HB 639 is, An ACT “relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor.” We’re not there yet, but Big Weed is excited about the overwhelming support from the NH House, and it seemed like a good time to sketch out a thought or two.
I will not get into the mental health or public nuisance issues here. Others have covered it, and there are legitimate concerns, but my position – as with alcohol – is that responsible adults should be free to engage in recreational use without harassment or government involvement until something goes sideways. As with marriage, government entanglements and all the baggage that comes with that muddy things up.
Making the state fat and happy (fatter and happier) on new taxes from licensing or sales is also a long-standing concern. Once we cross this bridge, the money will pile up, leading to more government, regulation, taxes, and inevitably less liberty.
I feel confident that was not what the liberty supporters were after.
There will be a big new bucket of money…
Republicans might use the expected revenue to offset, reduce, or eliminate other taxes. Might. But they will also use it to grow the state budget and state meddling — more spending on things that will whittle away at the public sphere.
Democrats will always raise taxes regardless of revenue, so weed windfalls will result in a larger, more oppressive, and meddlesome government on a much faster track – as fast as possible if history is any indication. The sort that will make you want to get stoned to get away from it for a while.
By legislating the circumstances for the government-approved ‘legal’ enjoyment of marijuana, we give it resources to oppress us in other ways.
In the interest of allowing law enforcement to focus on violent and property crimes, generating revenue for education, prevention, treatment, and recovery related to the use of both legal and illegal drugs and for other public purposes, and advancing individual freedom, the people of the state of New Hampshire find and declare that the use of cannabis by a person 21 years of age or older should be legal and subject to reasonable regulation and taxation.
As if the government has ever been any good at educating anyone about anything, but it is nice to see an admission that this money will fund more government, but that is not the greatest danger.
The bill states clearly that vendors may not collect or store any identifying information about their customers and may only view ID to verify age, but page 14/15 of this forty-page pig of a bill states that sellers are required to provide informational handouts to customers as a reminder that,
(f) Unless federal statutory law or case law has changed and such a warning is no longer
accurate, a disclosure that:(1) Cannabis is illegal under U.S. federal law, and
(2) Under the United States government’s 1986 Gun Control Act, any ‘unlawful’ user of a controlled substance is prohibited from purchasing or owning a gun
It is not the weed vendor’s job to ask if you own firearms before the sale. As a responsible, law-abiding adult, it is your job to be the law-abiding adult. If you have guns and buy weed, the Feds may decide you are a felon. If you lie on the background check, the feds may decide you are a felon. HB639 is clear that you will be violating federal law in these circumstances.
So, as baby steps go, I can see why Democrats would support a leap to legalizing the sale and use of marijuana. The selective gun-grabbing potential is significant.
I guess the next question has to be, why are Republicans pushing it before addressing the federal issue of gun rights and marijuana?
The feds will not view any legal NH use as lawful with respect to firearms. While the bill does state that no state agent or funding may be used to assist in the seizure of cannabis whose possession is legal under state law – should it become law – there are no protections from federal prosecution for marijuana possession or recreational use and firearms.
I’m okay with casual adult use without fear of prosecution, but passing this law creates a severe risk of a federal indictment, fines, jail time, and a loss of your second amendment rights. Until we solve the second problem, we should wait on the first.
Or is the thinking that by adding New Hampshire to the list of states embracing decrim or legal possession and use limits, the Feds will have to cave? All I can say is how is that working out on free speech, assembly, freedom of religion, the rights of parents, and even the second amendment?
Absent a commitment from the state to protect New Hampshire gun owners and evidence they will, this smells like a setup to me.
