WHITHER THE DRUG LAWS?

Gov. Pataki moves ahead, but retreats as well in reform of the Rockefeller
era approach

Let's take Gov. Pataki at his word, that he's committed to ridding the
state of the three-decade miscarriage of justice known as the Rockefeller
drug laws. The much-anticipated details of the governor's proposal offer
hope, then, in that they would reduce mandatory prison terms for admittedly
serious drug offenses that are outright draconian. Finally, judges would
have the power to send nonviolent drug criminals into treatment rather than
into the prison system.

So why is Mr. Pataki also proposing some harsher drug laws to go along with
the other revisions he wants? More jail time for so-called drug kingpins
might be understandable, because they're the ones who get off easy, at the
expense of the lower-level offenders who go away for years. That much could
qualify as the "comprehensive'' part of the governor's plan as his office
promotes it.

But surely Mr. Pataki's efforts to toughen drug laws should end there -- at
least now, as he's trying to accomplish the already daunting business of
reforming drug laws that are too severe.

What's the point of suddenly deciding that laws regarding marijuana
possession and distribution are too lax?

The governor isn't trying to win over what's left of the constituency that
still supports the Rockefeller-era laws, is he? Anyone in those quarters
can be expected to support Mr. Pataki's contention that marijuana should be
treated more like a controlled substance, such as cocaine or heroin.

The sale or attempted sale of any amount of marijuana also would be
upgraded to a felony in some second-offense cases, under the governor's
proposal. Other marijuana felonies would mean longer prison sentences. If
those changes in marijuana laws are indeed necessary, let the governor
explain why. And let him explain why the laws have to be changed now. So
far, he hasn't.

Nor is Mr. Pataki heeding the advice of the hard-liners -- district
attorneys like Paul Clyne in Albany County, who opposes the notion of
toughening those laws in tandem with relaxing others. Why go about reform
this way, then?

Another provision of Mr. Pataki's proposal actually sounds like an
extension of the severe and inflexible Rockefeller-era laws. It's this:
Someone accused of selling even a small amount of marijuana would be
charged with a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, if he or she had two drug
convictions within the past five years.

That could lead to more of what exists already -- guilty pleas and prison
terms that shouldn't necessarily happen. It also smacks of the "three
strikes'' approach to criminal justice that's been more of a failure than a
success.

The most hopeful scenario now is that the governor's conditions are more
like bargaining chips. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's drug law reform
plan would reduce penalties even more than Mr. Pataki's would. The reforms
favored by the Senate Democrats are an improvement as well. Judges would
get even greater discretion in sentencing drug offenders than the governor
wants to give them. Treatment, rather than incarceration, would be an
option in many more cases.

That still might be questionable politics on the governor's part, though,
since the quid pro quo approach to legislation frequently fails in Albany.
A deal to link drug law reform with further restrictions on parole fell
apart once before.

Worse than employing a questionable political strategy, though, would be to
altogether abandon the larger goal of fixing drug laws that just are
neither fair nor effective. This is absolutely the year for long-overdue
reform.

Right, governor?