That's criminal defense attorney Mark Sisti, speaking in the title. Here's the whole statement (from about a minute-and-a-half past the hour-and-a-half mark):
"The real problem with marijuana in the state of NH, the problem that we have, is that it is illegal. That is the problem."
Add to his "criminal justice" perspective the idea that prototypically fundamental to liberty is the concept of unilateral control over our own respective bodies. A foundational litmus test to the philosophy of self-ownership.
So the problem, as always, is fiat prohibition. Of substances. Of objects. Of behavior. Unauthorized prohibition. Market-defying prohibition. Winners-and-losers-picking prohibition. Rights-violating prohibition. Constitution-overstepping prohibition. And on this fiat prohibition, yes, "Live Free or Die" NH is now a painfully conspicuous "island of prohibition". Does that seem right to you? Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...
Here we have, before the NH House Criminal Justice Committee, 1/23/2020, HB1648, "relative to the home cultivation of cannabis plants and the possession of certain cannabis-infused products". Legalization. Yet even still again. But without the nasty "commerce" bit this time (because evidently Republicans are opposed to commerce -- and, for that matter, Constitutionally limited authority -- who knew...?)
Only one devoutly prohibitionist state rep and the ever-reliably prohibitionist New Futures testified in opposition, mostly with confusion regarding the actual content -- although the NH Chiefs of Police Association did bother to send a lobbyist to sign in for them in opposition (your employees lobbying your representatives in contravention of your expressed interests: think about that), and we can rest assured that forever-presuming-above-its-station law enforcement will inevitably put the screws to the more easily statist-manipulated oligarchs in the Senate, if and when we get that far.
Holy gorram hell, I'm so tired of fighting these fractious, presumptuous, obstinate, insubordinate, rule-of-law-resistive assholes. This was the opposition to (effectively "merely", given the regulatory state to remain) dialing back neo-prohibition: recalcitrant "servant" (yet entirely self-serving, and on the clock, thankyouverymuch) enforcers -- who should have no official positions other than those given to them by their employers (that's you, madam taxpayer) -- and nanny-state prohibitionists -- about whose opinions regarding my rights over my own body I could not possibly care less, even were I paid handsomely to do so (but if and when I do care what they think, I will pay them for their advice) -- and children whose perverse and troubling-to-a-free-society understanding of Constitutionally protected inalienable rights and the intended purpose of this limited servant government can only be explained, it seems, by the interest-conflicted indoctrination inflicted by government schools (get them out...!!!). So in other words, pretty much business as usual.
Don't accept the bullshit. The bill doesn't legalize "under-age use" (but the kids can still go die in the regime's undeclared elective wars of empire, and everybody's in agreement they can easily get it now, so...) nor "DUI" by anybody, nor does it somehow empower black markets (which are caused by fiat prohibitions of market-demanded goods and services, y'see -- and the passage of the 21st Amendment, repealing the delegated authority for the only nominally lawful, if nevertheless also foolish, substance prohibition in this country, is proof that we'd actually learned that painful lesson once upon a time). The "gateway effect" is but a gateway to that thus-enabled black market, and thereby prohibition, if we're being, y'know, honest, undermines itself. Indeed, the "forbidden fruit effect" is suggesting that youth use goes down when adults manage to regain their rights from servant governments operating entirely above their delegated pay grade. Despite so much prohibition surrounding their production for so long, too, the growing statistics simply don't support the hysterically prophesied increases in all manner of terrible things (like, say, overdose deaths). But even if they did, liberty, however, does support -- does demand -- respect for self-ownership. And ostensibly, this society was founded on respecting and protecting such individual liberty.
