WASHINGTON--The House of Representatives yesterday passed an election year anti-drug bill that would severely punish recreational users and murderers alike, but it could face constitutional tests if enacted into law.

The 375-30 vote is not the final word on Congress' latest effort to respond to American fears about drug abuse. The Senate still must consider its own anti-drug legislation, and a conference will probably be needed to reconcile the different bills.

Despite constitutional concerns--acknowleged even by the bill's sponsors--the tug of election-year politics was so strong that House members appeared willing to enact the toughest possible bill and let the courts decide the legal questions later.

The bill received support from 207 Democrats and 168 Republicans, while all 30 votes against the legislation came from Democrats virtually all of them liberals.

The legislation pursues many avenues of combating illegal drugs and would authorize the addition of more than $2 billion in spending to the nation's current $3.9 billion anti-drug effort.

This bill is distinguished from past anti-drug legislation by its so-called "user accountability" provisions--measures that say even the smallest amount of drug use or possession will not be tolerated.

Drug users would be subject to $10,000 civil penalties per violation for mere possession; would be ineligible for student loans, public housing and other federal benefits; and could face loss of their right to drive, if states enforce license suspension programs to obtain more federal highway money.

For those who kill during a drug-related crime, the legislation contains legal procedures designed to permit use of the federal death penalty.

But the legislation does not ignore education, treatment and rehabilitation for drug abusers, authorizing more money to the states for such programs. Both federal and local law enforcement agencies would receive more money.

"We took a lot of provisions of dubious constitutionality," said Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime. Hughes said he hoped lawmakers could "clean up" some of the language in a House-Senate conference.

The Democratic floor manager, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said that while the bill is flawed, "at least all of us can go home" and say, "We responded to our constituents and the nation. We have made some effort to address the problem as Republicans and Democrats, and we have set our labels behind us."

President Reagan, asked upon arrival in Houston whether he was pleased by the passage of the bill, smiled and said, "Yes."

Rep. Don Edwards (D-Calif.) chairman of the House civil rights subcommittee, expressed liberals' concerns that lawmakers wanted a drug bill so badly that they attacked the Constitution along with illegal narcotics.

"If this bill becomes law, Americans will be less free," he said. "I doubt whether any of the amendments adopted over the past several weeks will make any difference in the so-called war on drugs.

"But I do know they will cut back on the freedoms of the American people. Drug legislation plus election year posturing equals an assault on the Constitution," Edwards said.

He cited:

. Language that would permit admission of illegally seized evidence in federal cases if officers acted in the "good faith belief" they were acting lawfully.

. The death penalty provision, commenting, "If current practice in the states is any guide, that power will be exercised in a racially discriminatory manner." The language also includes a minimum 20-year sentence.

. The denial of federal assistance to "the poor and the addicted" by making them ineligible for student loans, public housing and other benefits for two drug convictions.

. The civil penalties of $10,000 per violation for any possession of illegal drugs, which would require only "clear and convincing" proof rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal cases. The provision lacks "the procedural protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights." Edwards said.