LESS PUNISHMENT NEEDED, AND MORE DRUG TREATMENT

The first thing we should remember about the "war on drugs" is that we're
really talking about a war on some drugs. Increasingly, Americans are using
chemicals of all sorts, and with many of them, e.g. Prozac and Ritalin, the
line between health and pleasure (the traditional way of distinguishing
legal from illegal drugs) is not all that clear.

While a little inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing, perhaps we
need to consider the decriminalization of some of the softer drugs, such as
marijuana - at least when used for medical purposes. And we certainly need
to put much more emphasis on reducing demand for drugs. The primary
strategy that has been used for the last 30 years or so - trying to stop
drugs from being produced abroad and imported into this country, and
locking up street-level dealers and some users for long periods of time -
hasn't worked.

The fact is, there will always be people who are willing to supply drugs as
long as there are people who want to use them. That's because no matter
what the risks - turf wars, violent death, prison - this is a lucrative
business. And many of those involved in it are addicted themselves.

New York's response since 1973 has been the Rockefeller Drug Laws. They
were conceived at a time when drug-related violence was plaguing cities in
this state, especially New York City. As most people know by now, they call
for very harsh, mandatory prison sentences - the harshest being 15 years to
life - for dealers and some users, based on the weight of the drug.

The type of drug doesn't matter, nor do the circumstances of the crime or
thecharacter or background of the individual.

The result of these sentences has been a huge, and enormously expensive,
increase in the prison population. In 1973 there were 12,500 people locked
up in state prisons, while today there are more than 70,000 (although the
recent trend is downward). Many of these offenders have a history of
violence, but, according to Department of Correctional Services statistics,
there are plenty who have never been convicted of, or even arrested for, a
violent crime.

And, although large numbers of whites use and sell drugs, the vast majority
of those incarcerated are minorities, leading some to see racism in the
system. The recent news about the Loudonville doctor caught by Albany
police with crack, whose case was unaccountably dismissed by the Albany
County district attorney's office, seems to confirm those suspicions. On
the other hand, a white University at Albany student last week was arrested
and charged with selling steroids.

There's a growing consensus that the Rockefeller Drug Laws need reform,
with everyone from Cardinal Edward Egan, leader of New York's Roman
Catholic Church, to Chief Judge Judith Kaye to Gov. George Pataki saying
so. Pataki has offered his proposals, which don't go far enough - and with
increased penalties for marijuana, actually go in the wrong direction.

Assembly and Senate The Assembly last week released a reform package that
is better, reducing minimum sentences for those who are not major drug
traffickers, giving judges more discretion in sentencing, and making much
greater use of drug treatment programs. The state Senate then weighed in
with its own $20 million plan to expand treatment both before and after
prison release. This is an area where President Bush's "faith-based"
initiatives could play a key role; religious institutions have had
considerable success in getting addicts to turn their lives around.

Additional spending for treatment would be money well spent. Not only would
it save money by reducing the prison population, it would reduce crime of
all kinds, since most crimes, including violent ones, are drug-or
alcohol-related.

Not everyone is in favor of major changes in the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The
state District Attorneys Association, led by Schenectady County District
Attorney Robert M. Carney, is not. They say that most of those locked up do
in fact have a history of violence (even if this particular offense was
non-violent), and that the hammer provided by the harshest penalties allows
prosecutors to force street dealers to plea bargain and get them off the
street. They also say that the mandatory sentences force addicts to get
treatment.

But if the violence was related to addiction, curing the addiction stands a
better chance of preventing future violence than does a long prison term.
And mandatory sentences, which take away judges' discretion, are never a
good idea. Punishment should remain part of the picture, but there should
be less emphasis on it, and more on reducing demand through treatment,
education and prevention.