Republicans Spread Misinformation On Rockefeller Drug Law Reforms

Republicans spreading misinformation? That's unpossible! (4.00 / 1)

At least it's not Dale Volker this time. That would have added an extra bit of rage to my day.  

---

by: Adama @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 13:55:36 PM CDT

You are wrong on the law and misinformed (0.00 / 0)

"As for the claim by Sen. Young that drug dealers would be allowed to teach in schools and work at day care facilities, I have never heard of a drug dealer who has gotten off easy."

The new laws are just recently in place. In fact, one is not eligible for "Judicial Diversion" until October. To say you have never heard of a drug dealer getting off so easy may be a product of where you live and your life experience. Or, it is a product of not knowing anyone treated under the new and forthcoming changes.

In the NYC courts there is/was a program called DTAP and there is/was TASC and other programs as well. I have worked in this field for some time and can tell you that very often low end drug dealers get wrongfully hammered. However, there were and will be more programs in place to avoid a term of incarceration for these people. Even someone who sells up to A2 weight (generally not low end seller) can get "shock" and be out in roughly six months. A person who sells crack or coke used to have to go to jail for a minimum of one year. Now they can avoid jail in its entirety (not on the A felonies). Make no mistake, prison is not required for first time drug dealers even if you sell 100 baggies of crack to 100 people as long as the weight is not A2 or A1 (and a few other factors). Read the statute and consult with an attorney to better understand the law.

In a follow up to "Judicial Diversion," starting around October judges, even over the objection of prosecutors, can divert a second time felony drug dealer to a program as long as the prior is not a violent felony. So, you may not have heard of it, but it can and will happen.

Another reality of the statute is that courts can conditionally seal the records (up to three prior misdemeanors) upon the completion of a drug program. While its intention is good, what may be lost on people who are not familiar with the criminal justice system is that very often, at least in NYC, defendants are made offers if it is their first time being arrested and charged with a drug offense. It is more than conceivable that a misdemeanor would result, although it is usually a lower end felony. Therefore, these prior drug sale arrests or drug possession arrests would get sealed. As a parent I would certainly want to know that the person working in my child's school was convicted for selling drugs and had three prior misdemeanors as well. What if the person possessed a switchblade and a scale in his apartment when a search warrant was issued? Those crimes are misdemeanors so unless the defendant pleaded to the entire indictment only the plea to the drug offense would be on his "record." Far from atypical, is it therefore ok to clean the slate of this? At least, shouldn't an employer or parent have the ability to know that there was a drug conviction even if they would never know of the "lesser" crimes? No?

Lastly, your statement that "[d]ealing drugs is worse than just being found in possession of drugs." is not completely accurate. PL 220.16 makes it a "B" felony to possess drugs with the intent to sell. No sale is required. This possession is a bad as the sale. Moreover, if you possess 500 mg, 1/8 of an ounce or other amounts, you face a felony. Yes, you are correct that a sale is bad - in fact an automatic felony, but possession is often just as bad.

Bottom line - scare tactics are just that...scare tactics, but like it or not there is truth to their statements. If you sell drugs, complete a program and have up to three prior misdemeanors removed from your record, parents, hospitals, etc. should have a right to know. Employers should be able to know who is working in their offices. Treatment and alternatives to incarceration are critically important, but the prior convictions and current conviction should be made available in certain contexts. Just wait until someone fs up and gets sued because of it.

BTW - I used to work with drug abusers and dealers as well with attorneys. I deal with these issues of law regularly.I have worked with the substance abusers and do believe many of them need true help. Reform was a long time coming. However, these crimes do not exist on an island. They are associated with horrific crimes.

My name is Allen T and I approve this message. Paid for by me - no, not the GOP... ;)

---

by: 123allent @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 14:05:49 PM CDT

Where I come from... (0.00 / 0)

We have a drug problem. That drug problem exists because they have spilled out from the prisons (there is a state prison in my county) and because they have moved to the rural areas from Rochester and Buffalo. The dealers that come in are hardened criminals. The people who buy the drugs because they are addicted need help, but won't get it if they are just put in jail or prison and left there and treated as a violent offender.

I know that the big cities and urban areas have their problems too, but the drug problem in the rural areas is why the Republicans are jumping on this and making this an issue. They are using this as a scare tactic. There is nothing true about what they say. Drug dealers wouldn't become teachers under this provision. Unless, of course, that drug dealer hasn't served in prison and has their Master's degree in education (or are pursuing such a degree).

You also have to remember that most employers do test for drugs, some prior to employment and others randomly during your employment. So if you are still on drugs, your employer will find out on their own. My mom does the hiring at her store and she has told stories of people coming in and she will ask them if they can pass a drug test. Most of them will say yes because they are able to. The ones that can't either say so or they don't come back.

I do believe you, Allen T., are from New York City. You know, up here in the rural areas, we have people who are really Democrats put register Republican just to get by. I'm sure New York City has the same problem, especially after discussions with you.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 14:55:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again - Let us stick to facts (0.00 / 0)

There is truth to what the Republicans say and a lack of knowledge on your part (hence, your misinformation).