And contrary to the up-ended, progress-oppositional "conservatism" message of the defiantly entrenched self-ownership-averse prohibitionists, "Live free or die" NH's recalcitrant "servant" government has had many opportunities to "lead" on this issue in an actually productive and liberty-friendly manner, to simply accept the demonstrated will of their employers, the people, now approaching three-quarters of whom want an end to this madness (but whom do they think they are, right?). Starting just in the last decade, we've seen 2008's HB1567, or 2010's HB1652 (video here and here), or 2012's HB1705 (video here and here), or 2013's HB337 (video here and here), or 2014's HB492 (video here and here and here and here and here), or 2016's HB1610, HB1694 or HB1675, or 2018's HB656 (video here and here and here) or SB233 (video here), or 2019's still-to-come companion HB722.
The People -- the boss in this here shop, and overwhelmingly in favor of ending this unauthorized and horrifically expensive (in blood, treasure and liberty) social-engineering experiment -- have been trying to lead their government, their servants, but have ultimately met defiant resistance at every turn.
While with the aforementioned HB492, the NH House became, in point of fact, the first legislative body in the country to approve the end of cannabis prohibition, sadly our "Democratic" governor at the time preferred conservative reactionism and the status quo to "leading". And the oligarchs in the NH Senate were more than happy to have her back in the unauthorized-to-them-to-begin-with "War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™. And so today NH is an island of prohibition in the northeast, entirely surrounded by the more enlightened, more liberty-friendly, more responsive, more obedient jurisdictions of Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont and Canada. Yep. Mighty proud...
So. This day, 2/5/2019, the NH House Criminal Justice Committee gets its latest shot at restoring some semblance of limited government (it's bad enough that we're looking at yet another over-regulated government monopoly rather than true free-market competition, the unique driving metric of which is satisfying customers, rather than cronies), with HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor" (which nonsense title is the type that prompted the absurdist question posed in a previous post, "how much will ending prohibition cost?" -- 'cuz simply stopping what you're not allowed to do in the first place shouldn't cost anything!).
The legislative-majority Democrats now actually have "legalization" in their platform -- what took so long, "liberals"? -- but now we have a GOP governor obsessed with placating the (also servant, if we really need the reminder) police state and "Incarceration Nation". So keep your cards and letters and phone calls coming, free people -- both to your "representatives", such as they are, and to the corner office...
That's today's question, essentially: is the restoration of some of your liberty economically advantageous to the State? Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive -- or to over-regulate. Synonymous, really. Thirty-three pages of over-regulation, in fact. To "give" you back something that resembles your intended natural autonomy. For a fee, naturally. Duh. Ya don't get nothin' from the mafia without conditions, yo. It always expects its "taste", after all.
But micromanaging the lives and bodies and contracts of peaceful people is not the legitimate function of a servant government in a free society. Not even in this one, in point of fact, as it was designed. Finally stopping it from doing what it's not authorized to do in the first place shouldn't "cost" anything. Should it...?
It's curious that in the initial "legalization" debate, we're always assured that use rates will skyrocket -- and obviously that's "A Really Bad Thing!", arguing against legalization. But then when we eventually get to the "implementation" debate, we're told by the green-visored number-crunchers, as Rep Edwards points out, that there won't be increased use rates (and thus tax revenue) -- and obviously that's "A Really Bad Thing!", arguing against legalization! No matter where you go, there you are, I suppose...
So HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor", before the NH House "How Ever Will We Pay For Leaving People Alone?!?" Ways and Means Committee, 3/14/2019. Round 1, before the House Criminal Justice Committee, can be found here (along with links to a good deal of the miserable legislative history of endeavoring to finally end horrifically expensive -- and unauthorized, and egregiously failed -- cannabis prohibition in NH.
But I can't not lead off with an outtake from John Bryfonski, Bedford chief and the current representative from the NH Chiefs of Police Association (which is disturbingly reminiscent of a similar moment of revisionist nostalgia from Peter "21A Ruined This Country" Morency, testifying for the same organization in 2008 at 2 and a half minutes of part one, and recounted in more contextual detail here -- and it would appear the current Berlin chief's favored drug war hasn't been particularly successful, even personally, for old Pete).
Enjoy. Or be very sad. You have a choice, y'know...
As the policy fight heats up at the State House, Americans for Prosperity is hosting a debate next Monday on marijuana legalization in New Hampshire.
