A new approach to drug policy: drug law reform act - Research Paper Example

? A New Approach to Drug Policy: Drug Law Reform Act An Urban Research Policy Paper This is a Partial Requirement to the Fulfillment of: PMAP 3011 - Policy and Public Politics in the American City Introduction In the late 1960’s to early 1970’s, law makers in New York faced a great challenge on drug problems regarding its growing number that they feared to be out of their control as well as command (Lui, 2009). With a number of approximately 559,000 drug users, it is in no doubt that a dilemma in drugs was inevitable during that time and it even increased by up to 31% by 1972. With these large number of felonious acts, it is just normal for the government to take an action on the situation to stop the spreading phenomenon and to eradicate the problem as well, as much as possible. Nelson Rockefeller, the Governor of New York that time, established a separate commission to deal on matters of narcotic drugs. The so-called “Narcotic Addiction and Control Commission of 1967” is assumed to be ineffective and ineffective to solve the predicaments on drug trafficking and drug addiction. There are also financial difficulties that this commission encounters – it is somehow expensive to make the commission to operate. Because of this uncontrolled situation on rugs in New York during that time, the government bona fides to implement a stricter policy to deal with the issue, assuming that it will solve the problem more effectively. Because of the futile results of the first actions made like the Narcotic Addiction and Control Commission and the Methodone Maintenance Program, the government makes itself to believe that the state should have a strict policy – harsh enough for it to be noticed and feared. As a result, a drug policy known as the Rockefeller Drug law (RDL) was enacted under the term of former Governor Nelson Rockefeller in 1973. This law creates a uniformity of sentences with a minimum of 15 years to reclusion perpetua to a maximum period of 25 years to reclusion perpetua regardless of the degree of the offense that the person had committed. It also prohibits the Judge’s discretion on Judicial matters regarding drug cases, thus, mitigating circumstances as well as aggravating circumstances like recidivists and other factors provided by the law is in no effect. On the other hand, the state of Michigan, under the former Governor Hugh Carey also implemented a drug policy known as the “650-lifer law” in 1978 (Canfield, 2009). This law utters a condition that if ever a person is condemned in carrying drugs; weighing 650 grams will be facing the ruthless sentence of life imprisonment and even death. These laws are well-known of its ruthless drug chastisement and even recognized by many to be the harshest drug policy ever existed in America. Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA) as a Public Policy Kilpatrick, a PhD defines public policy in his web article entitled Definition of Public Policy and the Law as a “system of laws, regulatory measures, courses of actions, and funding priorities concerning a given topic promulgated by governmental entities or its representatives.” In lay-man’s term, we can describe public policy as anything that the government does that affects the public. With these definitions, it is right to say that the DLRA is a public policy that the government constituted to have a safety measures in dealing with drug offenders and other related issues. Also, an action to reconstruct the brutal provision of sentence and to correct the flaws created by the RDL. In 2004, George Pataki (former Governor of New York) amended the well-known Rockefeller Drug Law and took into effect the Drug Law reform Act. What the DLRA does is the revision of the obligatory minimum sentence from 15 years to 8 years. It also revives the personal discretion of the Judge on matter of drugs and allowed the convicted person to apply for re-sentencing. The law is created primarily to solve the discrepancies of a harsh and ineffective drug law. As current Governor of New York, David Paterson said in his state of the sate address “I cannot think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller Drug Laws.” Moreover, the Drug Policy Alliance in their website criticized several injustices and flaws that the law (RDL) had produced. These are: Waste of lives; extreme racial disparities; distorting the judicial system; and preventing the diversion to effective alternative-to-incarceration programs. The RDL, though harsh, is also an ineffective method to deal on drug problems because it does not really prevent drug crimes to occur and on the other hand, it also faced a number of human and civil rights violations. For the DPA’s treatment-not-incarceration law, it is believed and proven to be far more effective and produces a better and resilient results on drug cases. “Because the Rockefeller took away the power of the Judge to use his discretion on cases of drugs – their (Judges) ability to divert people convicted of drug offenses from imprisonment to community based programs like drug treatment, education and vocational programs which have proven to be far more effective and cheaper than prison at reducing recidivism and preventing drug misuse and abuse were restricted” - Drug Policy Alliance. Drug Law Reform Act: A By-Product of Pluralist “Group” Policy Model In this part, we shall see that the DLRA is a by-product of a pluralist “group” model. The law is made because primarily of the growing objectors of the Rockefellers Drug Law. This (DLRA) policy, in some ways, seems to be under incremental model, corroborating the RDL but what lacks is the essence of the laws itself. Incremental policy, from the word itself means adding to or supplementing to the fist policies to achieve the desired result or to somehow strengthen the prior policy. Because the Drug Law Reform Act in a deeper sense does not complement the Rockefeller Drug Law but rather