I didn't see it myself, but I've gotten a few panicked calls from people who watched WMUR last week to hear Scott Spradling announce that a marijuana bill had been defeated.  They thought the popular marijuana reform bill, HB 1623, had gone down in an unexpected "surprise" vote of the New Hampshire House.

"New Hampshire Says No to Drugs" was the headline, I'm told.  The bill being referred to was HB 1567, a well-intentioned but badly-conceived piece of legislation that only received one vote in committee.  As a matter of fact, I testified against it myself on behalf of the New Hampshire Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy.  It was placed without objection on the consent calendar, where it died in a single vote along with hundreds of other bills deemed unworthy of a floor debate.  Even the bill's sponsors were accepting of the committee's decision to pursue HB 1623 and drop HB 1567; either could have pulled HB 1567 from the consent calendar and spoken for it on the floor, but they did not choose to do so.  My point is that the death of this bill was not news.

But don't take my word for the committee's.  Here's the blurb from the House calendar:

HB 1567-FN, permitting the possession of marijuana in certain quantities.  INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. John E Tholl for Criminal Justice and Public Safety:  This bill would have allowed any person to posses .25 oz of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes and would exempt them from arrest.  The committee felt that the appropriate bill to discuss the reduction in penalties would be HB 1623 and, therefore, found this bill Inexpedient to Legislate.  Vote 14-1.

Over 200 bills were passed or killed in one unanimous "consent calendar" vote March 5.  Although you may have seen it on the news, there was no news in the defeat of HB 1567. 

The real vote on HB 1623 is expected next week, so stay tuned...

 

Thursday's subcommittee hearing for HB 1623, the bill to reduce penalties for marijuana possession in New Hampshire, set the stage for what proved to be an ultimately productive exchange between supporters, opponents, and legislators.  My personal thanks go to Rep. John Tholl (R-Whitefield), who chaired the subcommittee and made sure everybody present got to speak.

The bill we are discussing proposes only a very small increment of reform to the state's marijuana laws (this is even more true now that it has been amended down to 1/4 ounce from 1.25 ounces -- details at NHCommonSense.org), but the conversation surrounding this bill is very necessary.  In fact, it is long overdue.

It was nice to see this desire for conversation shared by Rep. David Welch (R-Kingston), who joined with Rep. Ellen Neilsen (D-Claremont) and Tholl in the 3-1 majority recommending "Ought to Pass," with Rep. Delmar Burridge (D-Keene) opposed.

"It's time to have a meaningful, substantive debate on this issue once again, and this subcommittee vote will guarantee that happens,'' Welch told the Nashua Telegraph.

So now that we're talking, what do we talk about?

Policy, that's what.  This isn't about getting high -- we all know that anybody who wants to smoke marijuana is able to do so with little trouble.  Nearly four decades of aggressive Marijuana Prohibition have not reduced the use of marijuana or  even its availability to teens, most of whom say it is much easier to get than alcohol. 

Instead, I want to begin with a quote from William F. Buckley, Jr., who has been called the "patron saint" or even the "father" of modern conservatism.  "Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could," he said.

Buckley was certainly no fan of marijuana or the counterculture with which it was then strongly associated.  He endorsed social mechanisms (e.g. employer drug testing) to discourage marijuana use, but observed that an outright prohibition on marijuana created severe unintended consequences which, all told, dwarfed the harms caused by marijuana use. 

Let's examine a few of those unintended consequences:

The Black Market

The most obvious negative consequence associated with Marijuana Prohibition is that it creates a lucrative black market.  Truly, no group of individuals would be more upset by an outright repeal of Marijuana Prohibition than the state's top 20 marijuana dealers.  Marijuana is the #2 cash crop in our state, with an estimated $10 million worth grown here each year, and a lot more than $10 million worth comes into New Hampshire from Canada, Mexico, and other U.S. states.  Our marijuana policy makes some of the worst people in the world filthy rich, and nobody pays a dime in taxes on any of these transactions.

