Leading the Way to Repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws!  Read the History of the Movement Below

The latest  relevant news on the  Rockefeller Drug war in NYS and the stinging op-ed's and letters by Anthony Papa on criminal justice issues

Did you know that the 2 watered down changes in the Rockefeller laws has equated to less than 350 prisoners set free of the 1,000 prisoners that were eligible for relief.

without freedom, reform is meaningless!!!!

______________________

Flash!   Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program  Must Go!!!

Flash:  April 24, 2008:   Assembly Hearings on Rockefeller—May 8 in NYC, May 15 in Rochester

ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON CODES

ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON CORRECTION

ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE

ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICES

NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING

Oral Testimony by Invitation Only

SUBJECT:     The Rockefeller Drug Laws – 35 Years Later.

PURPOSE:     To explore the impact of the “Rockefeller Drug Laws” on drug addiction, drug-related health problems and drug-related crime; to examine the impact of the 2004 and 2005 reforms of these drug laws in addressing drug abuse and the illegal drug trade; to examine the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment services as an alternative to incarceration and as a means to address offender recidivism; to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of existing substance abuse treatment services and resources; to explore whether the current criminal sentence structure should be continued or whether judges should have additional discretion to divert drug abusers into treatment as an alternative to incarceration; to examine access and barriers to social services for persons with a history of substance abuse released from incarceration.

May 8, 2008, is the 35^th anniversary of the enactment of New York’s “Rockefeller Drug Laws.”   The stated purpose of these laws was to deter the use and sale of drugs by imposing harsh mandatory prison sentences on drug offenders.   There have been a number of amendments to those laws over the years.  Recently, in 2004, New York amended the drug laws recognizing that a drug policy which focused purely on inflexible criminal sanctions was ineffective.  At the time, both the Executive and the Legislature recognized that while significant, the 2004 reforms, as well as a 2005 amendment, represented just a first step towards meaningful reform and that other major changes to the drug laws were urgently needed.  However, since 2004 only the Assembly has passed legislation to further reform New York’s drug laws.   

Despite sentencing reforms, large numbers of drug offenders continue to be incarcerated in New York State prisons.  As of January 1, 2008, 13,425 drug offenders were in state prison representing more than 21% of the male prison population and more than 33% of the female population.  Statistics show that a large majority of this population has never been convicted of a violent offense and up to 40% are incarcerated for drug possession rather than for selling drugs.  Notably, the Rockefeller Drug Laws have disproportionately impacted communities of color – more than 90% of all drug offenders in New York State prisons are Black or Latino.  

After 35 years of a drug policy focused on punishment with concomitant spending of billions of dollars to put people in prison, the question raised is whether the effort has been worth it and if not, whether New York’s laws should be amended.  Indeed, many argue that it may be time to broaden New York’s approach to addressing drug addiction. 

Unquestionably, drug abuse is a serious public health problem that affects families and almost every community.  Each year, even under the current scheme of drug law enforcement, drug abuse results in an estimated 40 million serious illnesses or injuries in the United States.  Drug addiction is a treatable disease, so among issues raised is whether a system that focuses on  preventing and treating drug addiction rather than simply incarcerating individuals will result in a reduction in the use and sale of drugs – something mandatory imprisonment laws have failed to accomplish.

In addition, another issue raised over the 35 years of experience New York has had under its drug laws is whether authorizing judges to sentence drug-addicted persons convicted of crimes to treatment as an alternative to incarceration would help break the cycle of addiction and crime and make our streets, homes and communities safer.  Furthermore, more effective prison-based drug treatment programs may reduce the rate of recidivism among formerly incarcerated substance abusers and improve their prospects for successful reentry into the community.   Such reforms may also produce significant fiscal savings by reducing correctional costs and the dependence on public assistance dollars thereby allowing the state to invest necessary resources in community-based alternative to incarceration and drug treatment programs.  

This hearing will provide an opportunity to take a fresh look at New York’s drug laws and examine how the criminal justice, social service and health systems treat drug abusers.   

Persons wishing to present pertinent testimony to the Committees at the joint public hearing should complete and return the enclosed reply form as soon as possible.  It is important that the reply form be fully completed and returned so that persons may be notified in the event of emergency postponement or cancellation.

Oral testimony will be accepted by invitation only and limited to ten (10) minutes’ duration.  In preparing the order of witnesses, the Committees will attempt to accommodate individual requests to speak at particular times in view of special circumstances.  These requests should be made on the attached reply form or communicated to the Committees’ staff as early as possible. 