repeal the same, then it can not be categorized to be under the incremental model. As I am reading the articles regarding the RDL and how the DLRA was formed, I am thinking of which of the two models would best fit to analyze the mentioned drug policy. I am choosing between the elite and the pluralist model. According to the facts that I gathered, there are those that complements the elite model and other complementing the pluralist model. Though it is possible to view this policy in two different ways, I just chose the one that weight heavier in terms of evidences that I draw together. According to the article in the TIME magazine, celebrity artist like Russell Simons, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon fight for the cause of mercy penal system. It is also point outs in the article that many activists as well as legislators are demanding for a better drug policy and to abolish the insensitive law that even penalizes even the non-violent accused to an irrelevant penalty. This growing population of protester together with other well-known organization like the Drug Policy Alliance urged former New York Governor George Pataki to enact the Drug Law Reform Act. A Pluralist”Group” Model Let us now further discuss on pluralist “group” model to have a deeper understanding why it is more appropriate to use this as a tool of policy analysis for the chosen topic. So First, what is a Pluralist model? From the word group/pluralist, means a collection or an assembly. A civilian individual in the society can hardly be heard nor cannot create a pressure to influence the government or any policy-making bodies, thus, it needs to incorporate itself to other more people to make a sound in the country – forming what we call now what we call the pressure or interest groups. These integrating numbers of people are now the primary actors in the policy-making models. They come up together to voice out their causations in a more potential approach, thus, empowering itself to cultivate laws that would be favor their interests. As we have observed, pressure groups are classified based on what are their main objectives or what are the rights they want to fight in the country. In this model (Pluralist), we can conceptualize the state being a weighing scale, what can be noticed are ones who weight heavier. This just implies that the pressure groups or any other groups who makes a greater pressure are the ones that are most commonly demands being prioritized first in the policy-making. The power in here to be heard does not rely on wealth but primarily on the resources (Human resources in particular) to create an influential personality to shape policies. In a lighter sense, who rule the state is the general people (Democracy). In a structural form, the groups are equated to the level of the government wherein, assemblies are competing to get the attention of the government to be in-favor for their interest. Looking at our policy study (Drug Law Reform Act) there are also groups of people who are fighting for a lenient penal system for drug offenders. They point-out that it is injustice for the non-violent delinquent to serve a brutal sentence in jail. The actors that we can see in the policy making scenario would be the growing activists, the drug policy alliance and we can include the several celebrities mentioned demanding for a new lenient drug law. As a result of this advocacy, the DLRA was enacted. Conclusion It is still right to assume that people has the power to rule the state, regardless of the suffrage rights. Voices must just be loud enough to direct the state and to mold the system. We can say that the Rockefeller Drug Law can be viewed in a positive manner, that it can be a solution to drug related problems by threatening those delinquents not to offend the law even to the slightest way because provoked by the law. Yet, there are still means and ways by which, we can be leaders of our own country despite what form of government the state have. The Drug Law Reform Act can be set as an example so as long the pressure made by the citizens is strong enough, then it could make a change. In a wider scope, we can notice that even the people can out-power their fundamental law and change their structural system by grouping themselves together to fight for their right. We can see this in the cases of Egypt and the Philippines known to be as the “people power”. They change their form of government by uniting together and fight the strong force of government. Well, nothing is impossible in politics because laws, structures, states and even politics itself is just a product of human, and the ones who change it, is of course, humans too. What differ now from before are the powers that have created by ourselves that was granted by the people in authority through suffrage. But this does not hinder the people to rule their own land; they just need each other to be heard. As the saying goes “a house divided into pieces cannot stand alone, but if these pieces are joined together - it can build something that even a heavy storm cannot broke apart.” References Bottomore, T. (1993). Elites and Society. (2nd ed. ). London: Routledge. Connoly, W. E. (1995). The Ethos of Pluralization. Minnesota: University of Minesota Press. Schattscheneider, E. E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People (p. 35). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lui, I. J. (2009, January). Paterson once arrested over Rockefeller drug law reform. Times Union. Retrieved from http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/10410/paterson-once-arrester-over-rockefeller-drug-law-reform. Canfield, D. (2009, October). Drug Law Reforms in Place. The Record. Retrieved from http://www.troyrecords.com/articles/2009/10/08/news/doc4acd51a65865d885789894.txt. Background on New York’s draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. (2010, January). Retrieved from http://drugpolicy.org/docUploads/ndny_rdlbackground.pdf. Read More