Pubdate: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 Source: Times Union (NY) Copyright: 2001 Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation Contact: Box 15000, Albany, NY 12212 Fax: (518) 454-5628 Feedback: http://www.timesunion.com/react/ Website: http://www.timesunion.com/ Forum: http://www.timesunion.com/react/forums/ Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?140 (Rockefeller Drug Laws) 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? - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens