Senate should let die an attempt to lessen marijuana penalties

Sentinel Editorial

Once again, the N.H. House has passed a bill to lower the penalties for possession of marijuana. It’s similar to a bill put forth last year that also passed the House, only to die in the Senate. And that may be the fate of this year’s HB 1631 as well.

If so, it will expire with some ambivalence. House members have been trying to reduce the penalty for possessing small amounts of pot for almost a decade. And, of course, the Legislature and governor approved marijuana for certain medicinal uses in 2014, after several tries.

Although these are related efforts, the differences are key.

There’s clear movement nationwide toward easing laws relating to the drug. Nearly half of U.S. states now allow for the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and that’s a good thing. The available science indicates the harmful effects of the drug are, on balance, less of an issue to patients than the disabling effects of conditions such as cancer, hepatitis C, AIDS and glaucoma. The state’s first medical marijuana dispensaries are slated to open soon, and ID cards for qualifying patients are already being issued.

Beyond these medical uses, things get murkier.

The most often-cited argument for lessening marijuana penalties, or decriminalizing the drug entirely, is one of civil liberty — that using the drug is harmless and a personal choice. This may be true enough in many cases, but there are other behaviors that may at times be harmless to others yet are illegal because they come with societal costs too great to ignore. An example is gambling. Occasional gambling — say, playing the lottery or joining friends for a game of poker — is probably not harmful. But on a societal level, gambling poses major problems. People lose their homes over it.

They commit other crimes to finance it. And its outsized appeal to those with fewer resources makes it a regressive economic force. The same could be said for drug use. Further, as is evident below, the claim that it doesn’t harm anyone is debatable.

Really, the main benefit of lessening penalties for marijuana use is that it will ease the burden on our judicial system and overcrowding of our prisons. This is the most powerful argument for HB 1631.

There are three major potential downsides of decriminalizing the drug or reducing the penalties for its use. One is the likelihood it will lead to increased danger from those operating vehicles or other equipment while stoned. Colorado and Washington include testing for levels of THC — the active ingredient in marijuana — in their driving under the influence laws, but exactly what constitutes impairment is less established for that drug than for alcohol.

A second argument against lessening penalties is that it tacitly encourages use, which will lead to more experimentation and more frequent use of the drug, especially among adolescents and teenagers. This certainly seems likely, which leads to the third issue.

Research indicates human brains continue to develop well into our 20s. Recent studies also have concluded the regular use of cannabis literally makes users less intelligent. A 2014 study by a Duke University researcher found prolonged use could cost a person up to eight IQ points. And several studies have found that teens who smoke pot are more likely to develop schizophrenia.

Other research has clouded those findings, but the fact that the science is unsettled leads us to conclude New Hampshire is better off passing on this issue at this point.

As much as we hate to see our courts and jails overburdened with cases of recreational marijuana use, the Senate should once again derail this move.