T
The420Guy
Guest
ALBANY, Jan 20 - Three recent events hint at a change in public attitudes
toward the war on drugs. On Wednesday, Gov. George E. Pataki proposed
softening the harsh Rockefeller-era drug laws in New York State. Gov.
Christie Whitman of New Jersey acknowledged that her state police had been
stopping black and Hispanic drivers as part of a drug-enforcement effort
the public once applauded and moved to stop the practice.
And within the last two weeks President Clinton has not only urged a
re-examination of federal drug sentencing, but also proposed equalizing
penalties for possession of powdered and crack cocaine, on the ground that
the stiffer penalties for crack discriminated against members of ethnic
minorities.
If politicians are societal weather vanes, then the war on drugs seems to
be losing some appeal.
For decades, experts on drug addiction have argued that long prison terms
for nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom are addicts as well, are less
effective than drug-treatment programs at reducing crime. They also say
imprisonment is more expensive than treatment.
The country's prison population has grown to two million, and a quarter of
the inmates are serving time for drug offenses.
Until recently, though, these arguments have failed to move many Americans
or their public officials. But now the cause is being joined by Republican
governors and an outgoing president who greatly expanded federal financing
for drug interdiction and local law enforcement, and gave $1 billion to
help the Colombian military attack cocaine trafficking.
Why are critics of the drug war making headway now? The answer,
criminologists and other experts say, may lie in the waning of the public's
fear of crime.
Fear begets intolerance. People and the politicians they elect are more
willing to put up with severe penalties for relatively minor drug offenses
when crime rates are high, as it was in New York City in the late 1960's
and early 1970's, the period that produced the Rockefeller laws.
At the time, heavy heroin use in the city was widely blamed for rapidly
increasing property crime.
The city experienced another, more murderous, crime wave in the late 80's
and early 90's when crack cocaine became popular.
City officials responded with a huge expansion of the police force and an
aggressive campaign against street dealers and people carrying concealed guns.
Now, though, crime has declined steadily for several years, and violent
crime in New York City has reached its lowest levels since 1967. Fear has
eased, and the public has begun to question some harsher elements of the
war on drugs and crime. "There is a pretty clear correlation between the
crime rate and criticism of law-enforcement officials for being too tough,"
said the director of the Jerry Lee Criminology Center at the University of
Pennsylvania, Lawrence Sherman. "As crime rates drop, you see more people
complaining about the cops."
At the same time, legions of people whose children are serving lengthy
sentences under the Rockefeller laws have begun making their presence felt
in Albany. Many are black and Latino, and many maintain that the laws, as
enforced, discriminate against their ethnic groups. More than 21,000 people
are serving time for drug convictions in New York State, about 95 percent
of whom are black or Hispanic. About 70 percent were convicted of
nonviolent crimes.
"Where is the sanity?" asks Mary Mortimer of New York City, who has two
sons serving prison time, one 15 to 30 years, the other 10 to 20, both for
possession of small amounts of cocaine with intent to sell. "I'd like to be
able to spend some time with my sons on this earth before I leave here."
These days Mr. Pataki can afford the political consequences of listening to
Mary Mortimer and people like her. After six years in office, his
reputation as a tough-on-crime governor is well established. He pushed for
and signed the death penalty back into law, he increased sentences for many
crimes, and he eliminated parole for violent crimes.
The governor may also be reacting to the political winds from other parts
of the country as well. In November, California voters passed a proposition
requiring the state to direct most people convicted of nonviolent drug
possession into treatment programs rather than prison.
Arizona passed a similar law, and the governor of New Mexico has said he
plans to introduce comparable changes this year. Even some New York
legislators who voted for the Rockefeller laws in 1973 now advocate their
repeal. John R. Dunne, a former state senator from Long Island, has formed
a coalition to lobby the governor with other former state lawmakers,
including Warren Anderson, who was Senate majority leader from Binghamton.
In the early 70's, besides the heroin epidemic, Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller
was faced with a youthful counter-culture, particularly in New York City,
that often celebrated "sex, drugs and rock and roll," as a line from a
popular song put it.
Governor Rockefeller, a liberal Republican, first tried to persuade the
Legislature to create the Narcotics Addiction Control Commission and
establish secure residential treatment centers around the state.
