|
Criminalization of marijuana is one of the greatest travesties we face in the state of New Hampshire. In 2000, prosecution of simple possession yielded 3,706 arrests and marijuana prohibition cost the state and local governments $36.8 million in criminal justice costs (p.5, p.133). Marijuana arrests represented 10.6% of all the arrests that year. With the assumption that the statistical yearly increases in arrests (with a few exceptions) continue, that number in 2007 could potentially be even higher. Furthermore, there are currently 26 inmates within the Department of Corrections for possession of marijuana who consequently cost the state over $800,000 per year. Let us not forget that with more aggressive law enforcement, this number could also potentially increase.
However, marijuana decriminalization is more than just a pragmatic solution to our budget crisis and overcrowded prisons, it also beckons questions fundamental to our society and to the foundation of our constitution.
The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, created by President Nixon, concluded that "application of the criminal law [as it pertains to marijuana possession] is constitutionally suspect." According to the commission, the "police powers" of the states extend only to the "public health, safety, and morals." Historically, in a period of time when people most feared infringement of their rights by the government, it was generally accepted that broad power had inherent limitation. The commission cited a Supreme Court of Kentucky case regarding liquor possession during alcohol prohibition from 1915 to testify to this fact:
The right to use liquor for one's own comfort, if they use it without injury to the public, is one of the citizen's natural and inalienable rights.... We hold that the police power- vague and wide and undefined as it is- has limits....
The commission also foresaw the horrifying ramifications of laws proscribing possession for personal use as they pertained to law enforcement. "Possession of marihuana," they said, "is generally private behavior; in order to find it, the police many times must operate on the edge of constitutional limitations. Arrests without probable cause, illegal searches and selective enforcement occur often enough to arouse concern about the integrity of the criminal process." The commission's conclusion rejected total prohibition altogether, including all its variations.
HB92, as it stands, is not a marijuana decriminalization bill. In fact, it is far from it. HB92 does nothing more than eliminate the word "marijuana" from current New Hampshire statute, leaving the bill in a legal purgatory between full outright legalization of marijuana and decriminalization. For all intents and purposes, decriminalization refers to eliminating criminal penalties of possession in lieu of civil fines. Decriminalization does not mean legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana.
At this time, I feel the best avenue for the state to head down is one of decriminalization. My proposal is the following:
1. Revert all the changes of HB92 to what they were previous.
2. Impose a civil fine of $200 to offenders found guilty of possessing up to 1 ounce or less of marijuana.
3. Include a provision to allow for annulment if the fine is paid within a period of 10 days.
The methodology behind this proposal is simple and relative to the above discussion. A fine of this nature would have saved the state $36.8 million in 2000, and in addition would have generated $740,400 in revenue. In regards to item (3), the methodology is more pragmatic. The most frequent offenders of marijuana laws are between the ages of 18-25, and incidentally, this demographic is also home to the largest population of college students. Under federal law, any violation of the Controlled Substances Act can lead to the waiving of all eligibility for and loss of all federal student loans and financial aid. With a marijuana offense on an offender's record, the federal government makes it nearly impossible for those citizens to pursue post-secondary education, accomplish their personal goals and attain their aspirations. Annulment would circumvent this unfortunate problem, and allow our young adults to not suffer the consequences of a mistake they made in their youth for the rest of their adult lives. In an era where education proves to be the most effective tool to overcome adversity, we should have as few roadblocks in front of educational opportunities we possibly can.
|
