Rockefeller Drug Laws Are a Crime

The draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws represent a misguided and ineffective regime for addressing drug use and addiction -- health issues, not criminal issues. With legislation passed this week by the Assembly, New York may be ready to shift towards a more reasonable -- and affordable -- approach guided by public health and safety. Enacted in 1973, the Rockefeller Drug Laws mandate extremely harsh prison terms for the possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs. Supposedly intended to target major dealers, most of the people incarcerated under these laws are convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses, and many of them have no prior criminal record. Approximately 12,000 people are locked up for drug offenses in New York State prisons, representing nearly 21 percent of the prison population.

Over 4,000 people are serving long prison terms for simple possession alone. Nearly 90 percent of the people incarcerated are black or Latino, though whites use and sell illegal drugs at equal or higher rates.

And as New York reels from the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, Gov. David Paterson and the Legislature are scrambling to close ever-expanding deficits. It costs New Yorkers $45,000 a year to keep someone locked up, while treatment costs a fraction of that.

Does it make sense to spend over $500 million every year on laws we know don't work? These laws did not stop the crack epidemic of the 1980s. They are completely incapable of stemming the accidental drug overdose epidemic hitting New York City and Long Island today. And they have turned the Department of Corrections into the state's largest, most costly and ineffective treatment provider. The Assembly's bill, A.6085, would finally reform the failed Rockefeller Drug Laws. Sponsored by Corrections Committee Chairman -- and drug treatment counselor -- Jeffrion Aubry (D-Queens), Speaker Sheldon Silver and a host of others, the bill contains the four key elements that constitute meaningful, real reform: restoration of judicial discretion in drug cases, so judges can place appropriate people in treatment; the expansion of alternative-to-incarceration programs and community-based drug treatment throughout the state; fair sentencing reform; and retroactive sentencing relief for eligible people serving unjust sentences under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The Assembly's proposal would not allow people who commit violent to be resentenced.

Arguably, the Assembly could have done even more, such as including full repeal of the second felony offender law. Even so, A.6085 represents a significant step forward in developing a more rational and effective approach to drug use and addiction in our state. The modest reforms of 2004 and 2005 continue to deny people serving under the more punitive sentences to apply for shorter terms, and do not increase the power of judges to place addicts into treatment programs. After 2004, more people went to prison under Rockefeller Drug Laws than in previous years.

The need for reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws is no longer in debate. The Governor, the Assembly and Senate, and the Sentencing Reform Commission, which included prosecutors, have all called for reforms to the laws. The question is what kind of reforms will we see in New York? The Assembly has answered by proposing meaningful, real reform and advancing a public health and safety approach to drug use and addiction. This is the direction we need to go. Drug addiction shouldn't be a crime -- the real crime would be if reform were stymied yet again.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.