Twenty (20) copies of any prepared testimony should be submitted at the hearing registration desk.  The Committees would appreciate advance receipt of prepared statements. In order to further publicize these hearings, please inform interested parties and organizations of the Committees’ interest in receiving testimony from all sources.

In order to meet the needs of those who may have a disability, the Assembly, in accordance with its policy of non-discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), has made its facilities and services available to all individuals with disabilities.  For individuals with disabilities, accommodations will be provided, upon reasonable request, to afford such individuals access and admission to Assembly facilities and activities.

SELECTED ISSUES TO WHICH WITNESSES MAY DIRECT THEIR TESTIMONY:

1.      Has New York’s drug policy over the last 35 years reduced drug use, drug-related health problems, and drug-related criminal behavior?  If not, how should it change to more effectively reduce drug addiction and related problems?

2.      Are mandatory sentences of imprisonment an effective part of a drug policy strategy?  Should judges have discretion to sentence class B or above drug offenders and second felony drug offenders to drug treatment programs as an alternative to incarceration?  Would expanding the number of drug offenders eligible for court ordered drug abuse treatment as a potential alternative to incarceration help break the cycle of addiction and crime and make our streets, homes and communities safer? 

3.      How many drug courts are currently operating in the state?  Are there sufficient community-based treatment programs available to serve individuals participating in the drug court program?  How are the community-based programs utilized by drug courts funded and what additional resources, if any, are necessary? What changes, if any, should New York’s court system make to better address drug abuse and drug abuse related crime?

4.      What role should prosecutors and judges play in determining which offenders are diverted into alternative to incarceration programs?

5.      How effective is substance abuse treatment at reducing the rate of recidivism among persons convicted of crimes?  What kinds of programs, supervision and resources would most effectively reduce the incidence of drug use and drug-related crime? 

6.      How effective have existing programs (for example, Drug Treatment Alternatives to Prison and “Road to Recovery”) been in addressing substance abuse and dependency?  Are there other prosecutor-sponsored and non-prosecutor sponsored initiatives that are as, or more effective? 

7.      What substance abuse treatment services exist within New York State’s prisons and jails and do they sufficiently meet the needs of inmates with a history of drug and alcohol abuse?

8.      What pre-release procedures used by the Department of Correctional Services and the Division of Parole help ensure successful community integration of persons released from prison who have a history of substance abuse?  What steps are taken to ensure that there is a continuity of treatment between prison and community substance abuse treatment?

9.      What substance abuse treatment programs and resources are currently available in the community for persons released from jail and prison, and do they adequately meet the needs of the tens of thousands of persons released from jail and prison in New York each year?

10.  What are the barriers faced by formerly incarcerated individuals with a history of substance abuse in obtaining public benefits, medical assistance, and affordable, suitable and stable housing?    Is specific legislation needed to improve the process and assist these individuals in applying for and obtaining public benefits?   Are employment, training, and/or educational programs available through local Departments of Social Services for formerly incarcerated individuals with a history of substance abuse? What impact do such programs have on drug abuse relapse and recidivism? What can be done to improve employment and training opportunities for this population?

11.  What is the cost to taxpayers of the current mandatory incarceration laws? Are there potential cost savings that can be derived from diverting more defendants into substance abuse treatment as a potential alternative to incarceration?

12.  Two proposals have been offered recently that proponents say are designed to encourage addicted persons to seek treatment.  One would decriminalize the possession of a small, residual amount of a controlled substance in a hypodermic syringe when the syringe is given to an authorized needle exchange program pursuant to section 3381 (1) of the Public Health Law (A.6337).   A second proposal would encourage addicted persons and others to seek emergency assistance for persons seriously ill from a drug overdose (A.8740).  This proposal would restrict the use in criminal court of evidence concerning the possession of a controlled substance when such evidence is obtained as a result of the person seeking or receiving health care services.   Are these proposals meritorious? 

_____________________

Flash:  March 28, 2008

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/NEWS01/803280350/1002/NEWS01

ALBANY — Advocates at the Capitol Thursday asked lawmakers to overturn the mandatory sentences required by the Rockefeller-era drug laws and instead let judges decide how long offenders should stay in prison.

Under current law, drug offenders are sent to prison when they would benefit more from drug treatment, which would also save the state money, said Robert Gangi, executive director of the Correctional Association.

Would you rather run into a drug user on the street who has been in a treatment facility for the last three years or that has done three years in Attica (prison)?” he said.

Members of the Correctional Association and other groups in the Drop the Rock coalition were among many advocates who took their issues to the Capitol in a last-minute effort to get their agendas reflected in the state budget. Lawmakers are supposed to have a spending plan before the new fiscal year begins — April 1 — but they are behind schedule.

