Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

DrugReporter

New York Must Reform Its Racist Drug Laws

By Gabriel Sayegh, AlterNet. Posted May 5, 2007.


With 91 percent of people incarcerated under New York States' drug laws being black and Latino, it's time for Gov. Eliot Spitzer to make good on his election promise to deliver real reform.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This April, the New York State Assembly passed important legislation to reform the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens, increases drug treatment alternatives to incarceration, expands judicial discretion to restore fairness in our courts and, critically, allows for people currently serving harsh prison terms for low-level drug offenses to seek much-needed relief.

The Assembly should be commended for passing smart reforms. But where are the governor and the state Senate on drug law reform?

While running for governor, Eliot Spitzer campaigned on a promise: "Day One, Everything Changes." Spitzer made campaign statements in support of real reform of the laws. Lt. Gov. David Paterson was a long-time reform champion while Senate minority leader. Families and advocates working for repeal of the failed Rockefeller Drug Laws were cautiously optimistic about Spitzer's promise. It seemed entirely possible that on Day One, the Rockefeller laws, after nearly 34 long, terrible years, might finally be repealed.

But in the first hundred days of the new administration, drug law reform went missing in action. Spitzer took on a variety of important issues, but the Rockefeller Drug Laws didn't even make his priority list for the end of the legislative session.

Why is it so hard to win real reform, when everyone knows these laws are racist, ineffective, wasteful and unjust? So asks longtime advocate Cheri O'Donoghue, whose son, Ashley, is serving seven to 21 years for a first-time, nonviolent drug offense. Ashley is one of more than 14,000 people incarcerated under these harsh laws.

The answer to Cheri's question is downright sinister, but it's no secret. The reason the Rockefeller Drug Laws haven't been done away with is because of a despicable trinity of racism, cash cows and the U.S. census, not to mention the people who rely on this trinity for their political survival. From 1817 to 1981, New York built 33 prisons. But from 1982 to 2000, New York built 38 more prisons -- all of them upstate. The unprecedented prison boom was largely an economic development plan meant to ameliorate the job loss upstate. Rural, white communities were clamoring to build and staff prisons. The Rockefeller Drug Laws delivered the bodies with harsh mandatory-minimum sentences for low-level drug offenses.

The RAND Corp. and other think tanks have shown that drug use and abuse is roughly equal across all racial groups. But the Rockefeller Drug Laws always have been marked by severe racial bias. Today, 91 percent of the people incarcerated under these laws are black and Latino. It's a scenario we'd expect to find in an apartheid state, not a democracy.

Once elected, Spitzer proposed the possibility of closing half-empty prisons in upstate New York, saving millions of dollars. Many groups applauded Spitzer, because New York's prison population has dropped in recent years and its archaic prison industrial complex needs an overhaul. The leading voices against studying closing prisons, though, were politically very powerful. The correction officers union and upstate politicians have parlayed the politics of imprisonment into lucrative businesses and political careers. The prospects for reform have at least dimmed, if they haven't died altogether.

The plot thickens, though. More than 76 percent of the state's prison inmates come from New York City. The U.S. Census Bureau counts them as residents of the upstate prisons in which they're incarcerated, not as residents of the communities from which they came.

Why does this matter? According to the Prison Policy Initiative, if prisoners were not counted as "residents," seven upstate Senate districts would be 5 percent short of their required population size, and thus have to be redrawn. This means that senators in those districts -- all of them Republicans -- would lose their seats, causing Republicans to lose their slim Senate majority. Unsurprisingly, Senate Republicans remain staunch opponents of repealing the Rockefeller Drug Laws.

Two vocal reform opponents -- Sen. Dale Volker of suburban Buffalo and Sen. Michael Nozzolio of the Finger Lakes -- have more than 17 percent of the state's prisoners in their districts. Is it any wonder why they oppose reform?

Spitzer was elected on his record as a crusader against waste and corruption, no matter what powerful interests stood in his way. Advocates for drug law reform hoped the new governor would stand up to the corruption and racism blocking real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. He now has that chance, with the legislation passed by the Assembly and sent to the Senate. But the Senate, under Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, will block those reforms unless the governor gets more directly involved.

For the sake of justice, and families like the O'Donoghues, let's demand that the governor makes a priority of drug law reform.

