Coalition Wants New York Drug Law Repealed

REUTERS ^

[WaveThatFlag]

Politicians, civil rights groups and rappers on Thursday demanded the repeal of laws in New York that impose mandatory stiff prison terms for possession or sales of small amounts of illegal drugs.

'It makes no sense to keep drug offenders behind bars when the state has an $11 billion deficit,' former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo said at an event to mark the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the drug laws.

Advertisement

Cuomo, who sought the Democratic nomination for governor in the last election, said it costs taxpayers $610 million a year to hold some 22,000 non-violent drug offenders in prison.

Known as the 'Rockefeller' drug laws, they were enacted in 1973 when Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican, was governor. In general, the laws require judges to impose a sentence of 15 years to life in prison for anyone convicted of selling two ounces, or possessing four ounces, of an illegal narcotic such as cocaine or heroin.

Critics of the laws say many of those convicted would be better off in rehabilitation facilities -- an option they say is cheaper and more productive than prison.

'We want to create an awareness campaign so that people know that the law has to be repealed,' said Russell Simmons, chairman of the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network.

The coalition called on Gov. George Pataki to repeal the laws -- a notion that has garnered broad support in New York from Republicans as well as Democrats for years.

But despite that backing, the issue is a political hot potato because no politician wants to be seen as soft on crime. Also, prisons are a boon to many local economies across the state and a repeal of the law would mean fewer prisons.

Another obstacle is the political clout of the state's 62 district attorneys, who oppose major changes to the laws.

Hundreds of mothers carried placards detailing their sons' incarceration and joined a march on Pataki's mid-town office.

Rev. Al Sharpton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, said, 'This is not about decriminalizing drugs but non-violent offenders should not be given life sentences for minor offenses.'

Black and Latino leaders call the law discriminatory because 94 percent of those sentenced under the statutes come from their communities despite the fact that drug use is in the same proportions across racial and ethnic lines.

[MrLeRoy]

I'm old enough to know that legalized drugs is a childish fantasy.

But not old enough to offer any sort of rational argument for your claim.

[WaveThatFlag]

I don't need one.

Fact 1: Drugs ARE illegal.
Fact 2: You are unable to offer a compelling argument FOR legalized drugs.
Fact 3: There is no need for me to defend the status quo.

Is any of this seeping in Junior?

[MrLeRoy]

Fact 2: You are unable to offer a compelling argument FOR legalized drugs.

False; you have explicitly refused to address my arguments.

Fact 3: There is no need for me to defend the status quo.

Just plain false.

[WaveThatFlag]

You need to make intelligent arguments before I can take you seriously. You can't and don't.

[MrLeRoy]

The "baby" (reducing self-inflicted harms) is none of the government's business, and there's no way to get rid of the bathwater yet keep the baby---intrinsic to criminalization of drugs are the following observed effects: deaths of innocents in drug-turf wars; deaths of users due to impurities or unexpectedly high potencies; enrichment of criminals; corruption of the justice system by enriched criminals; and lessened respect for the law in general.

[WaveThatFlag]

Talk to the hand...

[PaxMacian]

2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

I distort not one word and would not. But, explain where the word supports imprisoning your brother for possessing a flower from God's garden. Follow the wicked fascists in black masks to the end if you wish. One day perhaps you may see the truth in the word which is plain as day in the first chapter, first book. I suggest you begin again in your reading of the Bible from the beginning. When you are done pick a word and read all scripture with that word. When you have done that more than a hundred times come talk about the Bible with me.

[PaxMacian]

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[bmwcyle]

You need more study.

[PaxMacian]

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

[PaxMacian]

Actually, you need some reading comprehension courses.

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

[PaxMacian]

It is plain fascist ignorance to believe that an herb bearing a seed which contains the most complete combination of amino acids required by the human body for sustenance of any plant on the face of Earth is just a weed to be irradicated.

[philman_36]

...since drugs remain illegal...
Whatever, Chief.

[PaxMacian]

Eradicated? (correction)

[TomB]

What a naive daydreamer you are. Go WTF!

Talking to yourself?

(This is going to be FUN!)

[presidio9]

Not really. The account has been revoked so trash away if you like. It will never be used again.

[discostu]

If there's one thing to be learned from people running multiple accounts it's that they'll do it again.

[presidio9]

I think I used the screen names together about 2 or 3 times in literally thousands of posts, so enjoy playing junior detective, but you are going to do a lot of work not to find much. I only used them when I butted heads with a particularly think-headed individual who refused to admit he was wrong. Like you.

[aristeides]

Taxing drugs would solve New York's budget problems.

[Admin Moderator]

Basically, you signed up an account in 2000 and never used it. Sometime after June of last year, you started posting with it. Then you signed up some other names, and started posting with them, occasionally to the same thread to make yourself sound like more than one person.

And this is something that has happened before, perhaps not with you, but with other people. Strangely, there have been dozens of screen names signed up around that same time back in 2000 that have exhibited the same pattern, and almost always the personalities exhibited in the postings have been troublesome. I am sure that is just a coincidence though.

What kind of person decides to spend years setting up multiple personalities to debate with on an internet forum is up to everyone else to determine.