He also started methadone clinics for addicts.
Those efforts proved costly and failed to reduce crime.
So in 1973, a frustrated Mr. Rockefeller proposed the "lock them up and
throw away the key" approach.
Some historians have said that Mr. Rockefeller had his eye on the
presidency and hoped to appear more conservative. In any case, he persuaded
the Legislature, over the objections of some New York City lawmakers, to
pass the laws that carry his name.
At the time, the state had 12,000 state prison inmates.
Today it has 70,000. Oddly enough, the laws put the state out of step with
the times.
In 1970, Congress had liberalized the harsh drug laws passed in the
mid-1950's, eliminating many mandatory sentences for drug offenses and
repealing the death penalty for heroin dealers who sold to minors.
In 1977, President Carter formally advocated legalizing marijuana in
amounts up to an ounce.
It was not until 1986, after the effects of the cocaine craze of the early
1980's had begun to materialize, that Congress passed tough drug laws with
mandatory sentences and the death penalty for what were called drug kingpins.
Crack addiction and drive-by shootings dominated the headlines.
The war on drugs was back with a vengeance, and the Rockefeller laws once
again meshed with the tenor of the times.
Judging by Mr. Pataki's latest proposal, however, the pendulum has begun to
swing back the other way, in no small part, criminologists say, because
violent crime is down 40 percent in New York since he took office. "The
general public's attitude is more tolerant because the crime problem has
been reduced so much," said Dr. David F. Musto of Yale University, an
authority on the history of narcotics in America.
In calling for these changes, which go much farther than changes he
proposed in 1999, Governor Pataki is not abandoning his political roots.
What he has proposed falls far short of repeal of the Rockefeller laws, a
step that some critics have urged.
They want judges to have discretion in sentencing for all narcotics cases.
They also complain that Mr. Pataki has not called for changing what they
see as the laws' biggest problem, the fact that their mandatory sentences
are based on the weight of the drugs seized rather than on the role of the
person arrested.
So a low-level "mule," addicted himself, who is hired to cart some cocaine
across town, can end up serving 15 years.
Mr. Pataki has proposed reducing the mandatory sentence for the top class
of drug offender to 10 years, from 15. The current laws impose a
15-year-to-life sentence for possession of more than four ounces of cocaine
or heroin or for sale of two ounces or more. Judges would have discretion
to send people to treatment only in the case of low-and mid-level drug
offenses.
One danger is that district attorneys, most of whom oppose weakening the
law, will stop charging people with the lesser offenses. "The key to
sentencing reform is giving judges discretion," said Anita Marton of the
Legal Action Center, a nonprofit advocacy organization that specializes in
drug issues and has offices in New York and Washington. "This tries to chip
away at that but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue.
This proposal is not going to affect the vast majority of offenders."
If the debate in Albany or the vote in California is any indication, the
war on drugs is not likely to be abandoned altogether. No one on either
side of the debate over the Rockefeller drug laws is arguing that violent
drug dealers should be given lesser sentences or that drugs should be
legalized.
But if Governor Pataki and the Legislature reach an agreement on changing
the Rockefeller laws, the resulting legislation is likely to resemble the
California model.
The governor's aim is to retain harsh penalties for violent felons but move
nonviolent addicts back into society. The hope is that the prison
population will then drop but that high crime rates will not return.
"The governor thinks it's good policy, that this is something it is time to
do," said a spokeswoman for Mr. Pataki, Caroline Quartararo. "The crime
rates are way down because we are locking up violent offenders for a long
period of time."
*********************************************
SAMPLE LETTER
To the editor:
While it's always interesting to read about the declining appeal of the
drug war, I thought the analysis in "Signs of a thaw in the war on drugs"
(Jan. 21), missed a key point: As a miserable boondoggle expands, more
people will take notice and speak up. The war on drugs grows year after
year with more arrests and bigger budgets. For anyone who is willing to
take an honest look, it's impossible to ignore the counterproductive
results that have been reaped from decades of pushing for a "drug-free
America." The problem isn't just with the Rockefeller laws. Governor Pataki
and other leaders who are finally expressing some skepticism about some
aspects of the drug war need to reevaluate of the whole concept of drug
prohibition, not just the details.