Because if nothing changes, nothing changes.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: racism, new york, drug laws

Gabriel Sayegh is a project director at the Drug Policy Alliance in New York City.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from DrugReporter! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why isn't tobacco a drug?
Posted by: Temporary on May 5, 2007 12:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It KILLS, and so does alcohol!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't this positive discrimination?
Posted by: utilitarianist on May 5, 2007 2:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By removing more drug users and dealers from poor communities, which tend to majority black and hispanic, aren't they doing them a favour? Isn't it racist to ignore middle class communities just because the people there are less likely to resort to crime to fund their habit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Isn't this positive discrimination? Posted by: utilitarianist
No, no no!
Posted by: SBK on May 5, 2007 2:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, a civilized society does not create an economic regeneration plan out of locking up its citizens. No way is another group of citizens allowed to campaign and lobby to ruin the lives of an entire race of people, just to create jobs and profit. No, drugs are not kept illegal because they are "dangerous". The drug war is a bigger con than Iraq. If we privatize prisons, we create a market for incarceration, how perverse is that? Why isn't this as big of an emergency as it should be? It doesn't affect us middle class white people, we only read about it, just like Katrina.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No, no no! Posted by: utilitarianist
» Huh? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: No, no no! Posted by: ekwhite
» RE: No, no no! Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: No, no no! Posted by: utilitarianist
» RE: No, no no! Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» Contracts ≠ privatised. Posted by: utilitarianist
» RE: Contracts ≠ privatised. Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Business as usual.
Posted by: HughScott on May 5, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went to college in Texas where smoking marijuana could put poor people in prison while careless middleclass drivers who committed negligent vehicular homicide might not even get a ticket -- ala Laura Bush when she was a teenager.

The same biased justice system exists in New York.

On one hand, the state slaps impoverished minorities with jail terms for trying to escape their miserable existence with drugs. Conversely, middleclass kids who get caught using dope often get a free pass, thanks to well-paid lawyers.

Another example of our Republican created, Have and Have–Not society.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of the forthcoming JohnQPublic4PRESIDENT2008.com and King-George.biz, the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Business as usual. Posted by: edith
NO Equal Opportunities for New York Minorities...No Jobs
Posted by: picket on May 5, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It used to be that during presidential elections there would be TV pictures of the candidate speaking and pandering to crowds in the ghetto. Not anymore.

Hillary lives close by to the largest woman's prison in NYS....Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. I read recently that she had never been there as the NYS Senator. The prison has a Children's Center and a Prison Nursery Program made up of young mothers from NYC with drug offenses and sentences of just under 2 years.

NYS is #1 in taxing the citizens and even higher income folks are feeling the pinch and complaining especially about property taxes. Small business owners have to compete with 30,000 correction employees many have businesses on the side.

" Hey what do I care."........"..am I my Brother's keeper?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fascism
Posted by: Ghoulman on May 5, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... just because they aren't putting the white people in jail doesn't mean it's not fascism.

This is Rudy Giuliani's New York.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fascism Posted by: ALANHESTER
SOLUTION!!!!
Posted by: mizipi on May 5, 2007 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If NY would outsource all of their police and prisons to a company from the South that used only Southerners, then all of this mess would be RACISM by a bunch of ignorant rednecks. Things would then change. Because, everyone knows that only Southern white males are racists, just look at the movies and TV! NY is much too honorable to be racist. In 1989 when I was falsely arrested and jailed in upstate NY, my cellmate was a black dude from NYC (my crime - being a redneck from Mississippi in upstate NY, my cellmate's crime - and he told me this - was killing the MF-er who had ratted on him).

The same shit is happening down here in the South. Forty years ago, Mississippi had one medical school, one mental hospital, one prison and three charity hospitals. Now we have one medical school, one mental hospital, 30-something prisons (I've lost count) and only ONE charity hospital.

Let's go kill some more third world people so that maybe one day they can live in a society such as ours! And, while we are at it, put some more poor minorities in jail. This is what America has turned into and the democrats are just as guilty as the republicans, because they are all the same. Politicians! (not average people who have to live by the standards set by the politicians. Start imprisoning politicians and you get an Alberto Gonzales scandal that will eventually go away)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SOLUTION!!!! Posted by: ALANHESTER
» "Nowhere NY" Posted by: Conservasaurus
More about CLASS than RACE. Of course the elites wish you to focus on race.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on May 5, 2007 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But this draconian drug law is classist, not rascist. The problem/reason for the disparity is this:
1) a rich person (most often white) can buy their drugs from 'legitimate' drug dealers, 'friendly' doctors, and in bulk. They can get their drugs delivered by non-suspicious looking people. They also do their drugs in their gated communities, doorman-protected apartments, large estates, suburban houses, etc. Little chance of getting caught since they are behind closed doors. If they are caught they have a battery of highly trained and highly paid attorneys. They can immediately go into rich, country-club "rehab" centers and claim they are getting help. They can even flee jurisdictions easily.

