NH Medical Cannabis Prospects Bleak
Printed in the Friday, February 18th issue of The New Hampshire
This legislative session, freedom-friendly lawmakers have chosen to pursue the passage of a bill to protect medical cannabis patients from arrest and prosecution for medicating with their preferred method. Currently, HB 442 has eight co-sponsors in the General Court: four Democrats and four Republicans with one co-sponsor in the Senate.
Prospects for the bill are less than spectacular.
Given the latest shift in the state legislature from last November's election, don't expect drug law reform to be on the minds of a class of legislators elected to balance the budget and turn the state away from the perils of impending bankruptcy that so many face today. Recently, I spoke with State Senator Jim Forsythe, a liberty-minded Republican who is the sole sponsor of HB 442 in the Senate. During our conversation, he expressed to me his skepticism that the bill could make it through the current Senate with 19 Republicans, none with a sense for individual freedom as strong as Forsythe. And even if the bill made it to Governor Lynch's desk, his veto pen looms.
Unfortunately for those who find relief in the therapeutic effects of cannabis, Governor John Lynch has been unwilling to sign any changes to the state's drug laws. Citing that increased availability will undoubtedly lead to increased use and thus increased addiction rates, Governor Lynch has been able to stymie the debate on cannabis laws. His faulty logic is something to examine closely: If indeed we believe that any other regulatory scheme besides prohibition will increase the availability of marijuana on the market, Lynch believes that more people would use the drug. While this assumption is not necessarily incorrect, it ignores the basic right of responsible adults to choose what they ingest.
The ability of adults to purchase marijuana in a legal, regulated establishment means that street corner drug dealers who target children will no longer have the revenues to stand on. Vendors of illegal drugs make most of their profits from cannabis, aided by extremely low growing costs and sky-high prohibition prices. By legalizing the plant, prices will come down. Yes, that inevitably means an increase in supply but the chain of production is shifted from a sphere that includes cartels, gangs and high-school-aged sellers to businesses and licensed growers. The market will exclude minors because legal drug sellers (including the state of New Hampshire) require consumers to show ID. Though not a fail-safe for keeping legal drugs away from children, regulated markets provide a legal barrier absent in today's prohibited market.
Luckily for the governor, he doesn't have to be right on the issue. He doesn't need to say anything at all to maintain the preferred status quo. When the time comes to sign the bill (if it ever gets to his desk), he'll merely defect to the Police Chiefs Association for the final verdict on drug reform legislation as he did with the 2009 medical bill. It is unfortunate that the chief executive of New Hampshire's state government is so greatly swayed by those in power poised to benefit most from perpetual prohibition. The police is not a public interest group. Agents of the state and will continually support the policy that further empowers the state. A governor that defects to the interests of the police is no governor at all, he is a tyrant.
And if he cites existing federal law in his veto message, we'll know he's a hack. State governments are instituted to protect the rights of its citizens, especially against federal abuses. Harking back to our nation's founding, the right of nullification of state laws has been a fundamental principle to which the concept of federalism was adhered. The right of states to challenge federal law must be asserted from time to time, lest we lose our sovereignty over matters best left to individuals and localities. In 2009, 71 percent of New Hampshire residents support legalized medical cannabis use. Our governor and state legislators should be willing to challenge the federal government on its outdated and failed drug policies for the benefits of its citizens.
The fact is, there are many Granite Staters that use cannabis for their various ailments and find relief in it. Who is John Lynch or any state official to say what is medicine? Is that not to be determined by a patient and his or her doctor?
On March 1, I plan to venture to Concord for the first hearing on HB 442 to defend the rights of medical cannabis patients in New Hampshire, no matter what political conventional wisdom ascribes. I hope you'll join me.
This legislative session, freedom-friendly lawmakers have chosen to pursue the passage of a bill to protect medical cannabis patients from arrest and prosecution for medicating with their preferred method. Currently, HB 442 has eight co-sponsors in the General Court: four Democrats and four Republicans with one co-sponsor in the Senate.
Prospects for the bill are less than spectacular.
Given the latest shift in the state legislature from last November's election, don't expect drug law reform to be on the minds of a class of legislators elected to balance the budget and turn the state away from the perils of impending bankruptcy that so many face today. Recently, I spoke with State Senator Jim Forsythe, a liberty-minded Republican who is the sole sponsor of HB 442 in the Senate. During our conversation, he expressed to me his skepticism that the bill could make it through the current Senate with 19 Republicans, none with a sense for individual freedom as strong as Forsythe. And even if the bill made it to Governor Lynch's desk, his veto pen looms.
Unfortunately for those who find relief in the therapeutic effects of cannabis, Governor John Lynch has been unwilling to sign any changes to the state's drug laws. Citing that increased availability will undoubtedly lead to increased use and thus increased addiction rates, Governor Lynch has been able to stymie the debate on cannabis laws. His faulty logic is something to examine closely: If indeed we believe that any other regulatory scheme besides prohibition will increase the availability of marijuana on the market, Lynch believes that more people would use the drug. While this assumption is not necessarily incorrect, it ignores the basic right of responsible adults to choose what they ingest.
The ability of adults to purchase marijuana in a legal, regulated establishment means that street corner drug dealers who target children will no longer have the revenues to stand on. Vendors of illegal drugs make most of their profits from cannabis, aided by extremely low growing costs and sky-high prohibition prices. By legalizing the plant, prices will come down. Yes, that inevitably means an increase in supply but the chain of production is shifted from a sphere that includes cartels, gangs and high-school-aged sellers to businesses and licensed growers. The market will exclude minors because legal drug sellers (including the state of New Hampshire) require consumers to show ID. Though not a fail-safe for keeping legal drugs away from children, regulated markets provide a legal barrier absent in today's prohibited market.
Luckily for the governor, he doesn't have to be right on the issue. He doesn't need to say anything at all to maintain the preferred status quo. When the time comes to sign the bill (if it ever gets to his desk), he'll merely defect to the Police Chiefs Association for the final verdict on drug reform legislation as he did with the 2009 medical bill. It is unfortunate that the chief executive of New Hampshire's state government is so greatly swayed by those in power poised to benefit most from perpetual prohibition. The police is not a public interest group. Agents of the state and will continually support the policy that further empowers the state. A governor that defects to the interests of the police is no governor at all, he is a tyrant.
And if he cites existing federal law in his veto message, we'll know he's a hack. State governments are instituted to protect the rights of its citizens, especially against federal abuses. Harking back to our nation's founding, the right of nullification of state laws has been a fundamental principle to which the concept of federalism was adhered. The right of states to challenge federal law must be asserted from time to time, lest we lose our sovereignty over matters best left to individuals and localities. In 2009, 71 percent of New Hampshire residents support legalized medical cannabis use. Our governor and state legislators should be willing to challenge the federal government on its outdated and failed drug policies for the benefits of its citizens.
The fact is, there are many Granite Staters that use cannabis for their various ailments and find relief in it. Who is John Lynch or any state official to say what is medicine? Is that not to be determined by a patient and his or her doctor?
On March 1, I plan to venture to Concord for the first hearing on HB 442 to defend the rights of medical cannabis patients in New Hampshire, no matter what political conventional wisdom ascribes. I hope you'll join me.
Comments
Post a Comment