Stephen Young
IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone number
Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
---------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts
3 Tips for Letter Writers MapInc
Author: James C. Mckinley Jr.
toward the war on drugs. On Wednesday, Gov. George E. Pataki proposed
softening the harsh Rockefeller-era drug laws in New York State. Gov.
Christie Whitman of New Jersey acknowledged that her state police had been
stopping black and Hispanic drivers as part of a drug-enforcement effort
the public once applauded and moved to stop the practice.
And within the last two weeks President Clinton has not only urged a
re-examination of federal drug sentencing, but also proposed equalizing
penalties for possession of powdered and crack cocaine, on the ground that
the stiffer penalties for crack discriminated against members of ethnic
minorities.
If politicians are societal weather vanes, then the war on drugs seems to
be losing some appeal.
For decades, experts on drug addiction have argued that long prison terms
for nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom are addicts as well, are less
effective than drug-treatment programs at reducing crime. They also say
imprisonment is more expensive than treatment.
The country's prison population has grown to two million, and a quarter of
the inmates are serving time for drug offenses.
Until recently, though, these arguments have failed to move many Americans
or their public officials. But now the cause is being joined by Republican
governors and an outgoing president who greatly expanded federal financing
for drug interdiction and local law enforcement, and gave $1 billion to
help the Colombian military attack cocaine trafficking.
Why are critics of the drug war making headway now? The answer,
criminologists and other experts say, may lie in the waning of the public's
fear of crime.
Fear begets intolerance. People and the politicians they elect are more
willing to put up with severe penalties for relatively minor drug offenses
when crime rates are high, as it was in New York City in the late 1960's
and early 1970's, the period that produced the Rockefeller laws.
At the time, heavy heroin use in the city was widely blamed for rapidly
increasing property crime.
The city experienced another, more murderous, crime wave in the late 80's
and early 90's when crack cocaine became popular.
City officials responded with a huge expansion of the police force and an
aggressive campaign against street dealers and people carrying concealed guns.
Now, though, crime has declined steadily for several years, and violent
crime in New York City has reached its lowest levels since 1967. Fear has
eased, and the public has begun to question some harsher elements of the
war on drugs and crime. "There is a pretty clear correlation between the
crime rate and criticism of law-enforcement officials for being too tough,"
said the director of the Jerry Lee Criminology Center at the University of
Pennsylvania, Lawrence Sherman. "As crime rates drop, you see more people
complaining about the cops."
At the same time, legions of people whose children are serving lengthy
sentences under the Rockefeller laws have begun making their presence felt
in Albany. Many are black and Latino, and many maintain that the laws, as
enforced, discriminate against their ethnic groups. More than 21,000 people
are serving time for drug convictions in New York State, about 95 percent
of whom are black or Hispanic. About 70 percent were convicted of
nonviolent crimes.
"Where is the sanity?" asks Mary Mortimer of New York City, who has two
sons serving prison time, one 15 to 30 years, the other 10 to 20, both for
possession of small amounts of cocaine with intent to sell. "I'd like to be
able to spend some time with my sons on this earth before I leave here."
These days Mr. Pataki can afford the political consequences of listening to
Mary Mortimer and people like her. After six years in office, his
reputation as a tough-on-crime governor is well established. He pushed for
and signed the death penalty back into law, he increased sentences for many
crimes, and he eliminated parole for violent crimes.
The governor may also be reacting to the political winds from other parts
of the country as well. In November, California voters passed a proposition
requiring the state to direct most people convicted of nonviolent drug
possession into treatment programs rather than prison.
Arizona passed a similar law, and the governor of New Mexico has said he
plans to introduce comparable changes this year. Even some New York
legislators who voted for the Rockefeller laws in 1973 now advocate their
repeal. John R. Dunne, a former state senator from Long Island, has formed
a coalition to lobby the governor with other former state lawmakers,
including Warren Anderson, who was Senate majority leader from Binghamton.
In the early 70's, besides the heroin epidemic, Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller
was faced with a youthful counter-culture, particularly in New York City,
that often celebrated "sex, drugs and rock and roll," as a line from a
popular song put it.
Governor Rockefeller, a liberal Republican, first tried to persuade the
Legislature to create the Narcotics Addiction Control Commission and
establish secure residential treatment centers around the state.
He also started methadone clinics for addicts.
Those efforts proved costly and failed to reduce crime.
