December 7, 2000

By Michael R. Roona, Capitol District ReconsiDer

ReconsiDer is a grassroots not-for-profit membership organization that was incorporated in New York State by concerned citizens to provide a forum for discussing alternatives to one of America’s greatest public policy failures—the war on drugs.  Our tax-exempt mission is to educate the public about drugs and drug policies, including the problems caused by using criminal sanctions to regulate the distribution of drugs and alternatives to the use of criminal sanctions as regulatory policy instruments that are being employed by other democratic nations around the globe.  To that end, during the past year, in addition to participating in dozens of radio and television talk shows, we spoke with over 10,000 New York State residents at forums organized by Rotary Clubs, local chapters of The League of Women Voters, religious groups, Lions Clubs, and other civic-minded organizations. 

  While membership in ReconsiDer is open to all citizens concerned about drugs and problems related to their use and distribution, many of our members are professionals who have seen first hand both the harms caused by drugs and the harms caused by our prohibitionist drug policies.  Included among our members are police officers, addiction psychiatrists, judges, probation officers, teachers, and social workers.  Also included among our members are professors, policy analysts, criminologists, public health researchers, social scientists, and other scholars who have focused their research agendas on drug policies and related issues, including urban revitalization and youth development.  Most of our members, whether they have a professional interest in drug policy or not, are parents who are eager to see their children develop into healthy, happy adults capable of making a positive contribution to society.

  You heard testimony earlier today about the injustice some have suffered due to New York State’s harsh mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, about the massive growth of the state prison population during the past two decades, about the racially disproportionate impact of our current drug policies, and about the cost-effectiveness of treatment relative to incarceration.  While we believe changing sentencing guidelines or returning discretion to judges (as the Assembly Bills introduced by Luster and Aubrey would do) would be beneficial for some people, we are not convinced that sentencing reforms offer a credible solution to the drug problem. 

Mandatory sentencing guidelines were first instituted to ensure equality under the law.  They were designed to force judges to sentence wealthy, white, and well connected citizens convicted of a crime to the same sentence imposed on poor ethnic minorities isolated in ghettos who were convicted of that same crime.  Mandatory sentencing guidelines, however, have not resulted in sentencing parity.  Mandatory sentencing guidelines failed because they did not eliminate discretion from the process; they simply shifted discretion from judges to prosecutors.  We believe restoring judicial discretion would be cost-effective and just.  However, we do not believe the racially disproportionate effects of the war on drugs would be meaningfully altered by restoring judicial discretion or reducing mandatory minimum sentences.  Given that 94% of those serving time for drug crimes in NYS are Black or Hispanic, some reduction in the proportion of Blacks and Latinos incarcerated for drug crimes would be inevitable if judicial discretion was returned, but sizable racial disparities in incarceration would undoubtedly persist.

  As for treatment, offering treatment as an alternative to incarceration may be beneficial for those who need it, but the simple truth of the matter is that most drug users do not need treatment.  Most drug users are gainfully employed citizens who do not have a drug problem and are unlikely ever to develop a drug problem.  Most drug users are people like Al Gore and George W. Bush who “party hearty” during a certain period of their lives or use drugs moderately during the course of their lives without ever developing a drug problem.  Drug users like Al Gore and George W. Bush who are wealthy, white, and well connected are unlikely to ever get arrested, and those who do get arrested most likely can use their political connections to avoid a career damaging felony conviction that would destroy their ability to one day become President of the United States.  While Al Gore and George W. Bush may have benefited from participating in a drug court supervised treatment program if the only other option available to them was incarceration, it should be clear that the drug court alternative would simply have been the lesser of two evils.  Neither Al Gore nor George W. Bush needed treatment or court supervision.  Furthermore, despite widespread public support for drug courts and proposals like the one put forth by Chief Justice Judith Kaye, a recent study of Denver’s drug court published in the North Carolina Law Review by Morris Hoffman indicates that drug courts may increase the size of the prison population by supplementing the criminal justice system and capturing more its widening net rather than serving as an alternative to incarceration.

  We need to come to grips with the fact that drug use in America is the norm, not an exception, and that most people who use drugs are not significantly harmed by their drug use but would be significantly harmed by an encounter with the criminal justice system if arrested for their drug use.  To think otherwise given the backgrounds of Al Gore and George W. Bush is naïve. 

  The time has come to develop policies that reduce the harm caused by drugs and the violence fueled by the enormous profits made possible by selling drugs in the black market.  The illicit drug trade accounts for one-sixth of the world’s total economic activity.  Even if 95% of the cocaine destined for New York consumers was confiscated by law enforcement agencies, the 17,000% profit margin in the cocaine trade would ensure that cocaine dealers would still realize a profit.  Profits from the drug trade finance violent gangs, whose operations continue to expand throughout upstate New York, despite their stabilization in New York City.  In Albany’s Arbor Hill, Schenectady’s Hamilton Hill, Syracuse’s South Side, and many smaller, rural communities that lack sufficient resources to combat gangs, drug gang related violence has escalated in recent years and will continue to escalate unless the profits made possible by drug dealing are substantially reduced.

  Greater law enforcement efforts would by futile.  To imprison 100,000 drug users and sellers in New York State would cost over ten billion dollars for prison construction alone and another three billion dollars for annual operating expenses.  For a forty billion dollar ten year expenditure, the number of drug users and sellers on the streets would be reduced by about 10%, and gang related violence would not be reduced at all. 

  Our current drug laws have no deterrent effect on drug dealers because the profits are too great and the risk of apprehension too slight.  Similarly, our current laws do not deter drug addicts because drugs are an integral part of their lives and the possibility of imprisonment is irrelevant.  As for their deterrent effect on potential future drug users, our prohibitionist drug policies appear to be counterproductive.  Most youths report that it is easier to obtain illegal drugs than it is to obtain alcohol because the market for alcohol is regulated and the black market for drugs is not.

  New York can no longer afford to encourage the growth of violent gangs by supporting prohibitionist policies that make participating in the drug trade so lucrative.  The time has come to learn the lesson we should have learned from the era of alcohol prohibition.  Prohibition does not work.  It creates more problems than it solves.  We strongly encourage this task force to re-examine Senate Bill 4771 introduced by the late Senator Joseph Galiber on May 3, 1995 for a vision of how to solve many of the problems associated with drug use and eliminate drug trade related violence.  We believe there are many ways to improve upon Senator Galiber’s bill.  In particular, we believe substance abuse prevention activities should be fully integrated into any regulatory scheme that might be developed.  Unlike treatment and incarceration, which are both reactions to a problem, prevention is proactive.  Because prevention is proactive, it is potentially the most cost effective “solution” to the drug problem.  We look forward to working with visionary members of the NYS Senate to incorporate proactive prevention activities into reform legislation.

  Whether this task force considers our recommendation or not, we hope you will recognize that our future safety, our ability to revitalize urban areas, and the welfare of our children depend on getting rid of gangs.  We can best do this by destroying their source of financial support, namely, the enormous profits made possible by our prohibitionist drug policies.