2) a poor person (in NYC mainly minority) usually has to buy their drugs in smaller quantities, go to a 'street' low-level dealer, buy the drugs in public, use the drugs in public or in a place where excessive noise, drug use, etc can been seen/heard by police, pesky neighbors, etc. They often have to drive/walk to get their drugs in seedier areas risking being pulled over by police. Buy drugs more frequently thusly increasing the risk of getting caught (versus the rich who can buy an oz or more all at once.) Keep in mind in some states where there are more poor whites as a percentage of population there are many whites in jail due to draconian drug laws also. Once caught they can't afford attorneys (or get very cheap shyster ones.) Usually count-appointed (sometimes well meaning but over-worked, under-paid). They can't afford 'rehab' so the court won't take into account "their desire to get better". They don't have PR firms to handle their case in the press. They can't flee jurisdiction easily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If it's illegal do the time
Posted by: edith on May 5, 2007 5:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If scientific research shows that marijuana is no more harmful than Jim Beam and Bud, then pot should be legal, with restrictions on sales to minors and perhaps, if warranted, to psychotics etc. who might have extraordinary reactions.

so anyone in jail for selling pot can take quick release. Other drugs, of varying strengths, compositions and purity though, cause violent behavior, or because dealers are not regulated by the FDA, (nor do they desire this regulation), cause overdoses, intended or not. I am sorry if rich whites (or blacks) get to walk to rehab for shooting heroin or sniffing coke whereas a poor latino kid from the Bronx does hard time.

The solution however is not to allow drug pushers and hard drug users to enjoy the same rights as other legal citizens, but the solution is to get every pusher in a cage and every user in a secure, sanitary facility.

The non-dealer users should be in guarded facilities that mandate treatment for each prisoner. With progress inside the facility, parole with treatment can follow. But releasing addicts into the general population because money buys probation and poverty buys a prison sentence merely means more crime, more dope sold, more drug overdoses, more misery inflicted on children of dope users.

Detain and treat should be the policy. If the system isn't race neutral, that is bad and should be fixed by jailing more whites and other shades who violate the same laws as African Americans and various kinds of Latinos(they are not all the same but if you read alternet comments, you would get that ignorant impression). Society and civilization need not yield to Sptizer's politically motivated groveling to the "Boss" Sharptons of the world in order to provide security to law abiding citizens (you all remember that quaint word "citizen". It used to mean something, didn't it?) as well as necessary and universal treatment to drug abusers who are not significant dealers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Or... Posted by: EagleMB
To imply that a law applying eqally to all peope is racist...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 5, 2007 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is almost laughable, except for the few who would be swayed to a "believer" status.

For the sake of equal oppotunity, the 13 and 14th amendments and plain common sense, I hope stupidity and expediency don't win the day on this issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

www.droptherock.org.....
Posted by: picket on May 6, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The best way to raise the next generation of drug abusers is to put a generation of fathers and mothers in prison."

Understanding how this HUGE INDUSTRY [illegal drugs] is managed might help in understanding any possible solution.

The foot soldier who gets caught holding even a small amount goes to jail. The owner of the company will never be caught holding anything.

When the police spend all their shift looking for a couple of balls of white stuff on the ground and then booking the user/pusher are letting the people trying to climb through your window off. There are profits to be made for the PD in small drug arrests but there are no profits in doing the work required to track down the rapist or thief.

So society will continue to spend billions on solutions that do not work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: www.droptherock.org..... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: All of the above and... Posted by: EagleMB
Repeal the Rockefeller drug laws, and replace them with nothing.
Posted by: Dr T on May 6, 2007 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reform of the Rockefeller drug laws, though admirable in intent, is not the way to go. We need another approach.

In 1923, America was three years into federal alcohol prohibition and every state except Maryland had enacted its own version of Prohibition. State courts became jammed with liquor cases, illicit commerce in alcohol caused rampant violence, and organized crime took hold.

In response to this crisis, NY State Senator Louis Curvillier introduced a measure he claimed would give badly needed relief to the NY State criminal justice system. It was ingeniously simple and cost nothing. The measure merely repealed NY State prohibition laws, and replaced them with nothing. The bill passed the legislature and was signed into law by Governor Al Smith.

The effect of this law was to shift the burden of enforcing the prohibition laws from state to federal authorities for the ten remaining years of Prohibition. Not only did this unburden the NY State criminal justice system and save money, it reduced most of the Prohibition-related violence that plagued other parts of the country.

