REFORMING DRUG LAWS

Leaders Say They Want Change, But Chances for a Deal Seem
Remote

Both the Democratic state Assembly majority and Republican Gov. George
Pataki say they want to reform the misbegotten Rockefeller drug laws
before the Legislature adjourns for the year.

Their respective proposals differ in substantial ways. But since there
is agreement on the need for change - and since no compromise could be
worse than current law - they should be able to find a path to meet in
the middle.

Don't count on it. This is an election year, and neither side wants to
give the other a campaign issue. Neither side wants to appear soft on
crime. In the last few days, they have played dueling bills and news
releases, but there has been little outward evidence they are nearing
accord.

More's the pity. Just about everyone agrees the Rockefeller drug laws
have been a failure, including their original legislative sponsors.
The harsh, mandatory sentences have created a boom in the prison
industry and a drain on taxpayers' wallets. But they haven't done
much, if anything, to curb drug abuse in New York.

Since the Rockefeller drug laws were enacted in the 1973, the state's
prison population has increased by more than a factor of five. A large
share of those additional inmates are nonviolent drug offenders who
received long, mandatory sentences. Drug addicts need treatment, not
punishment. Putting them in prison only exposes them to graduate-level
training in violent behavior.

A study a year ago revealed that about 22,000 state prison inmates
were serving time for drug offenses, 6,000 of them just for
possession. It should be noted that 94 percent of those inmates are
African-American or Hispanic, which is far out of proportion to the
number of minorities among drug users and dealers.

Most lawmakers in both houses of the Legislature profess support for
reforming the system, but they never seem to come close to agreement.
The governor and the Senate Republican majority disagree with Assembly
Democrats over how much flexibility judges should have in deciding
which defendants to send to treatment programs instead of prison.
There is also disagreement over determinate sentences vis-a-vis parole.

These are important details, to be sure. But there ought to be a place
in the middle where both sides can be comfortable. Holding out for a
perfect deal only means it won't get done this year. With the end of
the legislative session looming - probably next week - there would
seem to be little time for serious bargaining.

No one wants to be lenient with violent offenders, and none of what's
being discussed would lessen the penalties for violent crimes
committed by drug offenders. But no public good is served by putting a
nonviolent drug addict in prison for a long time. It's expensive, and
it doesn't work. Study after study has shown that prevention and
treatment programs are far more effective than prison in reducing drug
abuse.

If the Legislature worked the way it's supposed to - with floor
debates and on-the-record votes instead of backroom deal-making - this
matter likely would have been settled a while ago. But under Albany's
feudal system, most of the substantial work is done behind locked
doors, with only a pro-forma ratification in open session. The process
is driven by priorities of politics, not policy.