Brian Poznanski Should Resign
Sunday, November 1, 2009 at 09:20AM
Apparently there is no New Hampshire House Rule for dealing with a State Rep who is drinking at a party with at least 21 other underage drinkers. According to a news report in the Union Leader Nashua Rep Brian Poznanski was arrested at a House party in Bedford along with 21 others, all charged with underage drinking.
Both House Speaker Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth, and House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner, D-Concord, said they were not aware of any rules that would require Poznanski to resign or take other action. [Link]
The focus seems to be on whether a rep under the age of twenty one caught drinking should be an issue. But we're missing the point. A state lawmaker was found in a home where 21 others were violating state law, and until the police showed up, it does not appear that this was of any particular concern. Is there any question about the consequences for a state lawmaker over the age of 21 in the same situation? Is there any question if one of those minors drove home and killed themselves or someone else as a result? Might that be a concern for the House leadership?
I can only speculate that this was not the first time Mr. Poznanski has himself consumed alcohol in violation of state law, or that he has done so in the company of other underage drinkers before or after being appointed to make law for the people of Wards 5, 8 and 9 in Nashua, but it would be difficult to claim he had not.
Regardless of that the question should turn not on whether an underage House Rep caught drinking should be held to a higher standard beyond the punishment the law allows for the actual offense. It should turn on the fact that a state lawmaker allowed State law to be violated by 21 other people (at least on one occasion) with his obvious consent.
Brian Poznanski should resign.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
Richard thinks it's an expression of personal freedom for young people to smoke dope in a public park.
Steven thinks a 20 year old drinking in private should be held in the stocks.
Where is the logic in that.
Of couse people who think the planet isn't warming even as the polar ice caps melt don't have a great relationship with reality anyway.
Your prejudice is showing. Why do you assume I disagree with Rick on Marijuana? I've come out in favor of medical marijuana on several occassions. I even supported the bill. I've never made any other public statements about its use so you manufacture division? Tsk tsk.
As for Poznanaski he drank (privately?) with 21 other people in violation of statutory law which he, as a House Rep, swore to uphold as a member of the General Court.
So lets review.
You manufactured nonexistent divison.
You think private is a group of 22 or more plus whoever else was at the hous party.
You don't think lawmakers elected to the General court should be held to their oaths of office.
Oh, and you think the earth is warming and based on your tone you think we can change that if it were actually true.
Was it your plan to be that wrong when you wrote that comment?
I assumed you supported medical mj. You Richard and I are on agreement on that.
You missed my point altogether.
And my tone indicates nothing about how to deal with Global Warming.
I asked you a clear question in another thread about Global Warming and you have not answered.
Chaz you are completely twisting and misrepresenting my views and quite frankly this has NOTHING to do with smoking since there are no current age guidelines to it's consumption.
Personally I think beer should be available to anyone over 18 but that too isn't the key point of this issue here.
The fact is a state rep under the age of 21 was caught breaking a law. And the question that stems from that is whether or not the violation is great enough to demand their resignation.
It could be ANY violation of ANY law and the question is still valid.
In this case, just like marijuana laws, I disagree with the law outlawing beer consumption for 19 and 20 year olds but the law is what is on the books whether I agree with it or not.
Its no different then if a state rep was arrested for smoking pot. They knowingly violated the law. As a result should they be forced to step down, yes or no?
Heck, what if it was a state rep caught molesting children? That too is violation of a law.
My opinion is that if we view it as ok for this rep to stay in office after breaking a law (ANY LAW) then clearly we do not see the enforcement of that law as a big deal and the law therefor needs to be changed as a result.
You can bet your last dollar that if he was caught molesting a child or raping a woman there would be loud demands for him to be removed from office, but under age drinking? Not so much. It's because it's so common people don't see it as a big deal.
That said, I think the real issue here is whether or not Brian has the maturity level needed to be a state rep. His actions show a very poor demonstration of judgment and I see that as far worse then the law he violated.
I think they know know this -- it's the ones who think this has not been happening for billions of years, before humans existed, and that this is a major hoax used to control people, that are out of touch with reality.
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
-- Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environmental Programme, Opening Speech Rio Earth Summit 1992
"Of couse people who think the planet isn't warming even as the polar ice caps melt don't have a great relationship with reality anyway."
I think they know about this -- it's the ones who think this has not been happening for billions of years, before humans existed, and that this is NOT just a major hoax used to control people, that are out of touch with reality.
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
-- Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environmental Programme, Opening Speech Rio Earth Summit 1992