SMOKING, DRUG LAW MEASURES SPUTTER AS SESSION NEARS END

Albany-- Differences Stall Ban On Secondhand Smoke in Restaurants, Reform
of 1973 Rockefeller Laws

Bills to allow more flexible sentencings of drug offenders and make
restaurants smoke-free ran into trouble Wednesday, leading to substantial
pessimism the issues will be resolved this session.

But as a ban on secondhand smoke and reforms of the Rockefeller Drug Laws
seemed increasingly unlikely this year, other bills popped up suddenly with
much momentum. One such bill -- supported by a coalition of labor groups --
would require human service agencies that receive $250,000 in state money
to remain neutral to union organizing.

The Republican-led Senate surprised the Democrat-dominated Assembly, which
has been pushing for a comprehensive reform of the 1973 laws that set up
the harsh penalties assessed people convicted of narcotics crimes.

The Senate voted to restructure sentencings for all Class A felony drug
offenders, cutting sentences to 10 to 20 years in prison instead of 15
years to life. With good time, an offender could be released from prison in
less than 10 years under the Senate plan. Sentences on lesser offenders
would range from 3 to 14 years and second-time felony offenders could get
as little as 12 years behind bars.

"Every day the Assembly waits to pass this legislation is another day that
a victim of these onerous and unfair laws must sit in a prison cell," said
Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. He said the Senate bill incorporates
issues that the governor, Assembly and Senate seemed to agree on.

Assembly Democrats reacted with disgust at what they considered an offer to
carve up a sweeping reform and take advantage of their attempts at
compromise with Republicans. Advocates for prisoners and drug law reform
organizations also criticized the Senate plan, saying it was a case of
bowing to the desires of district attorneys.

Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubrey, D-East Elmhurst, who has been working toward
changing the laws for many years, said the Senate wants to do a bill that
includes the compromise measures that Assembly Democrats offered in hopes
of getting a host of drug law reforms.

"It could be the Senate's attempt to spark some negotiations, or it could
be a way to rationalize leaving tomorrow without doing anything," he said.
The Senate plans to leave today. The Assembly plans to continue its session
next week.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, called the Senate plan "less
than a 1 percent solution to the Rockefeller Drug Laws." He said his
conference wants "more than a sound bite" and will continue to seek a
package of reforms.

"It's such a cynical, last-minute, cruel retrenchment from what was
supposedly real Rockefeller Drug Law reform," said Jonathan Gradess, of the
New York State Defenders Association.

Anti-tobacco activists, too, were upset at the fate of their most-desired
bill. They said Bruno has essentially killed a bill aimed at requiring
restaurants to become smoke-free or set up segregated rooms for smokers.

Bruno, however, said the measure is still under negotiation.

His concern has centered on a provision -- agreed upon by the Republican
and Democratic majority sponsors in the two chambers that would require
eating establishments with bars to isolate dining areas.

Several proponents of the bill blamed Gov. George Pataki for influencing Bruno.

"I think it's shameful of the governor and irresponsible," said Assemblyman
Alexander Grannis, D-Manhattan.

Bruno said Pataki isn't the reason for his stand.

He said he doesn't want to put small restaurants -- those with fewer than
34 seats -- in a position to have to add a bar or build a separate room.
His concern is the chief one raised by the Restaurant & Tavern Association,
a group that has been tied to tobacco interests.

"If it were up to me, you wouldn't be smoking in New York state because it
is harmful and it kills people," Bruno said. "I am not in any way trying to
protect anyone who has anything to do with smoking. At the same time, I'm
not going to put small businesses at an unfair disadvantage."