| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 16, 2010
CONTACT: Will Matthews, ACLU national, (646) 233-9572 or (212) 549-2582; [email protected]; Rebecca Farmer, ACLU of Northern California, (415) 269-6275; [email protected]
SAN FRANCISCO – In a letter made public late Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Department of Justice will “vigorously enforce” federal laws against marijuana in California, even if the state’s voters next month approve Proposition 19, a ballot initiative that would decriminalize marijuana in the state. The proposed initiative would allow adults 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal use and allow cities and counties to regulate and tax commercial sales. Holder’s letter was sent to nine former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The criminalization of low-level marijuana possession has disproportionately impacted communities of color, has no impact on public safety and serves to divert criminal justice resources from the prosecution of more serious crimes.
In a letter sent to Holder several weeks ago, the former DEA chiefs urged him to take legal action challenging Proposition 19 in court if it passes and to make clear that it would be void even if passed because federal law would preempt it under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S Constitution. Holder’s letter this week was notably silent on both issues.
The following can be attributed to Allen Hopper, Police Practices Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California:
“Attorney General Holder’s silence speaks volumes. He does not say that the Department of Justice will seek an injunction against Proposition 19 being enacted because there is no constitutional basis for doing so. A bedrock constitutional principle underlying our federalist system of government prohibits the federal government from telling the state of California what laws it can and cannot pass or forcing the state to expend its resources prosecuting low-level marijuana offenses. It is deeply disappointing that the Obama administration would seek to impede a law that would go great lengths toward dismantling one of the defining injustices of our nation’s failed “war on drugs”: the fact that people of color, and especially youth of color, are disproportionately arrested for low-level marijuana possession. Such arrests do not increase public safety, and merely serve to divert already scarce criminal justice resources from the investigation of more serious crimes.”
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oct. 13, 2010
House Committee Decides Marijuana Regulation Proposal is ‘Too Much, Too Soon’ for NH
Committee Members Say They Prefer to Focus on Passing a Medical Marijuana Law and Decriminalizing Personal Possession
CONTACT: Matt Simon, NH Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy…………………(603) 391-7450
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE – Today, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee concluded its interim study process on HB 1652, which would tax and regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol, and passed on the opportunity to recommend the bill for next legislative session. Rep. David Welch (R-Kingston) said he felt the proposal was simply “too much, too soon,” a phrase that was echoed by several other committee members over the course of a nearly hour-long discussion.
Matt Simon, executive director for the NH Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy (NH Common Sense), described the interim study process as “very positive and productive overall.” He commended legislators for considering the proposal “objectively and with open minds” before reaching their decision.
“When we first pitched the idea of making marijuana legal for adults back in 2007, many members of this committee scoffed at the idea,” Simon explained. “It’s very encouraging to see the committee now appear to be split between outright support for the issue and concern that it may be ‘too much, too soon.’”
A four-member subcommittee conducted the interim study and produced a report recommending that the bill be reintroduced. The subcommittee voted 2-2 on its positive report this morning, which sent the report forward to the full committee for consideration. After failing to reach consensus, the committee voted 15-2 against explicitly recommending future legislation on the subject.
In a Feb. 11 vote, the committee voted 16-2 in favor of HB 1653, a bill that would have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. That bill passed the House 214-137 but failed to gain traction in the Senate following a veto threat from Gov. John Lynch.
When the committee first voted on HB 1652 Jan. 27, members nearly passed the bill in an 8-10 vote before agreeing (16-2) to refer the bill for interim study. Of the bill’s eight supporters, four were Republicans and four were Democrats.
The bill, sponsored by Reps. Calvin Pratt (R-Goffstown), Joel Winters (D-Manchester), Timothy Comerford (R-Fremont), and Carla Skinder (D-Cornish), would have made it legal for adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. It also created a framework by which the production and sale of marijuana could be regulated and taxed by the state. Advocates contrasted this vision with the current state of affairs, in which the lucrative marijuana marketplace is left entirely in the hands of criminal gangs and cartels.
Advocates for marijuana regulation will now turn their attention to California, where voters will decide whether or not the Golden State should legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana. In all, 5 state legislatures across the U.S. considered bills in 2010 that would have regulated and taxed marijuana similarly to alcohol. It was the first year in which bills of this nature have ever been seriously considered by state legislatures.
“Some New Hampshire legislators have expressed concerns about what the federal government’s response would be if this passed,” Simon observed. “If California voters pass Prop 19 in November, we may all have an answer to that question very soon.”
Advocates said they would “take a step back” and observe new developments nationally before reintroducing the bill, but they did not view this vote as a setback.
“There’s no question -- a bill like this will be reintroduced in a future session,” Simon concluded. “New Hampshire is quickly reaching the conclusion that marijuana is safer than alcohol, and once that is understood, there is no good argument left for continuing the expensive, futile prohibition of marijuana.”
###