By contrast, consider alcohol, a substance which would be completely illegal if it was discovered today, but which is sold by our own state government in roadside stores.  Alcohol was criminalized in 1920 and relegalized in 1933 -- not because people in 1933 decided alcohol was a good thing, but because it became clear that Prohibition policy made things worse instead of better.  Today, our policies basically send the right message: that responsible drinking will be tolerated and reckless or violent behavior will not.  We enforce our laws against assault, domestic abuse, child neglect,  and DWI, and we understand that those problems are more manageable when they aren't exacerbated by the unintended consequences of Prohibition.

Gateway Effect

The most frequently repeated argument against marijuana policy reform is that marijuana somehow causes people to try harder drugs.  Of course, if you ask people who use heroin what illegal substance they tried first, they're likely to say marijuana.  Marijuana, after all, is the illegal substance that is widely available and generally recognized for its safety in contrast to "hard drugs."  Any young person who wants to experiment with an intoxicant will likely be drawn to marijuana or alcohol first, but alcohol's legal status usually exempts it from being regarded as a possible "gateway drug."

In reality, the "gateway drug" is simply whatever's available.  If young people can't find marijuana because of a temporary disruption in the marketplace, they often try other substances.  They sniff glue, huff gasoline, take their grandparents' prescription drugs, etc., and sometimes they wind up dead.  When I read about instances such as the UNH freshman who died in December huffing a can of whipped cream, I can't help being reminded of the fact that nobody ever dies from marijuana.  Seriously, zero known deaths from overdose.  (It's true that some people die from doing stupid things after smoking, but nobody suggests getting rid of laws against impaired driving -- that is a different issue altogether.)

If there is a gateway effect associated with marijuana, it's not caused by the substance itself but by the criminal marketplace.  Since all marijuana sellers are criminals by definition, it's no surprise that some of these criminals are so unscrupulous as to encourage their marijuana clients to try harder substances which fetch higher profits.  It's also worth noting that unlike alcohol sellers, marijuana sellers don't usually ask for ID.  We could change all that, but doing so would require shifting to a radically different policy.

Forbidden Fruit Theory

It's widely assumed that Marijuana Prohibition deters marijuana use, but that doesn't seem to be the case in reality.  Admittedly, there are some individuals who refrain from trying marijuana simply because it's illegal.  In the absence of Prohibition, it seems likely that most of these individuals would be deterred by health concerns and the continuing social stigma against marijuana use.  On the other hand, prohibition policy dramatically increases the allure of marijuana to rebellious-minded teens. 

Don't believe me?  Consider this: In Amsterdam, where pot is essentially legal, only about a third of teens try the stuff.  The Netherlands' public health minister says their marijuana policy has "made pot boring" for teens.  Go figure.

Misallocation of Resources

From an entirely practical perspective, Buckley lamented the "extraordinary diversion of effort that might have been put into keeping Mrs. So-and-so from being raped, or Mrs. So-and-so from being murdered."  He was right -- law enforcement resources would be more appropriately spent dealing with activities all citizens regard as criminal.  This ought to be common sense.

Respect for the Law

In a 1921 essay called “My First Impressions of the U.S.A.,” Albert Einstein had already observed the course Alcohol Prohibition would take: “The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."

Does anybody really think Marijuana Prohibition can be effectively enforced?

Undermining Drug Education

When what kids learn in school about marijuana does not equate with what they observe in their classmates who experiment, a credibility gap is created.  And when that first joint doesn't lead a young person down the path to "insanity, criminality, and death" (as predicted by the film Reefer Madness), warnings against other drugs  may be dismissed as well, with potentially dire consequences.

When I was a young person undergoing "drug education" in school, anybody who distrusted the authorities would have to develop some good research skills to find out the truth about various substances.  Today, kids can just look things up on the internet, and when what they find isn't anything like what they hear from the D.A.R.E. program (brainchild of former L.A. police chief Daryl Gates, who once infamously said "casual drug users should be taken out and shot"), they tune out the authorities and seek their own truth.  Ultimately, the law enforcement community will not be able to regain its lost credibility with young people until Marijuana Prohibition is abandoned.

