N.Y. DRUG LAWS AREN'T WORKING

The state's Rockefeller drug laws just marked their 30th anniversary. It's
time for an annulment.

For years, legislators and the governor have talked about how these strict
laws are the wrong approach.

They talk about how the laws keep thousands of non-violent inmates locked
up in prisons for years, sometimes decades, at a huge expense to the taxpayers.

They talk about how these inmates would have a better chance to turn their
lives around if they were allowed to go through less expensive drug
treatment programs.

Plenty of talk, but no changes to the law. Last year, lawmakers were
hopeful of completing a deal before the November election. It was believed
that an election year, coupled with the state's budget shortfall and the
need to save money, was going to be enough to bring forth changes.

It was not. That's because state Democratic and Republican leaders are
inherently bull-headed and greedy. They want all or nothing when it comes
to their proposals. They want all the credit for change. And, if that means
thousands of inmates languish in prison for yet another year, so be it.

"We're talking about human lives, wrecked families," Dennis Poust,
spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, said during a recent
rally against the laws. "It shouldn't matter who gets credit." Tell that to
the lawmakers.

Seek Compromise, Not Credit

Since these drug laws were created in 1973, the state has built more than
50 prisons. An inmate population that once totaled about 12,500 has grown
to more than 70,000 -- a number that could fill Yankee Stadium and then some.

Yes, drug offenders should face some consequences for their actions. But
it's excessive to lock up someone for 15 years to life for selling two
ounces of cocaine or possessing as little as four ounces of the controlled
substance.

In some cases, rapists and murderers are doing less time.

Over the years, Gov. George Pataki's ideas have improved. He would now give
judges more leeway in sentencing and more power to order drug treatment for
offenders. But reform advocates and Democratic leaders say he doesn't go
far enough.

The two sides must continue to try to reach a compromise. For example,
penalties could be increased when a gun is involved in drug transactions,
but judges should be given more discretion over most cases. And sentences
shouldn't be based solely on the weight of the drugs sold or in someone's
possession when apprehended, but on the actual role that person played in a
drug transaction. Street pushers shouldn't be doing more time than the fat
cats bankrolling drug operations. Above all, judges must be allowed to take
into consideration whether a person is a first-time or repeat offender.

Three decades ago -- amid rising heroin use and before the benefits of drug
treatment programs were fully known or appreciated, the state began
enacting the Rockefeller drug laws. Certainly, some good came out of these
laws, but a lot of harm has been done as well.

In the years since, the harm has increasingly overshadowed the good. Get
rid of these antiquated drug laws. Now.