People who buy drugs are not treated as violent offenders. PL 220.03 is a misdemeanor possession charge that users are charged with baring them having larger amounts (therefore, more likely that there is a sale associated or intent to sell 500 mg of actual cocain, 1/8, 4 oz, etc). A real user who is buying nickles and dimes is charged with this offense. Under the law, no matter how many times they are convicted, the maximum they could receive is 1 year and there is no mandatory term of incarceration. In otherwords, the law permits them to get a conditional discharge, community service, etc. I don't have the statistics in front of me as to pleas, but the policy in at least 4 of the boros in NYC is to offer a disorderly conduct violation for first time offense (no criminal record - no plea to a drug offense and it is sealed to the public). Even second or third time offenders get this as well. Defendants are not being treated like violent offenders. You are wrong. Violent offenders are sentenced to mandatory terms of imprisonment, have post release supervision, etc. You need to educate yourself beyond a few cases you read in the paper.

While I agree, for whatever it is worth, that it is not likely a teacher would also be a"street" level dealer, there are still real issues. What if the custodian, bus driver, office administrator or even a teacher had been convicted of selling a prescription drug. Let's say the custodian had a conviction for selling cocaine and three prior's for misdemeanor possession. As I noted before, because pleas are almost always to the top count of an indictment, there would not be a plea in many circumstances to "lesser" crimes such as the weapon possession or paraphernalia charges. Shouldn't a hospital, school, or any business be able to find that out and fully vet their employees especially if children or elderly are the client base? It is up to them how they use the information, but shouldn't they be permitted to know who they are hiring?

You are mixing up issues. It is not whether or not they are currently using a controlled substance, but what they have done in the past. Shouldn't your mother know that the person she is potentially hiring had 3 to 4 prior convictions? I have to re-read the statute (therefore I may be wrong), but what if the prior misdemeanor is for a theft related offense? Shouldn't an employer have the right to know to protect his or her other employees if chose to hire this person?

You can continue to attack me about whether I am a Dem or a Rep. It doesn't faze me at all. The reality is you are myopic in your views that are colored in part by hate, part by ignorance and part be a true belief you are always right. Your view will certainly change in many ways (not necessarily to agree with me at all) as you grow up, experience life, have a family, pay taxes, etc. just do yourself a favor and use facts. The fact here is you are wrong not in your opinion but as to the basis (those who purchase drugs are not treated life violent offenders).

In short, READ THE STATUTE. Talk to a criminal defense attorney. Educate yourself. We can agree to disagree then, but don't shoot from the hip with the facts.

Again, the issue is not whether they are currently using drugs or are clean at the time of a drug test. The issue is information.

---

by: 123allent @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 13:17:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so much for saving taxpayer dollars (0.00 / 0)

We will save money if the drug laws are lessened in favor of less incarceration.

As for teaching,  I do not see what the difference teaching between a drug dealer and a pharmacist, except for morals.

---

by: krone5 @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 18:21:42 PM CDT

I'II Agree! (0.00 / 0)

That drug problem exists because they have spilled out from the prisons (there is a state prison in my county) and because they have moved to the rural areas from Rochester and Buffalo. The dealers that come in are hardened criminals. The people who buy the drugs because they are addicted need help, but won't get it if they are just put in jail or prison and left there and treated as a violent offender. Residents of the great state of Wisconsin wishing to no longer be bedeviled with annoying telemarketers are urged to sign up for the Wisconsin No Call List.  Those already on the Wisconsin No Call List are urged to renew, at nocall.wisonsin.gov, where they can, for free and without needing no faxing payday loans, make it so it is illegal for them to get called to try and sell them magazines, long distance, or underwater woven baskets.  No call lists, including the federal lists, have been popular, as very few people like to get telemarketing calls.  It's great to know that you don't need debt relief to get on a no call list, especially those on the Wisconsin No Call List.

---

by: henry09 @ Sat May 30, 2009 at 04:15:22 AM CDT

So where is the Senate Press shop?! (0.00 / 0)

Whether it's the Rockefeller Drug Laws or the MTA agreement and the budget, the Senate Republicans have been on the attack with lies. This is the party of Osama Bin Laden with a driver's license. And those mailings went out on the public's dime. So where are the Dems?

It can't all be attributed to a lack of funding. Much of the Repubs' lie-spreading appears on the op ed pages of local papers and weeklies. And in their newsletters. Free media. Where are the Senate Dems on these pages? This is most critical in swing districts where there should also be targeted mailings.

There seems to be no strategy to sell the public on what's being done--as in cleaning up the years of mismanagement. The public must be reminded that the Bruno Pataki years are kind of like, um, the Bush years. The American public is giving Obama lots of room on this. Why can't the Senate Dems play the same card?

How about this: WWOD? Obama would have the public chanting "Drop the Rock," b/c every one of us would know the truth about the RDL abuses and expenses--with no relief of the underlying/systemic problems of the drug economy.

It's one thing to fight for Senate control; it's another to maintain it. Please--all of you Albany Senate press folks, PLEASE get aggressive. And stay on message.  

---

by: LOBlue @ Sat May 30, 2009 at 05:46:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]