Medicine Worse than the Cough

If marijuana use is truly a disease, let's contemplate the "cure" proposed by an arrest and a criminal conviction.  I've known several people who have been busted for marijuana; some have been friends, while others were my students in the 7 years I was a college instructor.  In no instance have I ever seen any person's life be improved by a marijuana arrest.  It does not improve the individual's life, and it does not improve the life of any person connected to that individual.  This is why they developed the slogan at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.): "You can get over an addiction, but you can't get over a conviction."  A conviction will follow a person around forever, and nobody benefits from this.  The ripple effects of screwing with one person's life can be dangerous for society as a whole, especially when incarceration is a possibility.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, passage of HB 1623 will not improve very many of these problems.  The black market will continue to thrive, marijuana will continue to be cast as a "forbidden fruit," thousands of users will continue to purchase marijuana from criminals, and lots of people (especially young people) will continue to view police officers with contempt because of the policies they enforce.

However, the bill will minimize to some extent the harms caused by Marijuana Prohibition.  There will be young people who are caught with less than .25 ounces of marijuana, and with this offense reclassified as a violation, the arrest will be less likely to jeopardize their chances at finding employment or receiving financial aid for college.  There may even be a slight reallocation of police resources, a slight unclogging of our court system, and a slight fiscal savings, all of which will surely add up to something. 

Most importantly, we are finally having the right conversation, and the media is having it as well.  I'll conclude by recommending the following segment from Arnie Arnesen's Feb. 3 "Political Chowder," which featured the sponsors of HB 1623 along with New Hampshire's newest L.E.A.P. speaker, Superintendent Rick Van Wickler of the Cheshire County Department of Corrections:

 

(I've been too busy to write anything for NHInsider, but I will post this excellent op-ed from Monday's Foster's Daily Democrat.  Excellent observations by Paul Armentano!)

Pot proposal simply acknowledges reality 

As a native New Englander, I've followed New Hampshire's brewing debate over marijuana law enforcement with close interest. As someone who has examined the impact of marijuana laws on human behavior for more than a dozen years, I'm supportive of those who wish to reclassify minor pot offenses from a criminal misdemeanor to a civil fine.

According to government surveys, an estimated 98 million Americans — nearly half the U.S. population — have smoked marijuana. Clearly, criminal prohibitions outlawing pot possession have done little to curb Americans' desire for, use of or access to this drug. Conversely, enforcing this prohibition has incurred significant fiscal and emotional costs.

In 2006, the last year for which national data is available, law enforcement arrested over 829,000 persons for marijuana violations ­ the highest annual total ever recorded. Of those arrested, approximately 90 percent were charged with minor marijuana possession only, not trafficking or sale.

Of course, not everyone busted for possessing small amounts of pot receives jail time — most do not. But that doesn't mean that they don't suffer significant hardships stemming from their arrest. Seldom emphasized penalties associated with a minor marijuana conviction include probation and mandatory drug testing, loss of employment, loss of child custody, removal from subsidized housing, asset forfeiture, loss of federal student aid, loss of voting privileges, loss of adoption rights, and the loss of certain federal welfare benefits such as food stamps. Thousands of Americans suffer such sanctions every day — at a rate of one person every 38 seconds.

New Hampshire legislators can end this counterproductive practice by moving forward with legislation, House Bill 1623, that would replace existing criminal sanctions with civil penalties, punishable by a fine only.

Specifically, this bill would impose a civil penalty of no more than $200 upon first-time offenders found guilty of possessing up to 1.25 ounces of marijuana. (Under current law the possession or of any amount of cannabis is a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine.) Numerous states, including Maine, Mississippi, and Ohio have had similar policies on the books for over two decades.

