Posted on 08/22/2002 9:14:58 AM PDT by JediGirl
A deal on reforming the strict Rockefeller Drug Laws appeared all but dead Wednesday as top Democrats and Republican Gov. George Pataki traded public barbs, accusing each other of using the issue for political gain.
The developments alarmed reform advocates who see this year as their last best chance to push through significant changes to the 1973 laws, which mandate long -- or even life -- sentences for those convicted of selling or possessing relatively small amounts of narcotics.
Next year, with the governor and state legislators no longer up for re- election and an impending budget crisis taking up most of their time, advocates worry drug law reform will no longer be a politically expedient issue. It has become a hot topic in the current governor's race because advocates say the laws disproportionately affect minorities, particularly Hispanics, a group whose votes are viewed as crucial in the election.
"It has been our understanding all along that this is a really crucial opportunity," said Sharda Sekaran, associate director of public policy and community outreach at the Drug Policy Alliance. "If we don't get a substantial change in these laws now, we don't know when we'll have the chance to do so again."
As is often the case in Albany, each side blamed the other for holding up the negotiations.
In a clear sign that back-room talks had failed -- or at least had become hopelessly stalled -- Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, held a news conference in Manhattan on Wednesday to decry "a leadership void from the governor's office in advancing meaningful reform."
"Time is slipping away," Silver said, adding that "this issue remains a top priority for the Assembly."
Silver appeared with Democratic gubernatorial hopeful H. Carl McCall and his unofficial running mate, Dennis Mehiel, as well as representatives from Mothers of the New York Disappeared, an advocacy group of relatives of convicts serving sentences under the drug laws.
In response, Pataki's office issued a statement accusing Assembly Democrats of preferring to "play politics ... rather than achieve real reform."
Pataki spokesman Michael McKeon insisted that the governor's staff was negotiating in good faith while the Democrats dragged their feet.
"Every meeting that has been called on this, we've called," McKeon said. "We've been pushing and pushing and pushing. They have just not shown any willingness to move this forward."
Among the top sticking points are whether to increase penalties for dealers who use children or guns to sell drugs, how many convicts now serving time under the drug laws would be able to appeal under a new sentencing structure, and how much sentencing discretion to return to judges.
The two sides generally agree that life sentences for the highest level, or Class A, drug offenders should be abolished and that drug treatment should be considered more often as an alternative to prison for nonviolent offenders who commit crimes to feed their addiction.
But opponents say Pataki's plan doesn't return enough discretion to judges, requiring offenders who are turned down by prosecutors in their requests for treatment to jump through too many hoops to appeal that rejection to a judge. They also point out that Pataki's proposal won't affect lower-level Class B offenders, the bulk of drug convicts.
There has also been disagreement over whether the the state Department of Corrections or community-based centers would provide drug treatment, what would constitute "failure" in treatment and how to deal with those who don't succeed, advocates familiar with the negotiations said.
Despite the governor's claims, many advocates hold him responsible for the breakdown in talks. In their eyes, the Assembly Democrats have already made considerable concessions, particularly in agreeing to eliminate parole for high-level drug offenders. Pataki has long called for ending parole, or determinate sentencing, for all drug felons and tied that requirement to drug law reform -- a move that killed the deal for Silver in 1999.
Pataki's critics have accused him of paying lip service to reform to curry favor with Hispanic voters. They say the governor is unwilling to put a deal in place for fear of upsetting powerful district attorneys and his conservative upstate base.
As proof, Pataki's opponents point to his administration's insistence that an advertisement critical of his drug policy be pulled off several Spanish- language television stations in New York City in June because it contained inaccuracies. Even after the errors were corrected, the stations refused to run the ad, which critics say is a sign of how much pressure Pataki's camp was exerting on them. The governor's office says the stations made the decision on their own.
Despite the setbacks, advocates haven't given up hope of reform this year. Given the stalemate that annually surrounds the state budget and then inevitably gives way to a deal, a resolution isn't entirely out of the question. And they insist they won't be goaded into settling for an unsatisfactory plan.
"I don't think any of us who are looking for reform can say, 'Just give us anything,' " said John Dunne, a former Republican state senator who sponsored the Rockefeller Drug Laws and now opposes them.
"In fact, something would be worse than nothing, because then a bill will be passed that isn't real reform, and this issue would no longer command the public's or the Legislature's attention."
Are there any estimates on what these treatment programs might cost? How will they be funded? Are we talking about using state employees and creating new or larger state agencies to do the job?
What will happen to the people who fail the programs? Will they be allowed to file for disability payments from the state?
I believe it is smart to look at all sides of the problem.
What about the non-addicted majority of drug users? They need no "treatment"---would they still go to jail, while some real criminals got no jail?
That makes EVERYONE want to vote for 'em.
When they aren't worried about this, it won't even come onto the radar screens, because there is next-to-no political support for it.
I don't know anything else about this guy other than what's on his site, but what he says makes a whole bunch of sense. I agree with him that you can't force users into a program until they are ready to quit. This is merely a way to keep users out of jail by putting them into a "feel good" program that will not work. What a waste of time, money, and resources.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.