Environmental advocates pushed for passage of the “bigger better bottle bill,” which would require non-carbonated beverages — water and juices — to carry the same 5-cent deposit as soda and beer containers. They also pushed for congestion pricing for New York City — an additional tax on those who drive into parts of Manhattan during peak travel hours during the week. The goal of the measure would be to discourage car use in the city, improve the environment and encourage more to use mass transportation.

Education advocates urged lawmakers to increase the income tax for people who earn $1 million or more a year to help fund the state's education system.

The Rockefeller-era drug laws, enacted in 1973, require long prison terms for the possession or sale of a relatively small amount of drugs, Gangi said.

Drop the Rock members said that reforms to the drug laws in 2004 and 2005 did not go far enough. Prison terms for non-violent offenders who don't buy or sell large amounts of drugs should be shortened, and the state should increase money for drug treatment and other alternatives to incarceration, they said.

There are about 13,400 drug offenders in state prisons at a cost of $500 million per year, or almost $37,000 per inmate per year, Gangi said.

The state should invest in alternative drug treatment, he said.

An outpatient drug treatment service can cost between $2,700 and $4,500 per person per year, and residential drug treatment centers can cost between $17,000 and $21,000 per person per year, Gangi said.

The number of drug offenders in prison is declining, according to the state Department of Correctional Services.

under custody than there were in 1996 when the number peaked at 23,511 drug offenders - that's a 43 percent reduction.”

However, there has been a recent spike in newly incarcerated inmates with drug charges, jumping from 5,657 in 2004 to 6,148 in 2007, she said.

Assembly Corrections Committee Chairman Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens, has proposed a bill that would effectively dissolve the mandatory minimum sentencing laws and replace them with new, suggested sentencing guidelines for judges to follow when sentencing drug offenders.

Sen. Dale Volker, R-Depew, Erie County, said he thinks sentencing guidelines are a good idea but could allow too many dangerous offenders to slip through unpunished. Many drug offenders could benefit more from treatment than jail time, he said.

“I believe in treatment, I believe that we should not send low-level offenders to jail unless under extreme circumstances,” such as if they are repeat offenders, he said.

“Very, very few people go to jail under the Rockefeller Drug Laws,” Volker said, only the biggest drug dealers.

“It is the re-offenders, not the new offenders, that are creating the problems with prisons,” he said.

dosburn@nycap.rr.com

Flash:   march 5, 2008  :russell simmons  might finish what he started in 2003

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=79139

Governor Responds To Hip Hop Moguls Demand For Drug Law Reform

 March 05, 2008

 The governor responded Wednesday to some very heated language used by hip hop mogul Russell Simmons to describe his stance on the Rockefeller drug laws. Speaking out on NY1's "Inside City Hall" Tuesday, Simmons said Eliot Spitzer is failing to live up to promises to reform the state's strict drug laws. Political reporter Josh Robin filed the following report. “I'm very disappointed in the governor. I should say that the hip hop is getting ready to get in his ass,” Russell Simmons said on Tuesday night’s “Inside City Hall.”

Simmons says Governor Eliot Spitzer as a candidate talked a good game about reforming the Rockefeller drug laws. But 14 months after inauguration, some feel cheated. "He promised all of us that he would do something about this prison reform issue,” said Simmons.

 The fiery issue is a set of laws among the strictest in the nation, demanding sentences for the sale or possession of drugs. African Americans and Latinos are hit especially hard, making up 91 percent of those behind bars. The laws account for 21 percent of the prison population, costing a half billion dollars a year.

 Running for office, Spitzer impressed advocates. "As a candidate, Eliot Spitzer was enthusiastically in favor of reform of Rockefeller,” said Assemblyman Jeffion Aubry. “I will continue to support efforts to reform these laws," he said in a survey. It’s a position he reiterated Wednesday, but now with a caveat.

 "We're trying to come up with something that is reasoned that will maintain safety. People should not forget, we have seen a dramatic drop in crime over the years in New York State,” said Spitzer. “And that's because – I can say this as a prosecutor – we prosecute crimes, we're tough, we lock up those that are guilty. And so we have to be very measured and reasoned in what we do.”

 A recent spike in the release of violent criminals has Spitzer on the defensive, although aides noted a majority of the parole board's appointees are carryovers from the Pataki administration. Spitzer did set up a commission that recommended in some cases alternatives to prison, but only with the agreement of the court, the defense and the prosecution.

 Some feel no real reforms will happen until the State Senate is stripped of its Republican control – a margin now at just one seat.

