Decrim. sellout

[Free libertarian]

Group hug! Group hug!

[Russell Kanning]

i can also see how a bill that gets guys out of jail and into the medical waiting rooms would be good for the system
maybe they could get parents to pay
plus the dems are pushing all of us having to pay for heathcare

[Pat K]

Man everyone seems a little testy lately.
Is the weed supply real low?
Is it cabin fever? Perhaps the coming of spring will
help.

[Lloyd Danforth]

We need ya up here,man!

[Pat K]

Yes. I miss all of you folk.

[Kat Kanning]

Wanted:  PatK for comic relief.

I'm not testy, BTW. 

[MaineShark]

I *thought* that the word decriminalization was a good word to represent my views on all levels: decriminalize usage, decriminalize possession, decriminalize distribution, decriminalize transportation, decriminalize production. Tom Sawyer's post from a few days ago made me start thinking that the common usage of the word might dramatically differ from my original usage of the word.

Yeah, there are a lot of misconceptions about the word.

What it really means, from a legal standpoint, is converting something from a criminal offense (jail time) to a civil infraction (fine only).

Folks not going to jail is a good thing.  Folks being forced to pay the goons or go to jail for non-payment... scrapes a heck of a lot of icing off that cake.

The general public, though, doesn't seem to have any firm understanding of what the word even means, so it makes it very hard.  "De-illegalization" would probably be the most correct way to phrase the anarchist goal, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...

I usually just say that I'm for eliminating the drug laws.  Folks know what that means.

Joe

[KBCraig]

Yeah, decrim-versus-legalize terminology is bothersome. Judge stop the prohibition.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Enough judging stopping prohibition, just, stop it.

[AntonLee]

you're pretty sharp for an old dude   

[EthanLeeVita]

You're pretty fly for a white dude.

[Rocketman]

Well, I had a nice break from the NH Underground... but if Tom Sawyer really thinks this year's decrim bill was a sellout, I better get back on here and explain a few things!

(1) Kids are often forced into treatment when they're caught with a joint today.  So are adults, when they are forced to choose between jail or treatment.  The bill would have basically maintained the status quo for kids and ended it for adults.  In my view, an obvious but minor policy improvement, although I absolutely hated the 1/4 ounce threshold...

(2) I didn't write HB 1653.  Keene Rep. Steve Lindsey submitted it without any input from me.  (I was working on getting a more comprehensive decrim bill filed, but my sponsor backed out when she saw Lindsey had refiled his bill.)  I did work with the House CJ committee and successfully got some parts of Rep. Lindsey's decrim bill amended for the better, and at the end of the day I thought it was a decent bill, not a great bill.  The House Committee passed it 16-2 this time (same committee went 13-5 against in 2008), but we knew we didn't have the numbers in the Senate, so we used the bill as an educational and PR vehicle, and it was very effective in that regard.  (I enjoy debating police chiefs and the AG's office in the MSM, and when the bill in question is a super-moderate reduction in possession penalties, their harsh opposition just seems that much more ridiculous to the folks at home who are trying to decide which side is right and which side is crazy.)

(3) I had a lot more to do with the authorship of HB 1652, the bill that would have legalized possession of an ounce or less and individual cultivation of up to three plants (committee vote was 8-10, now in "interim study").  I'm sure people here can find stuff to criticize in that bill as well, but it's the direction we are going.  Feel free to read HB 1652 and start another thread with questions.

(4) Decrim is not, in itself, a great policy improvement.  It's a mild improvement that would at least keep a lot of adults from being strapped with criminal records, but campaigning for decrim has been very useful for NH Common Sense since 2008, when our first decrim bill shocked observers by passing the House.  (The immediate reaction from Gov. Lynch was "I think this sends exactly the wrong message to children," and he threatened to veto the bill if it reached his desk.)  In 2008, we didn't even use the term "decriminalize."  We called it a reduction in penalties, and the non-threatening rhetoric was what made most of the PR victories possible, as our opponents reacted hysterically to a very mild policy proposal.  If you can't pass a bill, you can still use it to undermine public and legislative confidence in the credibility of prohibitionists.

(5) Bottom line: there is a long-term war going on between prohibitionists and anti-prohibitionists in the marketplace of ideas.  Today, according to the latest Gallup poll, 44% of Americans believe marijuana should be legalized.  This is the highest level of support we have ever seen, and whatever we do as activists, we have to take it even higher!  The merits of "decrim" and medical marijuana policies can be debated (I support both!), but those who dislike incremental reforms should understand that there are important secondary benefits of running these campaigns.  People have been programmed to freak out at the notion of legalization, and sometimes it's best to start a conversation somewhere other than where you intend to finish it.  Then, once people learn more and more of the truth, most will see that legalization is the only sensible policy.

For better or worse, that has been my strategic approach for the last few years in the state house.