NOT MUCH REFORM

Instead of the bold plan expected to revamp the state's draconian drug
laws, Gov. Pataki has offered only a bit of tinkering around the edges of a
system that needs fundamental change.

Pataki at one time sounded like a proponent of such change. He took office
talking of the need to reserve expensive prison space for violent felons
while steering non-violent offenders into treatment.

But that is hard to do as long as the state's Rockefeller-era drug laws
mandate lengthy prison terms of 15 years to life for possessing more than
four ounces of cocaine or heroin or selling more than two ounces.

Those mandates flood the prisons with street-level junkies who are the
easiest to snare, and many of whom are selling primarily to support a
habit. It's costly, divisive and does little to stem the demand for drugs.

Pataki's solution -- which he links to parole reform -- is merely to let
some first-timers convicted of relatively minor drug crimes appeal. But the
most the appellate court could do would be to lower the minimum sentence
from 15 years to 10. That's a step toward sanity -- but a small one, at best.

More promising is Pataki's proposal to let prosecutors offer some non-
violent defendants in low-level cases the chance to avoid going to court by
completing a treatment program. Provided the state creates enough treatment
slots, this could help those defendants willing to give prosecutors
whatever they want in return for such an offer.

But all of this skirts the fundamental change needed to make the state's
drug laws more efficient: untying judges' hands and giving them more
freedom to deal with individual cases. They should not be forced to adhere
to a cookie-cutter sentencing approach that wastes resources,
disproportionately locks up the poor and minorities and does little to
attack the drug problem at its roots.

Maybe it was the fear of looking "soft on drugs" as he unofficially
campaigns for a spot on the Republicans' national ticket that limited
Pataki to such minor reforms. But the public has come around to the reality
that more rational drug laws work better, even if the GOP's
lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key faction hasn't.

Besides, the governor's first allegiance is -- or should be -- to New York,
not the national GOP. The state would benefit by getting rid of the
Rockefeller drug laws. The governor should lead that effort, not shy away
from it.