IT'S TIME TO SOFTEN NY'S DRUG LAWS

THE TIME for being realistic about the nation's "war on drugs" is long
overdue, but the increased call for change in New York's criminal drug laws
is a message that Gov. George Pataki acknowledged on Wednesday in his State
of the State speech and which legislators can no longer ignore.

A quarter century of experience with the Rockefeller drug laws shows that a
more humane and effective system to rehabilitate addicts, while protecting
the public safety, must be adopted. And the voices for change, which have
increased in both number and intensity, are unlikely to be ignored by
Albany in 2001.

In 1973, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller called upon the Legislature to adopt drug
law reforms mandating severe increased penalties "so strong, so effective
and so thoroughly enforced" in order to drive drug pushers from the
streets, and "measures tough enough to deal with addicts who commit violent
crimes." While protection from the threats posed by drug abuse and
trafficking continues today as a clear priority, the unintended effect of
the Rockefeller laws has been to handcuff judges and dangerously overcrowd
the state's prisons and to deny sufficient drug treatment alternatives for
nonviolent addicted offenders.

In 1979, when Gov. Hugh Carey approved some changes in those laws, he
stated that the original law "has not been effective in reducing drug
traffic in New York" and "has resulted in injustices in numerous cases."
Despite his charges, that characterization is equally applicable to today.

While there are a number of proposals today for reform, ranging from
outright repeal to modest changes in court procedures, the essential
element of any reform is the restoration to the courts of their traditional
sentencing authority. This will allow diversion of nonviolent addicts to
treatment rather than to prison.

A recently released report of a commission created by Chief Judge Judith
Kaye of the Court of Appeals confirmed how experimental plans for drug
courts have successfully channeled drug addicts charged with nonviolent
crimes into closely supervised treatment programs at considerable savings
to the state's taxpayers. The report persuaded Kaye to launch a three-year
program to establish similar drug courts in every county. But the program
must have the Legislature's approval of funds and of uniform laws
authorizing judges to divert a defendant to treatment.

If there is doubt among legislators whether there will be broad public
support for change, consider the recent referendum overwhelmingly approved
by California voters, which requires that nonviolent drug offenders be
sentenced to treatment instead of prison. While treatment programs with
intensive counseling and supervision are expensive, their overall cost in
terms of lives and dollars is far less than incarceration.

Being strong on crime does not preclude being smart on crime and on
reality. Nelson Rockefeller was a pragmatist capable of facing up to facts.
Now is the time for the Legislature to exhibit some pragmatism of its own
by realizing that these laws are outmoded and should be changed in favor of
a sentencing approach that is not wasteful, ineffective and unjust.

After years of debate over the ineffectiveness of the state's drug laws,
there is sufficient indisputable evidence to warrant decisive action now.
The studies are in. The facts are clear. The debate has been framed. It is
time for the governor and the Legislature to have the "understanding,
courage and honesty" to bring justice to today's realities.