New Hampshire: Mistake to weaken state’s marijuana laws
More prohibitionists are weighing in on the New Hampshire House passing a measure to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. Let’s see what sort of reefer madness will justify this latest editorial:
Concord Monitor - Mistake to weaken state’s marijuana laws
The quarter ounce of marijuana the House refers to is in no way a “small amount.” In fact, a quarter ounce of marijuana can equate to 14 joints - not the seven that has been reported.
Or two joints, if you’re Dr. Bob Bitchin, Ph.D, M.A., B.A., B.M.F.… Sorry, couldn’t resist. So, exactly how is a quarter ounce rolled into fourteen joints scarier than the same quarter ounce rolled into seven joints? Is that like getting a better deal on your large pizza by cutting it into sixteen slices instead of twelve?
The Monitor cites a study done by a Harvard psychology professor in the 1970s. However the marijuana of today is not the marijuana of the 1970s. It is significantly stronger, with some reports estimating today’s strength to be five times that of a comparable amount from that time period. We have seen some types of the drug with such a high potency that “just a couple of joints” can lead to serious impairment.
The old “this ain’t your father’s Woodstock pot, this is superpot!” argument. This is often used because so many parents have tried marijuana in the past and realize it isn’t the killer weed the prohibitionists claim it is. First of all, pot today is more or less as potent as you could get in the 1970s. Secondly, THC isn’t hazardous, so more of it doesn’t equal more danger, it equals less smoking. Marijuana smokers smoke to get high. If the marijuana is potent, they smoke a little of it and get high. If it is less potent, they smoke a lot of it and get high. Since the prohibitionists also like to argue (falsely) that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, wouldn’t smoking less of it be a good thing?
It is misleading to imply that in New Hampshire our citizens serve jail time for a first offense possession charge for a “small amount of marijuana.” Most of the anecdotal cases cited involve a defendant who pleads down to a possession of marijuana to avoid a stiffer sentence for a more serious crime.
Well, often those more serious crimes are trafficking, manufacturing, or conspiracy to traffic or manufacture marijuana.
Supporters of the bill argue a young person charged with possession of marijuana could potentially lose federal financial aid. In truth, federal law suspends federal aid to a college student for a set period of time only if the drug conviction occurred while the student was in school and receiving aid. The same law also allows the affected student to resume eligibility before the end of the period of suspension if the student successfully completes a drug rehabilitation program.
So you agree, then, that young people are losing their financial aid over marijuana possession convictions. The preferred solution to a student using marijuana is to force them out of college and into rehab for a drug they are not addicted to and 36% of the time haven’t even used for over a month. Don’t you think college is a better place for a young person and rehab is a better place for real addicts?
To call our current drug possession law an obstacle between some teens and college is a false argument. The solution to the problem of a potential loss of financial aid is simple: Do not use marijuana. If young people interested in earning a college degree are so concerned about their financial aid, why would they risk it all by using marijuana?
Just say no! And while you’re at it, feel free to participate in every kegger on campus - that’s never harmed any college kids. And if you’re one of those anti-social types that might rape, steal, or assault someone, don’t worry, your financial aid is safe. But for goodness sake, kids, don’t smoke weed while you’re in college; you could end up like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and the current mayor of New York City and governor of New York state.
We have a serious drug problem in this country due in part to the misinformation and “mixed signals” we send on the subject. Popular culture often promotes the subtle and not so subtle pro-drug message that marijuana is a “harmless drug,” a “soft drug” or a “rite of passage.” These myths do not address the fact that marijuana is a dangerous, addictive substance that can ruin lives and harm the quality of life in our communities. Passage of this bill will reinforce this dangerous message, conveying that a little bit of marijuana is no big deal.
No, alcohol and tobacco are “dangerous, addictive substance[s] that can ruin lives and harm the quality of life in our communities.” Marijuana “addiction” is about a serious and harmful as caffeine, according to NIDA.
Finally, the Monitor states, “if incidents increase as the result of the bill’s passage, or if marijuana use by the young increases, the law can be repealed.” What good can come from a social experiment that mixes drugs and children? They are our most valuable resource. We owe them better than this ill-conceived legislation.
Yet this “social experiment” has been replicated in many states and they’ve found that marijuana use, perceptions of use, and ease of acquisition to marijuana by teens remains steady or decreases slightly.
Tags: Decriminalization, New Hampshire
