|
Update: The main arguments in favor of passage put forth by Rep. Fontas, the prime sponsor, were that the incidence of use among younger people is pervasive and that a conviction for possession does not send the message that the government wants to help them make better decisions in the future, but rather punishes them excessively - beyond fines and jail time - by leaving them with a permanent record guaranteeing that they lose federal financial aid, following them when they apply for jobs in the future, and generally obstructing their path back to "the right course" that we all want them to take.
So in light of all this, I think the people are owed an explanation by their Governor as to why he was so cavalier in dismissing all of the above:
Gov. John Lynch's spokesman, Colin Manning, said the governor would veto the bill if it reaches him.
"This sends absolutely the wrong message to New Hampshire's young people about the very real danger of drug use," said Manning.
Please, Governor, I'd love to know what that message is exactly.
In the time since we passed this out of the House in an upset victory, I've had more people come up to me relating stories from friends and sons and daughters of people they know who've been affected by these draconian policies. One representative said that her son's friend had become suicidal after making a minor mistake with pot and upon learning that his future had now been permanently altered as a result.
These stories and this discussion were not even possible to have in such a public arena when I woke up this morning, because the controlling fear that upholds the status quo in our drug laws has silenced debate and prevented our policymakers from speaking openly.
So I would love to know, from our law enforcer-in-chief, what exactly about this bill sends "absolutely the wrong message." Does the governor not agree with the majority of the House of Representatives that some change is needed in this policy?
Update 2: WMUR did a segment on this during 11 o'clock news this evening. The passage of the bill was the lead story, and based on how our mainstream news media operates, I'd surmise they think this story is of interest to more than a few citizens of NH.
I've been thinking more and more about the - what struck me as arrogant - statement put out by the Governor's office, and this is yet again another example of him reinforcing bad Republican framing. And not to be confused with good Republican framing:
Rep. John Hunt, R- Rindge, opposed the measure, but was not surprised 40 GOP members supported it.
"I heard several Republicans say they were for it because they thought it could lead to less overcrowding and less spending for our jails,'' Hunt said.
The Governor's "tough on crime" obsession will soon prevent us from being smart on crime, and to what political ends I wish I knew.
Update 3: The Concord Monitor article does the best job of explaining exactly what happened today, which comes as no surprise since Lauren Dorgan was the only journalist present during the entire floor fight:
The measure won an odd mix of support. In the morning, outspoken Manchester Republican Steve Vaillancourt handed out materials to passers-by in the hallway, asking, "Wanna smoke a joint?" (The materials: An annotated copy of a pro-legalization article by influential conservative William F. Buckley, titled "Free Weeds.")
That wasn't the last time Buckley came up during yesterday's debate. Supporters of the measure handed out glossy brochures with his face on them, paired with that of former President Clinton.
The bill prevailed with heavy Democratic support, but the measure split both parties: It got a yea from Democratic Floor Leader Dan Eaton but a nay from Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner, a nay from GOP Deputy Leader David Hess but a yea from libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Neal Kurk.
Almost all the public statements made in the numerous articles covering this bill's passage were trying to set expectations, but this article contained some candid remarks not seen elsewhere.
Eaton, a former Stoddard police chief, praised the bill's backers for the work they did in getting it passed.
"They phrased their arguments masterfully. If you are not a student, you are more than likely a parent or a grandparent," he said. "They were masterful at it, these are young kids, and I'm so proud of them I can't stand it."
...
Eaton said predictions that the bill would die in the Senate may be premature. "Again, they're parents and grandparents," he said. "The knee-jerk reaction is to say that's DOA. These kids are impressive."
I would say that any predictions about an early death to this bill are entirely unreliable. The bill also was supposed to be killed in subcommittee -- it wasn't. It apparently had no chance of passing the House -- also not true.
|
Blue Hampshire RSS