Last week, the legislature of the "Live Free or Die" state failed to overturn a veto of a bill decriminalizing the medicinal use of marijuana for chronically and terminally ill patients ("Gov.'s veto of marijuana bill upheld," Nov. 3). HB 648 a bill proposing the permitted use of marijuana at a physician's discretion had passed in the New Hampshire House of Representatives 232-108 and in the State Senate 14-10, but was vetoed thereafter by Governor John Lynch, D-N.H.
Lynch stated in his defense that he has "tremendous compassion" for his constituents in need of the pain relief marijuana can provide. Lynch's only potential saving grace will be to make good on his promise to be open to tightly regulated use of marijuana for medical purposes or he will lose the trust of his constituents and potential boons to his state.
Many of Lynch's arguments are unconvincing and do not demonstrate the level of concern for his ill constituents he claims to hold. He criticized the bill as having "structural problems," and said that the bill would put the state's laws in conflict with the federal ban on marijuana (though the bill points to 13 states that have already passed legislation similar to HB 648). According to the Concord Monitor, Merrick denounced Lynch, saying, "This is clearly a politically directed decision, based on misinformation and lies."
State Rep. Evalyn Merrick, D-Lancaster, defended HB 648 on the grounds that it is the strictest legislation supporting the medicinal use of marijuana. When other states have taken the liberty to pass laws less strict than the proposed legislation, one wonders why Lynch is so concerned about federal marijuana law.
Lynch argued that the bill's defects which, apparently, several hundred state representatives, in their majority support of the bill, failed to notice would have led to "recreational use" of marijuana. Even if the three tightly controlled distribution centers in the state were to leak marijuana to unauthorized persons, however, is the continued denial of pain medication to the severely ill worth the cost?
The opposition to the legalization of marijuana has always ridden on a shaky platform. Many who challenge it do not attack the plant itself, but refer to it as a "gateway drug." State Sen. Robert Letourneau, R-Derry, voiced his concern and opposition to overriding Lynch's veto, saying, "This is a terrible message to send to our children," according to the Nashua Telegraph.
Where opponents have tried to directly attack the use of marijuana, however, they have failed. In 1970, former President Richard Nixon created the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse to explore the abuse of marijuana throughout the country. The commission's report, "Marihuana, a Signal of Misunderstanding," states that no recorded fatality had ever resulted solely from the use of marijuana, that marijuana use decreased the likeliness of users to commit violent crimes, and that the criminalization of the substance would be unconstitutional. Nixon ignored the findings and went on to enforce the Controlled Substances Act, which put into place many of the drug laws we still see today.
Although HB 648 was defeated, Merrick plans to introduce new legislation to support the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use. Only then will Lynch have the opportunity to validate his concern for his constituents who suffer from serious illness.
And, in addition to overlooking the liberties of New Hampshire residents, Lynch has also ignored many of the bill's potential financial benefits to the state. Just as New Hampshire's recognition of same-sex marriages would result in an additional $500,000 in state revenue each year, according to a University of California, Los Angeles study, the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use could bring revenue through taxation and mandatory registration fees. Instead, potential revenue is lost when sick residents turn to neighboring states that have decriminalized or legalized marijuana for medicinal use.
If Lynch should fail to fulfill his responsibility to his sick constituents, perhaps some new legislation is in order a proposition to change the state motto from "Live Free or Die," to "Live Substance-Free as You Die." Chances are, however, that Lynch would be quick to veto that legislation as well.
