NEW YORK'S TOO-TOUGH DRUG LAWS

It isn't just liberals who object to New York's Draconian "Rockefeller drug
laws," adopted 25 years ago. In 1995 George Pataki called for changing them
to allow more non-violent offenders to avoid long, mandatory prison terms,
and since becoming governor he has granted clemency in three of the more
egregious cases.

Although Pataki isn't about to make this a campaign issue, he is said to be
interested in reviewing the laws after the election, as are a growing
number of legislators. Any honest review would lead to the conclusion that
the laws need to be eased.

One of the laws compels state judges to give a sentence ranging from 15
years to life to anyone convicted of selling two ounces, or possessing four
ounces, of an illegal drug such as heroin or cocaine. Another requires long
prison terms for former drug felons who commit another felony within 10
years after serving their term, even if the new crime is unrelated to or
less serious than the first.

The intent of the laws was to reduce drug traffic by putting more big-time
dealers away, for longer. But that hasn't been the main effect. The main
effect has been to clog the prison system with many small-time users and
dealers, many of whom are addicts rather than violent felons. Meanwhile,
researchers and police investigators report that hard drugs are more widely
available in New York than they were 25 years ago. When a pusher is
arrested, there's always someone to take his place.

Almost one-third of New York's 70,000 prisoners were locked up for
non-violent drug crimes, at an annual cost of $600 million. While it's true
that some of these inmates would have committed violent crimes to pay for
their drugs, 25 percent of the new inmates entering prison in New York are
"drug-only" offenders, with no record of other types of crime.

Even a staunch law-and-order legislator like Sen. Dale Volker, who
continues to defend the Rockefeller drug laws, recognizes the need for at
least some change. He has co-sponsored legislation giving judges discretion
to impose a lesser sentence if the offense was confined to a single
incident and unconnected to broader drug trafficking. That's a small first
step for the Legislature to take while it conducts a broader review.