EXPECTATIONS DIMMING FOR ANY DRUG LAW REFORM

No Sign Of Break In Stalemate As Democrats, Pataki Trade Accusations

Albany - A deal on reforming the strict Rockefeller Drug Laws appeared all
but dead Wednesday as top Democrats and Republican Gov. George Pataki
traded public barbs, accusing each other of using the issue for political gain.

The developments alarmed reform advocates who see this year as their last
best chance to push through significant changes to the 1973 laws, which
mandate long -- or even life -- sentences for those convicted of selling or
possessing relatively small amounts of narcotics.

Next year, with the governor and state legislators no longer up for
re-election and an impending budget crisis taking up most of their time,
advocates worry drug law reform will no longer be a politically expedient
issue. It has become a hot topic in the current governor's race because
advocates say the laws disproportionately affect minorities, particularly
Hispanics, a group whose votes are viewed as crucial in the election.

"It has been our understanding all along that this is a really crucial
opportunity," said Sharda Sekaran, associate director of public policy and
community outreach at the Drug Policy Alliance. "If we don't get a
substantial change in these laws now, we don't know when we'll have the
chance to do so again."

As is often the case in Albany, each side blamed the other for holding up
the negotiations.

In a clear sign that back-room talks had failed -- or at least had become
hopelessly stalled -- Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D- Manhattan, held a
news conference in Manhattan on Wednesday to decry "a leadership void from
the governor's office in advancing meaningful reform."

"Time is slipping away," Silver said, adding that "this issue remains a top
priority for the Assembly."

Silver appeared with Democratic gubernatorial hopeful H. Carl McCall and
his unofficial running mate, Dennis Mehiel, as well as representatives from
Mothers of the New York Disappeared, an advocacy group of relatives of
convicts serving sentences under the drug laws.

In response, Pataki's office issued a statement accusing Assembly Democrats
of preferring to "play politics ... rather than achieve real reform."

Pataki spokesman Michael McKeon insisted that the governor's staff was
negotiating in good faith while the Democrats dragged their feet.

"Every meeting that has been called on this, we've called," McKeon said.
"We've been pushing and pushing and pushing. They have just not shown any
willingness to move this forward."

Among the top sticking points are whether to increase penalties for dealers
who use children or guns to sell drugs, how many convicts now serving time
under the drug laws would be able to appeal under a new sentencing
structure, and how much sentencing discretion to return to judges.

The two sides generally agree that life sentences for the highest level, or
Class A, drug offenders should be abolished and that drug treatment should
be considered more often as an alternative to prison for nonviolent
offenders who commit crimes to feed their addiction.

But opponents say Pataki's plan doesn't return enough discretion to judges,
requiring offenders who are turned down by prosecutors in their requests
for treatment to jump through too many hoops to appeal that rejection to a
judge. They also point out that Pataki's proposal won't affect lower-level
Class B offenders, the bulk of drug convicts.

There has also been disagreement over whether the the state Department of
Corrections or community-based centers would provide drug treatment, what
would constitute "failure" in treatment and how to deal with those who
don't succeed, advocates familiar with the negotiations said.

Despite the governor's claims, many advocates hold him responsible for the
breakdown in talks. In their eyes, the Assembly Democrats have already made
considerable concessions, particularly in agreeing to eliminate parole for
high-level drug offenders. Pataki has long called for ending parole, or
determinate sentencing, for all drug felons and tied that requirement to
drug law reform -- a move that killed the deal for Silver in 1999.

Pataki's critics have accused him of paying lip service to reform to curry
favor with Hispanic voters. They say the governor is unwilling to put a
deal in place for fear of upsetting powerful district attorneys and his
conservative upstate base.

As proof, Pataki's opponents point to his administration's insistence that
an advertisement critical of his drug policy be pulled off several
Spanish-language television stations in New York City in June because it
contained inaccuracies. Even after the errors were corrected, the stations
refused to run the ad, which critics say is a sign of how much pressure
Pataki's camp was exerting on them. The governor's office says the stations
made the decision on their own.

Despite the setbacks, advocates haven't given up hope of reform this year.
Given the stalemate that annually surrounds the state budget and then
inevitably gives way to a deal, a resolution isn't entirely out of the
question. And they insist they won't be goaded into settling for an
unsatisfactory plan.

"I don't think any of us who are looking for reform can say, 'Just give us
anything,' " said John Dunne, a former Republican state senator who
sponsored the Rockefeller Drug Laws and now opposes them.

"In fact, something would be worse than nothing, because then a bill will
be passed that isn't real reform, and this issue would no longer command
the public's or the Legislature's attention."