[James Morrison]

good news...

Marijuana: Decriminalization Bills Filed in Massachusetts, New Hampshire



Twelve states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon) have enacted some form of marijuana decriminalization, all of them during the 1970s, but if legislators in Massachusetts and New Hampshire have their way, that number will grow again this year for the first time in decades. In the former, friendly legislators are reintroducing a decrim bill, while in the latter, a local group is allying with legislators to push new legislation.

In Massachusetts, Senate Bill 881, sponsored by Sen. Pat Jehlen, with four cosponsors, is a refilling of a bill that was approved last year in the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Committee. It specifies a civil penalty for the possession of one ounce of less of marijuana of $250.

The Massachusetts effort builds on years of work by the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts and the Bay State NORML affiliate, MassCann. The two groups have brought ballot questions urging their representatives to support various marijuana reform measures before more than 400,000 Bay State voters, and won every one of them. It remains to be seen if the popular support for reform can be translated into a new decrim law.

In New Hampshire, a new grassroots group, the Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy is urging support for HB 92, which was set for a Wednesday hearing in the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

"Despite the threat of severe penalties, many responsible, productive New Hampshire citizens continue to use marijuana. As long as these individuals do not harm others, we believe it is unwise and unjust to continue persecuting them as enemies of the state," the group declared.

Hopeful that the Granite State's "Live Free or Die" motto will resonate with their peers, Reps. Chuck Weed (D-Keene), Paul Ingbretson (R-Haverill), and Steve Vailancourt (R-Manchester) sponsored the bill. But even though Democrats took over both houses in the November elections, the measure's chances are uncertain. It will be opposed by the usual suspects in law enforcement and the Attorney General's office. The fate of a 2001 medical marijuana bill, which was overwhelmingly defeated, also signals potential problems.

Still, despite a decades-long hiatus since the decrim glories of the Carter years, legislators in at least two states will have the opportunity to renew a long dormant reform movement.


https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/..._new_hampshire

[pipeline]

In my opinion, decrim bills are good for the movement, sparking debate, etc, but if anything they will be fueling their drug war fraud. The cannabis business may increase after a bill like this, and they will continue to put non-violent cannabis growers/sellers in prison. We need to all out regulate/legalize the trade.

Decrim. laws will keep the personal cannabis users out of jail, but it may stimulate the industry somewhat and the unjustice of jailing the cannabis people will continue....

[James Morrison]

all I know is bro..in my state, I can get caught with an ounce and they have to right me a ticket and then I pay a $50 fine

Alot of states, thats a felony
in Texas, you get caught with a joint, you DO JAIL TIME

decrim aint leagalization, but its not bad for us personal users....its a trafic ticket
pretty cool

Im sure there are tons of little hidden ripples in the wave but

This is very good news. Definatley a step in the right direction.

Non-binding ballot measures passed in a few Massachusetts districts this past election calling on their state senators to support the passage of decriminalization... hopefully this time around it'll go through.

[sugabear_II]

I'm working on a letter to a representative for my friend in NH - tell me what you think

Sometimes it takes only one great leader to make a positive difference. As a lawmaker, you are in the position to lead on an important issue. In our state, it is time for change to the draconian marijuana laws currently on the books.

New Hampshire's existing drug policy is a failure when it comes to marijuana. In the most recent survey New Hampshire ranked number 1 in the country with 10% of the population admitting to using marijuana in the past month. That the usage rate is much higher in New Hampshire than in States with more lienant laws illustrates how little effect the law has on usage.

This failure is not cheap, New Hampshire spends $20 million every year on marijuana prohibition according to recent studies (https://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html). As our State faces education challenges this money is being thrown down the drain on a futile war that is not working. With the right laws this burden could be turned into a windfall of new revenue by taxation. I've copied a couple of points from the aformentioned report below to help drive home this point. While the numbers below are at the federal level the benefits to New Hampshire by taxing and regulating marijuana will be substantial.

1. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs and prevents taxation of marijuana production and sale.
2. The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government.
3. The report also estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.

It should also be noted that studies show that marijuana prohibition does not shield our kids from drugs, in fact it makes adolescent drug use more likely. School age children can more easily get drugs then alcohol because when you're dealing with a black market nobody is checking ID. Place the control back into the hands of responsible adults and the levels of youth usage will drop. I have copied a few facts from a recent study on this subject (https://www.mpp.org/site/c.glKZLeMQIs..._Use_Study.htm) to illustrate this point.

1. Marijuana prohibition has not prevented a dramatic increase in marijuana use by teenagers. In fact, the overall rate of marijuana use in the U.S. has risen by roughly 4,000% since marijuana was first outlawed.
2. Independent studies by RAND Europe and the U.S. National Research Council have reported that marijuana prohibition appears to have little or no impact on rates of use.
3. Since Britain ended most marijuana possession arrests in 2004, the rate of marijuana use by 16-to-19-year-olds has dropped.
4. In the U.S., rates of teen marijuana use in states that have decriminalized adult marijuana possession are statistically equal to rates in those that have retained criminal penalties.
5. In the Netherlands, where adults have been allowed to possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana since 1976, the rate of marijuana use by adults and teens is lower than the U.S., and teen use of cocaine and amphetamines is far lower than in the U.S.

Many myths persist about the use of marijuana and it's supposed ill effects. One is the so called "gateway drug" effect. In a recent study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse this effect was recently tested by tracking 224 Pittsburgh boys stating at age 10 to 12 and ending at age 22. In this study it was found that the gateway theory simply didn't hold; environmental factors such as neighborhood characteristics played a much larger role than which drug the boys happened to use first. "Abusable drugs," they wrote, "occupy neither a specific place in a hierarchy nor a discrete position in a temporal sequence." In a second study by researchers in Brisbane, Australia and St. Louis following more than 4,000 Australian twins whose use of marijuana and other drugs was followed from adolescence into adulthood reached the same conclusion. In the end the data shows that there is no "gateway drug" effect. They concluded that the same factors that make people likely to try marijuana also make them likely to try other substances. In fact the only "gateway effect" they found was that marijuana users are more likely to be exposed to other drugs because they are going to the black market to obtain marijuana. That is to say that the very prohibition of marijuana results in the exposure to black market dealers who will just as easily sell the user hard drugs. Putting the control into the hands of responsible adults removes this effect entirely as the black market will not exist as it does now.

Another common argument offered against marijuana regulation and taxation is that it will increase impaired driving. By this argument alcohol should be prohibited since it is the number one cause of impaired driving fatalies. In response the fact that there are laws prohibiting drunken driving is often sited. Likewise we should have laws prohibiting drug impaired driving along with accurate and appropriate testing and detection measures. One should never drive under the influence of any susbstance that impairs them, however arguing that the substance should be prohibited to prevent this possibility is not valid or consistent with the other laws of our state.

Finally the argument that marijuana leads to violent crime is offerred up. Again this argument could and was used to prohibit alcohol in this countries past. Not only does this argument fail on a comparison with the way other substances are handled in our state but it fails on the assertion that marijuana leads to violence. Countless police officers have stated that marijuana decreases the tendency for violence among it's users. It is well established that alcohol is the drug most likely to be involved when violence occurs.

In closing it's worth noting that in 1988, the DEA's chief administrative law judge, Francis Young, found that "marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known." Indeed, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know whether you will support such sensible legislation.