DRUG LAW REFORM AT LAST

Sure, it's a sound bite and a slogan, but Gov. George Pataki is right to
say that his proposed reforms of the Rockefeller drug laws are not "soft on
crime" but "smart on crime." The laws, which have been on the books in New
York since 1973, are well intentioned but dumb. With a growing list of
legislators from both sides of the aisle and even the state's chief judge,
Judith Kaye, calling for reforms, Pataki had to do something. And that
something is pretty good.

New York's drug laws are among the harshest in the nation. They prescribe
very long prison terms - 15 years to life - for possession of relatively
small amounts of drugs, or sale of even smaller amounts. Stiff penalties
apply to first-time as well as repeat offenders and they are mandatory,
meaning judges don't have their usual discretion in sentencing.

The laws have contributed to the explosion of the prison population in New
York state, from 13,000 in the early 1970s to about 70,000 today. Some
22,000 prisoners are in for drug crimes alone. (Many others are in for
violence committed on drugs, or in pursuit of drugs.)

But the laws haven't stopped the drug trade that has ravaged many
neighborhoods, especially inner-city ones, because new low-level dealers
are easily recruited to replace those caught. In most cases it's the little
guys who are caught, not the drug "kingpins." Many children who desperately
need a father have grown up without one because of these laws.

Unlike two years ago, when he made a too-modest proposal that would have
applied to only a small number of prisoners, this time Pataki has proposed
a comprehensive and meaningful reform package. Minimum sentences would be
shortened, there could be appeals for further reductions, and trial judges
would have discretion to sentence first-time, low-level offenders to drug
treatment. Meanwhile, penalties would be stiffened for kingpins and people
who exploit young children as participants in drug dealing.

The Democrats, who played politics with the issue two years ago, refusing
to even discuss Pataki's proposal for fear of being called soft on crime,
this time say they will negotiate. They can do that - there should, for
instance, be more emphasis on treatment - but there's not a whole lot of
room for improvement.