SOFTIE DRUG LAW GETS NEEDED REVIEW

Our view: A Tullytown proposal to issue non-traffic citations to those
caught possessing, using or selling small quantities of drugs will get the
deliberate review it deserves.

Tullytown Council did the right thing this week, when members delayed
enacting a new law that among other things would make some drug cases less
of a crime. But let's not give council too much credit; while members did
the right thing, they did it for the wrong reason.

Citing media overreaction, officials said citizens might have developed
misperceptions about the proposed law.

We're not sure how. This newspaper published the proposed ordinance
verbatim. No matter how many times one reads it, this much is clear: It
softens the penalties for possessing, using or selling small quantities of
drugs; it does the same for alcohol offenses.

It would do so by giving cops the option of issuing violators a ticket. And
much like a traffic citation, the case would go to district court rather
than criminal court. Under the measure, called the Disorderly Practices
Ordinance, an offender would face a maximum penalty of $300 in fines.
Current state law calls for much higher fines and a jail term of up to a
year. What offenders actually get depends on several factors, including
quantity, whether a substance was for sale or personal use and the
existence of a prior record.

It is the failure of the proposed law to create a criminal record that has
District Attorney Diane Gibbons concerned. She rightfully pointed out that
an individual cited in Tullytown on a drug violation would be treated as a
first-time offender if arrested a second time in another municipality. It's
only fair to acknowledge that the situation Gibbons worries about already
is occurring because cops have been using disorderly conduct laws to cite
small-time drug offenders for years. At least Tullytown Chief Pat Priore is
being open and above board in seeking to codify the practice.

We're aslo encouraged that Priore said the law, if passed, likely would not
be applied to past offenders or cases involving individuals 18 and over.
That would make the ordinance primarily a tool for dealing with juveniles.
Which raises this concern: the mixed message a slap on the wrist sends kids
who've been schooled in the life-threatening potential of drug abuse.

Priore argues that the proposed law "gives kids a chance to go straight."
Maybe. We think it's more likely that the law would invite further abuse.
Off the hook with no more than a fine - paid by mom and dad - juvenile drug
users would have little to fear since, officially, they'd still be
first-time offenders the next time they get caught.

Yet, somehow, the chief believes softening the law would aid police in
discouraging kids from hanging out on street corners, smoking pot and
drinking beer. If so, we don't get it.

The chief will have two months now to help everybody get it. That's the
amount of time council will take to consider the issue, including accepting
public reaction.

Meanwhile, maybe Mayor David Cutchineal can clarify things. He said the
proposal was "born of our police department's efforts to be proactive in
fighting drugs." Apparently, he gets it. Give him a call and ask him to
explain: 215-946-4952. Don't tell him we told you to call - we're afraid
he'd overreact.