Naturally, critics of such a move warn that decriminalizing cannabis will increase pot use among New Hampshire's young people. Such concerns, while understandable, are not supported by epidemiological evidence. Passage of similar legislation elsewhere has not led to increased marijuana use or altered adolescents' perceptions regarding the potential harms of drug use.

In fact, the only U.S. government study ever commissioned to assess whether the enforcement of strict legal penalties positively impacts marijuana use found, "Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people."

Most recently, a 2008 state-sponsored report by the city of Seattle, Wash., found that the implementation of a 2003 voter-approved ordinance making investigation and prosecution of minor marijuana offenders the city's "lowest law enforcement priority" has not been associated with any increase in drug-related crimes or drug use.

Since the law's passage, there has been "no evident increase in marijuana use among youth and young adults; no evident increase in crime; and no adverse impact on public health" the report found. In addition, "There is some evidence of arguably positive effects of the implementation of I-75, [including,] fewer adults experiencing the consequences of involvement in the criminal justice system due to their personal use of marijuana; and a small reduction in the amount of public safety resources dedicated to marijuana possession cases and a corresponding slight increase in availability of these resources for other public safety priorities."

Millions of Americans and tens of thousands of New Hampshire's citizens have used marijuana at some point in their lives. Most consume cannabis responsibly, in the privacy of their own homes, and in a manner similar to alcohol. House Bill 1623 reflects this reality rather than denying it.

Paul Armentano
Deputy Director
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
Washington, D.C.

(Edited version published in the Concord Monitor.) 

Last Tuesday's hearing on HB 1623, the bill to reduce penalties for marijuana possession, made for some interesting drama in the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.  Those speaking in favor of the bill included a county prison superintendent, an active duty New Hampshire police officer, a Dartmouth medical student, and a cadre of citizens who argued that marijuana is a less harmful substance than alcohol.  Opposition was voiced only by the state Attorney General's office and the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police.  (Video and media links are at NHCommonSense.org).

The most eye-opening statement of the entire hearing came not from any of the bill's numerous supporters, but from Berlin Police Chief Peter Morency, president of the Association of Chiefs.    It happened when Rep. Timothy Robertson  (D-Keene) asked Morency if, following the logic of marijuana prohibition, he would be in favor of reinstituting Alcohol Prohibition.

To the astonishment of virtually everybody in the room, Morency didn't say no.  "Knowing what it (alcohol) causes to families, I certainly would consider it," he told the committee members.  "But I can't go there -- it's something that's legal now, and we have a huge financial burden as a result of it."

 

I truly hope Morency is alone among New Hampshire police chiefs in his unfortunate misunderstanding of history.  Alcohol Prohibition is accurately described in every textbook as one of the most disastrous social policy failures in U.S. history, and the financial burden of policing the newly created black market proved to be exponentially higher than the financial burden of enforcing legitimate laws governing reckless and aggressive behavior.  In fact, reckless and aggressive behavior associated with alcohol increased during the Prohibition years. 

The taxation and regulation of alcohol has been a great success in New Hampshire and across the United States.  The problems caused by irresponsible drinkers are dealt with by law enforcement, violent gangs no longer control any piece of the alcohol marketplace, and the term "police corruption" is no longer associated with alcohol, except in historical reference to Alcohol Prohibition. 

Despite the fact that alcohol is a dangerous drug, a drug which is strongly associated with assaults, domestic violence, and severely impaired driving, the people of New Hampshire know better than to believe government has any right to stop adults from drinking.  Fortunately, many members of the law enforcement and criminal justice community have come to understand that prohibition is a failure for marijuana as well (a less dangerous drug, by any honest scientific standard), and the organization known as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is growing by leaps and bounds.

We hope to one day convince the chiefs of police and others in the law enforcement and criminal justice community that Marijuana Prohibition simply creates more problems than it solves.  In the meantime, I expect the citizens of New Hampshire would appreciate some assurance that the individuals who enforce New Hampshire's laws do not secretly covet a return to the violent, crime and corruption-ridden days of Alcohol Prohibition.