NH INSIDER

The Concord Monitor, Nashua Telegraph, Union-Leader, and Seacoast Online newspapers have all editorialized in favor of HB 648 this year. Today the Telegraph explicitly called for Governor Lynch's signature. The editorial speaks for itself:

Governor, the time has come to do the right thing. Supporters of this bill have done everything you have asked. There is only one thing left to do.

Sign the bill.

 

There have been rumors that Governor Lynch intends to veto the medical marijuana bill, but it's important to remember that these are just rumors. Lynch has promised he will study the bill before making a decision, and supporters of HB 648 have to trust that he will do exactly that.

For the seriously ill patients who live in fear of being arrested and jailed by New Hampshire police, and for other patients who choose to suffer rather than break the law, the rumors are obviously cause for concern. However, if Governor Lynch listens to the same compelling evidence and testimony that convinced the House and Senate, we have to believe he will ultimately decide that the amended bill should pass into law.

Now that other state policy issues have been mostly settled, one way or another, please take a minute to read the latest news on HB 648 and express your opinion to Governor Lynch.  Calls and emails DO make a difference!

Here's a detailed article exploring Vermont's medical marijuana program.

Key quote:

"According to the Vermont State Police, the program has been an unqualified success. Except for one arrest in October 2008, of a registry member in Stowe who was allegedly growing too many plants, none of the sinister scenarios initially envisioned by law enforcement have come to pass. The state has seen no spikes in larcenies, assaults, car accidents, teen drug use or organized crime."

As WMUR reports, a new UNH Granite State Poll shows broad support for medical marijuana. 

According to the article, "45 percent of residents said they were more likely to vote for a Senate candidate who supports legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes."  Only 24 percent said they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate, and 26 percent said it would make no difference.

The complete poll results are available here.  This new data would seem to corroborate the 2008 poll which found strong bipartisan support (87% of Democrats, 72% of Independents, 56% of Republicans) for allowing medical marijuana.

As we know, medical reform is still very controversial in one area of the state -- a small area between Capitol Street and Park Street in Concord.  Everywhere else, people generally understand that seriously ill patients should not be considered criminals if they use marijuana to relieve their suffering.

Now that the Senate Health and Human Services Committee has voted 4-1 to recommend HB 648, the decision will rest with the full Senate and the Governor. 

Does public opinion matter to these decision-makers?  Does common sense?  We'll find out soon enough, but first, they need to hear from you!

In previous years, opponents of medical marijuana reform argued rather strongly that marijuana has no legitimate medical uses. This year, since seven New Hampshire patients, a prominent Vermont neurologist, and other experts presented convincing medical testimony in favor of HB 648 at the House hearing, most opponents have held tightly to the argument that the bill would create a conflict with federal law.

The potential for such conflict did not frighten the House, which passed the bill in a 234-138 vote March 25. It did, however, raise a few eyebrows.

After all, "conflict" is a pretty strong word. Most of us would like to have less conflict in our lives, not more. So, before New Hampshire becomes the 14th state to stop threatening patients with arrest, is it true? Do state medical marijuana laws conflict with federal law?

The answer is no. For a useful contrast, we should consider an issue which presents a true conflict between state and federal law: Real ID.

The Real ID Act of 2005 mandated that each of the 50 states must participate in a national driver's license system. If any states did not comply by a certain date, this federal law threatened that those states' driver's licenses would no longer be accepted as identification at airports or federal buildings.

Outraged by the potential threat to privacy and civil liberties posed by a centralized ID card system, a coalition formed to suggest that New Hampshire shouldn't knuckle under to the federal government. Rather than rolling over and accepting Real ID, in 2007 the New Hampshire legislature decided to take aggressive action. HB 685 passed the House 268-9, and the Senate approved it in a unanimous vote.

The bill explicitly prohibited New Hampshire from participating in the federally mandated program, placing state law in direct conflict with federal law. Governor Lynch signed HB 685 into effect June 27, 2007.

Now that we have considered a true conflict between state and federal law (one I believe is in New Hampshire's best interests), it should be clear that state medical marijuana laws present a discrepancy, not a conflict.

The operative federal legislation is the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), passed during the Nixon administration. The CSA establishes federal penalties which are enforceable by the Department of Justice, but it does not compel the states to adopt any particular drug laws. In fact, the CSA explicitly states that it does not preempt state laws, and the only courts to consider the issue have found that state medical marijuana laws are not preempted.

In a February 7, 2007, panel at the New York City Bar Association, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy's chief counsel, Edward Jurith, acknowledged that federal law does not pre-empt state medical marijuana laws, though the federal government can continue to enforce federal law. He said: "These state laws operate within state authority... States are free to legislate their own controlled substances penalties, affirmative defenses, and other matters within the scope of their state criminal jurisdiction. We respect that."

Jurith's explanation is corroborated by history, which clearly shows that states have always been free to set their own marijuana policies. 12 states, beginning with Oregon in 1973, have decriminalized marijuana possession. Since 1996, 13 states have passed laws legalizing medicinal marijuana use for patients with a doctor's recommendation.

The distinction is that state and local police enforce state laws, not federal laws. Since 99% of all marijuana arrests are made by state and local police, state medical marijuana laws offer patients near-total protection against arrest and incarceration.

Only California, with its loosely-written medical marijuana law, has experienced federal raids on establishments that are legal under state law. Since the proposed law in New Hampshire would only allow cultivation of up to six plants in the patient's residence, not marijuana commerce, federal interference is highly unlikely.

Even under the Bush administration, it was never federal policy to arrest patients who possess only a few plants. Fortunately, the DEA has bigger fish to fry, and so should we.

State lawmakers can't change federal laws, but they are responsible for the laws and policies of our state. They can certainly change the fact that our state considers every marijuana user a common criminal, even if he or she has Multiple Sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or cancer.

The facts are in, and medical marijuana laws in Vermont and Maine have worked rather well. Now that the Obama administration has promised to fully respect state medical marijuana laws, New Hampshire should have no qualms about joining its neighbors in enacting this compassionate reform.