

It is interesting to examine American Presidents in terms of alcohol and other drug problems. Consider the consequence of applying our Drug Free Workplace requirements to US Presidents. What would be the consequence of applying a rigorous Drug Free Workplace testing program to the Office of the President?

Let’s assume we test in three circumstances:

1. Pre-employment
2. Random
3. Post accident or for cause

In each case we test for those most troublesome illegal drugs, as defined by the appropriate Federal agency, and in the case of Post Accident or For Cause testing we also test for alcohol. For illegal drug testing we would use urine tests, or possibly hair or saliva; for alcohol testing we would use a breathalyzer (or possibly an EtG test, depending on circumstances). These procedures would mirror current Drug Free Workplace procedures as used in most corporate and governmental settings.

What would we find?

Let’s start off by limiting our assessment to 20^th and 21^st Century Presidents only, that is people who grew up, as it were, in the “modern era,” i.e., post –Civil War, when it was possible to drink water without risking illness, and when sobriety in the workplace had become a norm.

We’d find a remarkable able, relatively healthy, usually very sober group of 22 men. Only one – George W. Bush – has a reported history of alcohol abuse, as defined by current psychiatric criteria – and he stopped drinking more than twenty years before becoming President. Three others – Harding, Johnson and Nixon – are known for heavy drinking on occasion – but only one – Nixon – was reported to drink in a manner that interfered with his presidential functioning (according to White House transcripts of Middle East crisis management). Many enjoyed drinking – Franklin Roosevelt was famous for his martinis – but public intoxication by modern US Presidents hardly exists.

If we look at illegal drug use, the picture becomes more complex. Recent Presidents – Obama, Bush and Clinton - all reported youthful episodes of use or experimentation with marijuana or cocaine, but such use stopped in their 20’s. Only one President – John Kennedy – in know to have used mood altering drugs while in office: Kennedy was given shots of amphetamine by Dr. Max Jacobsen, a NYC physician famous as “Dr. Feel Good,” who subsequently lost his medical license. Kennedy was reputedly on amphetamines when he gave his famous “ich bein ein Berliner” speech, although his use was “under the supervision of a physician.” His use may have been ill-advised but would not have been illegal, and although he would have “flunked” his initial drug screen, getting a Positive for Amphetamine, his Medical Review Officer, noting Dr. Jacobsen’s medical license, would have ruled his result a definite Negative.

The complexity of drug use is well shown by looking at Prohibition Era Presidents. Four Presidents served during the Prohibition era – Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Roosevelt (a short part of Wilson’s Presidency was also effected, but Wilson was physically debilitated by a severe stroke at the time, the last few weeks of his Presidency). Under the Volstead Act the manufacture, transportation and sale of intoxicating beverages was outlawed, and 1,520 Federal Agents were assigned enforcement duties. How did the four Prohibition Era Presidents react to the ban of alcohol? They variously flouted, followed or circumscribed the law:

Harding was known as a heavy drinker, who served drinks in the White House, often drank on Presidential trips throughout the county, and essentially ignored the law. His successor, Calvin Coolidge, known for his stern, religious, business-like attitude, was a non-drinker. More interesting was his successor, Herbert Hoover. Hoover, a drinker, followed the letter of the law by having his drinks on frequent trips to Canada and on visits to foreign embassies in Washington: embassies are considered “foreign territory” and are outside US jurisdiction. The final Prohibition Era President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was known as a man who always enjoyed a martini, and was famous for mixing and serving them to his guests. When FDR signed the twenty-first amendment, repealing prohibition, he commented “I think this would be a good time for a beer.”

So, if we had a Drug Free Workplace program during the Prohibition Era, and if alcohol were included, since it was at the time the primary “drug of abuse” we would have probably had the following result if we completed random drugs of abuse testing:

Harding:

Positive for Alcohol on Random Breathalyzer tests during the work day

Positive for Alcohol on Random 80-hour EtG urine test

Coolidge:

Negative on both tests

Hoover:

Negative for Alcohol on Random Breathalyzer tests during the work day

Positive for Alcohol on Random 80-hour EtG urine test, but then judged Negative by the MRO as his drinking did not violate the law, since it occurred on “foreign soil” where it was legal.

Roosevelt:

Negative for Alcohol on Random Breathalyzer tests during the work day

Positive for alcohol on Random 80-hour EtG urine test, but the result may have been moot, since Prohibition was eliminated shortly after the result was reported.

To add another twist to this discussion, consider the growing tendency for pre-employment testing of nicotine, since tobacco consumption is increasingly frowned upon by many companies. The following Presidents may not have made it through the pre-employment testing process:

Obama – occasional cigarettes

Clinton – occasional cigars

Ford – pipe

Nixon – occasional cigars

Johnson – cigarettes and cigars

Kennedy – cigars

Eisenhower – cigarettes

Roosevelt – cigarettes

Harding – cigarettes and cigars

Taft –cigars

So, what’s this all prove? It seems to me that this shows that even exceptionally capable people are imperfect, that alcohol is very popular, and that attempts to ban popular substances are not so easy to enforce, even on a Presidential level. It is reminder of how difficult it is to control human behavior.

Next week we’ll delve further into the topic of Presidential use of mood altering substances.