Pubdate: Wed, 8 Jul 2009
Source: Foster's Daily Democrat (Dover, NH)
Copyright: 2009 Geo. J. Foster Co.
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/mYsCsdPU
Website: http://www.fosters.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/160
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

LYNCH SHOULD VETO NH BILL TO LEGALIZE POT USE

There Is Neither a Medical, Social, nor Political Consensus

It is not the right time for New Hampshire to legalize the use of 
marijuana. Jurisdictional enforcement remains too murky, and there is 
no consensus.

Deep divisions remain on whether the distribution of marijuana and 
its use by severely ill people should be permitted. Federal law has 
prohibited the cultivation, distribution and use of marijuana since 
1937. The illegal nature of the plant has done little to block its 
use, and there is widespread disagreement as to whether it should 
even be a controlled substance.

New Hampshire treats marijuana as an illegal substance. Federal law 
also prohibits it, but the Justice Department announced earlier this 
year it would not prosecute violators. Previously, the Justice 
Department under the Bush administration vigorously enforced the 
nation's anti-pot laws, not only ignoring state laws that allowed its 
use for medicinal purposes, but conducting raids in states where it 
was allowed.

President Obama has shown no indication of getting into the marijuana 
dispute. Who can blame him? There are more critical issues at stake. 
And there is no reason to expect the president will risk political 
capital with Democrats by telling the Justice Department its job is 
to enforce the law or further enable Republicans by suggesting the 
repeal of laws outlawing the cultivation, distribution or use of the 
plant, even for medicinal purposes.

California has engaged in the marijuana muddle, to the benefit of 
few. In communities and counties where the sale of marijuana was 
permitted, federal task forces were active. Where there were 
jurisdictions in which the sale and purchase was prohibited, people 
would travel great distances to communities and counties in which it 
was allowed. Federal courts came down on the side of federal law.

Congress makes laws, and the Justice Department is charged with their 
enforcement -- when the law is a White House or DOJ priority.

The dispute over marijuana is not only one of law. There is also the 
debate within the medical community. There are doctors who advocate 
its use in treating some illnesses or using it to provide relief. 
There are others who disapprove of its use.

There are many drugs whose purpose is to provide relief from pain and 
discomfort -- drugs that are regulated to minimize abuse. However, 
they are not substances that can be easily grown in your backyard, 
making them available for abuse.

Gov. John Lynch has questioned the wisdom of New Hampshire traveling 
a different path than the one established by federal law. We agree 
with the governor's evaluation. New Hampshire has not reached a point 
in its development where it should be thinking in policy terms that 
emulate states like California.

The bill passed by the Legislature and sent to the governor would 
establish three nonprofit compassion centers to dispense 2 ounces of 
marijuana every 10 days to severely ill patients whose doctors 
approve the drug's use, effectively prescribing it.

The governor should veto the bill to legalize the use of marijuana. 
It should not be legalized until such time as there is a clear and 
consistent medical, social and political consensus.