 "We're really counting on 2009 when hopefully there will be the leadership in Albany across the board to push for major Rockefeller reform together, with a comprehensive reform of New York's drug policies,” said Ethan Nadelmann of Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group against the nation’s war on drugs.

 As for Simmons' remarks, Spitzer still calls him a friend. – Josh Robin

__________________________

HUFFINGTON POST   Posted March 4, 2008 | 06:25 PM (EST)

by Anthony Papa

http://timesunion.com/TUNews/author/AuthorPage.aspx?AuthorNum=58

Flash!   Governor Spitzer Grants No Clemencies in 2007!

_________________________

FLASH!!!!   December 19, 2007    A Call to governor spitzer to grant executive clemency to rockefeller offenders who have fallen in the cracks of a political Quagmire

Letters to the editor

December 14 2007

A first change in drug sentencing

Re "Justices OK latitude on sentencing," Dec. 11

Finally, the Supreme Court has positively reacted to the cruelty of a bad sentencing law that has been tossed around between legislatures and the courts for 20 years. In that time, an alarming number of people's lives have been destroyed by racially discriminatory crack-cocaine laws that disproportionately sentenced people of color. However, the decision to give judges more power to use sentencing discretion is only a first step in correcting these clearly draconian laws that were constructed because of the politics of the drug war. I hope it sends a clear message to prosecutors that mandatory minimum sentences are a part of an archaic judicial structure that needs to be overhauled in the name of justice.

Anthony Papa

Communications Specialist

Drug Policy Alliance

New York

12/11/07

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=446&Itemid=1

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has acknowledged the obvious: that penalties for possession of "crack" cocaine, as opposed to the powdered kind, amount to racist law designed to disproportionately incarcerate African Americans. Despite the Sentencing Commission's recommendation that Congress repeal its racist crack cocaine laws, the U.S. Justice Department resists righting the historical wrong, warning that release of crack offenders would open "the flood gates of hell." Rather, Bush's demonic bureaucrats rush to defend the citadels of the American Black Prison Gulag, an abomination unmatched on the planet - slavery's incarnation in the 21^st Century.

Change Racist Crack Cocaine Laws

by Anthony Papa

"Only the U.S. Congress can eliminate the racist sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine."

This article previously appeared in Counterpunch.

Does the number 1 equal 100? In common math it does not, but when you are talking federal drug sentencing it unfortunately does. If you distribute just five grams of crack, it carries a minimum five-year federal prison sentence. If you distribute 500 grams of powder cocaine, it carries the same sentence. This 100:1 sentencing disparity has been condemned for its racially discriminatory impact by a wide array of criminal justice and civil rights groups. Hispanics and whites make up the majority of crack cocaine users, but the majority of those convicted under crack cocaine offenses are African Americans.

After many years of heated debate over the issue of crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing disparities, the U.S. Sentencing Commission decided to ease the penalties for crack on November 1, 2007. A hearing was held on November 13 to determine whether or not to apply retroactively recommended revisions to the federal guidelines that lowered the minimum sentences for crack cocaine-related offenses. If recommended, about 4,000 prisoners will be released this year by shaving an average of two years off their sentences, with almost 16,000 to follow. In theory, it would be the largest single act to reduce the sentences of federal prisoners.

"The Justice Department quickly put out a statement saying that the proposed changes to the law would put thousands of violent criminals back on the streets."

Critics were quick to exploit the age-old defensive argument that the flood gates of hell would be opened if such an action were to become law. The Justice Department quickly put out a statement saying that the proposed changes to the law would put thousands of violent criminals back on the streets. The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys warned that by freeing thousands of prisoners it would overburden prosecutors.  Advocates rebutted saying that if the law is passed it will be a small step towards mitigating the sentence disparity between crack and powder cocaine, which disproportionately affects people of color. Even federal judges like Chief Justice Robert Pratt of Iowa, has said that talk of a sudden large amount of freed prisoners was inflated, and that workloads should not prevent creating fair sentencing in crack cocaine cases that serves the interests of justice.

Some say that Congress probably did not set out to pass racially discriminatory crack cocaine laws some twenty years ago. Whether or not these laws were created with the intention of targeting African Americans, let's make no mistake about it: it has. Jasmine Tyler, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, said, "We are encouraged by the U.S. Sentencing Commission's commitment to do what is in their power to address harsh crack cocaine sentences, and we are hopeful that the Commission will apply this relief retroactively. However, only the U.S. Congress can eliminate the racist sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine sentences and we implore them to do so now."

"Pharmacologically they are the same drug."