We now have a drug Prohibition that has the same pernicious effects as the old alcohol Prohibition and adds racial and economic discrimination. Eighty years ago, NY State set a precedent of common sense. It needs to do so again.

Repeal the Rockefeller drug laws, and replace them with nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Justice? What justice? -nm Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Are you an idiot? Posted by: EagleMB
Adjectival Problem Here
Posted by: dayahka on May 6, 2007 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it the drug laws that need change, or the racist drug laws? If the latter, then it would, presumably, be OK to put more people in jail for drug offenses, so long as they're not black or hispanic...I think you mean the drug laws, period, racist or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do the economic statistics match?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 6, 2007 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or are those data just not collected? In other words, if it was a purely racist law then you'd expect the economic status of various 'defined ethnic groupings' to match their economic status. If it turns out that it's all poor blacks, while Marion Barry smokes crack and gets reelected - well, than something else is going on.

On the other hand, I doubt that 90% of illegal drug users are of 'some color other than white' - but it might be the case that 90% of the poorest people in New York are of 'some other color than white'. And yes, drug cops can be very racist, only targeting those they hate.

What about the quarter 'white', quarter 'latino', quarter 'black', quarter 'asian' prisoner? Where does he fit in to the racial stats? These little boxes on cards that indicate 'race' are just a holdover from early 20th century eugenics programs, actually. Always check 'decline to state'.

One other note: this situation is not unique to New York, so I don't see why Eliot Spitzer is to blame. Eliot Spitzer has done a good job going after the biggest and worst of the drug dealers: the pharmaceutical corporations. We need more like him:

MAJOR PHARMACEUTICAL FIRM CONCEALED DRUG INFORMATION
GlaxoSmithKline Misled Doctors About the Safety of Drug Used to Treat Depression in Children


State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced a lawsuit against one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies for concealing important information about the safety and efficacy of an anti-depressant drug.

The lawsuit, filed today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, alleges that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) engaged in repeated and persistent fraud by concealing and failing to disclose to physicians information about Paxil, a drug used to treat depression. Paxil has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of depression in adults, but not in children. Prozac is the only antidepressant that has been approved to treat depression in children. Physicians, however, have professional discretion to prescribe Paxil for treatment in children, a so-called "off-label" use.

"Doctors should have access to all scientifically sound information so that they can prescribe appropriate medication for their patients," Spitzer said. "By concealing critically important scientific studies on Paxil, GSK impaired doctors' ability to make the appropriate prescribing decision for their patients and may have jeopardized their health and safety."

The lawsuit alleges that, starting in 1998, GSK engaged in a concerted effort to withhold negative information concerning Paxil and misrepresented data concerning Paxil's safety and efficacy when prescribed for depression in children and adolescents...


Eliot Spitzer for President!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who in power would want to give up the drug laws?
Posted by: Dboy on May 7, 2007 12:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recipe for fascism: make everything against the law, then use selective enforcement to go after the undesirable members of the population. Drug laws are a great mechanism for this, therefore there is no reason to end the "war on drugs", because it is perfectly designed for its purpose. The drug laws are a way to define otherwise law-abiding people as criminals, and can then be used for population control (people in prison cannot create offspring). The current system is NOT run by "consent of the governed", and never has been. It is ALL an illusion. Working within the current system in order to create change is futile. Supporting this system, in any way, is supporting your own slavery.

Dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New York Must Reform Its Racist Drug Laws
Posted by: cleave on May 10, 2007 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
uromania - more tracked from privacy policy the internet more tracked from cigarette - cigarette butts tobacco use human services cigarette butts cartoon theme - the cartoons sex cartoons the cartoons the internet lesbien movies - lesbian orgy free lesbian porn lesbian pics al comentario adult dvds - user rating the complete video converter special edition black fat sexy - lesbian sex mature porn pictures of free hardcore gay bondage sex - gay leather porn movies membership site movie clips sphynx - mexican hairless hair removal shaved pussy guinea pigs hardcore group sex - these movies hardcore sex movies free movies wild black tgirl - de travestis privacy policy click here to tgirls on girls chicks with huge dicks - the internet reviewer rated shemale sex porn movies gay bondage sex - gay leather porn movies membership site movie clips GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED lobo comics - privacy policy insult comic dog the internet green lantern fucking - tranny surprise the following the internet blonde shemale gangbang dvds - gay hardcore sex stories amateur sex amateur gangbang

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]