So in 1973, a frustrated Mr. Rockefeller proposed the "lock them up and
throw away the key" approach.
Some historians have said that Mr. Rockefeller had his eye on the
presidency and hoped to appear more conservative. In any case, he persuaded
the Legislature, over the objections of some New York City lawmakers, to
pass the laws that carry his name.
At the time, the state had 12,000 state prison inmates.
Today it has 70,000. Oddly enough, the laws put the state out of step with
the times.
In 1970, Congress had liberalized the harsh drug laws passed in the
mid-1950's, eliminating many mandatory sentences for drug offenses and
repealing the death penalty for heroin dealers who sold to minors.
In 1977, President Carter formally advocated legalizing marijuana in
amounts up to an ounce.
It was not until 1986, after the effects of the cocaine craze of the early
1980's had begun to materialize, that Congress passed tough drug laws with
mandatory sentences and the death penalty for what were called drug kingpins.
Crack addiction and drive-by shootings dominated the headlines.
The war on drugs was back with a vengeance, and the Rockefeller laws once
again meshed with the tenor of the times.
Judging by Mr. Pataki's latest proposal, however, the pendulum has begun to
swing back the other way, in no small part, criminologists say, because
violent crime is down 40 percent in New York since he took office. "The
general public's attitude is more tolerant because the crime problem has
been reduced so much," said Dr. David F. Musto of Yale University, an
authority on the history of narcotics in America.
In calling for these changes, which go much farther than changes he
proposed in 1999, Governor Pataki is not abandoning his political roots.
What he has proposed falls far short of repeal of the Rockefeller laws, a
step that some critics have urged.
They want judges to have discretion in sentencing for all narcotics cases.
They also complain that Mr. Pataki has not called for changing what they
see as the laws' biggest problem, the fact that their mandatory sentences
are based on the weight of the drugs seized rather than on the role of the
person arrested.
So a low-level "mule," addicted himself, who is hired to cart some cocaine
across town, can end up serving 15 years.
Mr. Pataki has proposed reducing the mandatory sentence for the top class
of drug offender to 10 years, from 15. The current laws impose a
15-year-to-life sentence for possession of more than four ounces of cocaine
or heroin or for sale of two ounces or more. Judges would have discretion
to send people to treatment only in the case of low-and mid-level drug
offenses.
One danger is that district attorneys, most of whom oppose weakening the
law, will stop charging people with the lesser offenses. "The key to
sentencing reform is giving judges discretion," said Anita Marton of the
Legal Action Center, a nonprofit advocacy organization that specializes in
drug issues and has offices in New York and Washington. "This tries to chip
away at that but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue.
This proposal is not going to affect the vast majority of offenders."
If the debate in Albany or the vote in California is any indication, the
war on drugs is not likely to be abandoned altogether. No one on either
side of the debate over the Rockefeller drug laws is arguing that violent
drug dealers should be given lesser sentences or that drugs should be
legalized.
But if Governor Pataki and the Legislature reach an agreement on changing
the Rockefeller laws, the resulting legislation is likely to resemble the
California model.
The governor's aim is to retain harsh penalties for violent felons but move
nonviolent addicts back into society. The hope is that the prison
population will then drop but that high crime rates will not return.
"The governor thinks it's good policy, that this is something it is time to
do," said a spokeswoman for Mr. Pataki, Caroline Quartararo. "The crime
rates are way down because we are locking up violent offenders for a long
period of time."
*********************************************
SAMPLE LETTER
To the editor:
While it's always interesting to read about the declining appeal of the
drug war, I thought the analysis in "Signs of a thaw in the war on drugs"
(Jan. 21), missed a key point: As a miserable boondoggle expands, more
people will take notice and speak up. The war on drugs grows year after
year with more arrests and bigger budgets. For anyone who is willing to
take an honest look, it's impossible to ignore the counterproductive
results that have been reaped from decades of pushing for a "drug-free
America." The problem isn't just with the Rockefeller laws. Governor Pataki
and other leaders who are finally expressing some skepticism about some
aspects of the drug war need to reevaluate of the whole concept of drug
prohibition, not just the details.
Stephen Young
IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone number
Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
---------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts
3 Tips for Letter Writers MapInc
Author: James C. Mckinley Jr.