The unfair sentencing that is in effect was enacted based on the many myths that surround crack use. These included media stories that told of a "crack baby" epidemic in the 1980s, stories now found to be greatly exaggerated or flat-out lies. Research now shows that factors such as smoking and drinking, malnutrition, inadequate sleep, and poverty are responsible for the many pre-natal ailments associated with crack use. Criminal penalties for possession and sales of cocaine are severe. But the penalties for crack cocaine are much more severe, despite the fact that pharmacologically they are the same drug. If these suggested changes, take affect and are applied retroactively, it will do a lot to balance the scales of justice in reforming a bad law that has dished out unfair sentences to people convicted of crack cocaine offenses.

Anthony Papa is the author of "15 to Life" and a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance. He can be contacted at tpapa@drugpolicy.org This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

____________

http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/inthemeantime/contentview.asp?c=204651

http://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/Commentary_1/Barry_Bonds_And_The_Drug_War.shtml

Barry Bonds And The Drug War
A Different Look At The BALCO Scandal

by Anthony Papa, tpapa@drugpolicy.org
POSTED: Nov 27, 2007

 

NEW YORK -- What does the war on drugs have to do with baseball? Just ask Barry Bonds who was just indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.   

Bonds is now facing up to 30 years in prison if convicted. Anti-doping advocates, including America’s deputy drug czar, are calling for jail time for baseball players who use steroids saying that it may be the only effective deterrent for curbing illegal use.

Let’s face it, while Bonds’s indictment for lying to a grand jury may have legal basis, the real underlying reason for this federal indictment four years after the BALCO investigation is their failure to get Bonds to admit he had used steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs. 

In that case a business named Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) was alleged to be distributing illegal performance -- enhancing drugs was investigated by several governmental agencies.  This resulted in a huge scandal which involved many major league baseball players and led to Major League Baseball initiating penalties for players caught using steroids in 2004.

Well now the government is ready to take down the home-run king along with the entire sport of baseball by pushing their personal agenda of a zero tolerance for drug use.

Travis Tygart, head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency thinks that Major League Baseball’s rules concerning the use of performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids don’t pack enough of a wallop in terms of functioning as a real deterrent.  He is rooting for Bonds to be imprisoned so it sends a clear message.

Imprisonment of record-breaking hitters like Bonds will not solve baseball’s problem. I know this is true because of the failed war on drugs. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. 

It has 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners, with more than 2.3 million citizens sitting behind bars, a rate of one in every 136 U.S. residents. 

About 55% of all federal and over 20% of all state prisoners are convicted of drug-law violations with many of them serving mandatory-minimum sentences for simple possession offences.  And despite all of the incarceration drug use and drug availability are as prevalent as ever.  Are we now going to add major league players to drug war statistics?

For the sake of argument, what if Bonds did use steroids?  Does he belong in jail? He is not the first athlete to use them and he will not be the last. The pursuit for athletic superiority through the use of chemicals has been around a long time.  Before steroids were officially banned in the early 1970’s, almost 70% of all Olympic athletes had used them.  

Is it ethical and morally right to sentence someone to a lengthy prison term for putting substances in their own bodies? The premise for prosecuting the other war with no exit strategy – the drug war -- has slowly but surely infiltrated the public’s eye through different vehicles.  

Now the feds attempt to bring their message through the sport of baseball.  Bonds joins the ranks of the demonized including medical marijuana users, pain sufferers and their doctors who prescribe opioid analgesics, and students who are forced to urinate in cups. All of this in the name of a drug-free America without concern for individuals’ rights.

At one time baseball was our obsession.  It was a sport that walked hand and hand with the American dream full of heroes of whom we could all be proud. 

Now the federal government, with its crusade against any and all drug use, has begun a new mission to alter our way of thinking no matter what the cost or how many lives are ruined. I say no to the government for trying to destroy our national past time and no to imprisoning a baseball king.
 

---

Anthony Papa is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance and the author of “15 to Life”.

 

Flash!  11/20/2207   Putting Pressure on the Sentencing Commission/  The op-ed below was published in the three cities where the sentencing commission held public hearings sending them a message to address Rockefeller Drug Law reform

Buffalo NY/ Albany NY/ NYC!

chambers’ arrest highlights need for further reforms
Buffalo News,  United States - Nov 14, 2007
by anthony papa robert chambers spent 15 years in prison for the notorious murder of jennifer levin, whom he claimed he accidentally strangled during rough ...

no time to waste in sentencing issue
Albany Times Union, NY - Nov 10, 2007
... details of his 1986 slaying case will have no sympathy for chambers. what's most outrageous about this case, though, is that chambers faces more time ...