Former NH House SpeakerBill O’Brien , who is exploring his own GOP Senate run against Shaheen, will moderate this event from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications in Manchester.
The panel of supporters will be ex-state representative Joe Hannon, who served on the marijuana study commission; Matt Simon, New England political director of the Marijuana Policy Project; and Ross Connolly with AFP.
The opponents will be Neil Hubacker with Cornerstone NH, Rep. Stephen Pearson, R-Derry and Rep. Pat Abami, R-Stratham, and chairman of the study commission.
"Inevitable," even? Could it be? The last time we visited this rodeo, back in 2014, the NH House became the first legislative body in the country to pass marijuana legalization via HB492. This year, this day, 2/21/2017, hard on the heels of the House repeating that action a few weeks ago with the similarly themed HB656, the Senate Judiciary Committee finally gets around to actually considering its own version, and chills to a similarly tranquil SB233, "relative to the legalization and regulation of marijuana and establishing a committee to study the legalization of marijuana."
One cop and one predictably deeply authoritarian/prohibitionist organization in opposition. The unmitigated "mistake," Lt John Encarnacao, always reliably recalcitrant Commander of the NH Dept of Safety's Narcotics Unit, is in the incessantly unsupportable conviction (see what I did there?) that prohibition ever works. Ever. Even that one time when it was foolishly and expensively (in blood, treasure and liberty) actually lawfully authorized... to meddlesome paternalistic hammer-wielding people like you.
Your employers -- that's the taxpayers, since you seem a might fuzzy on that point -- have had enough, and have given you your instructions. End the "War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™. Why are we still talking about this? Why are you here, under the official auspices of the "servant State," lobbying our other servants to continue the destruction against our wishes -- and, without a lick of contrition, even on our dime, it really must be noted, unlike Cheshire County Department of Corrections Superintendent Van Wickler who, equally reliably, took time off to be here this day to talk reason?
It's true. Even if it were effective at its professed goals (and also not obscenely expensive in blood, treasure and liberty), and in addition to being immoral, prohibition -- of anything, since the people ratified the 21st Amendment -- is nowhere authorized to this government. Why does that fundamental fact continue to elude self-described "conservatives" in this ostensible Constitutional Republic of expressly limited government?
But the relentless prohibitionists and Constitution-deniers sure did show up in force this day, 4/23/2019, in opposition to HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor," before the NH Senate Judiciary Committee. They recruited much out-of-state talent in their quest to continue violating your rights over your own body. Non-masochists might just want to skip to MPP's New England Political Director Matt Simon at about 1:53:00. We did have confirmed for us that NJ still really sucks. Gosh, you make it all sound so enticing, Bishop, but you should go home and work to alleviate your domestic afflictions, rather than attempting to convert NH.
The "good" news is that they just couldn't fit all the authoritarians into one session, so the hearing's been recessed until May 7th at 9am. So there's still an opportunity for you to explain it to them...
Seriously, Senate District 2, it's time for the aggressive nanny-state-authoritarian, religious-fervor-prohibitionist and (therefore) "Constitution denier" Bob Giuda -- who, if the polls are remotely accurate, is intent on listening to anyone but his own constituents (other than cops, I mean) on this issue -- to go...
Following an historic passage (the first affirmation by a state legislative body, as other successful legalization efforts have been by referenda) by the NH House on 1/15/2014, HB492, "relative to the legalization and regulation of marijuana," confronts its second House committee (the first having been Criminal Justice, so very long ago), Ways and Means, where the State explains why it believes ending prohibition is economically scary and endangers its oppressive Byzantine house of regulatory cards -- an abode enabled and constructed entirely by prohibition, 1/30/2014. And besides, feds. So... Hey, sometimes the Constitution and the nettlesome limits it intended to impose just have to take a back seat, y'know...?
Probably never happen again, but for once, I agree with the Liquor Commission: I don't want another self-delegated state drug monopoly, either. Just the morning session: I couldn't take any more. Nor could my camera batteries...
Neither guns nor weed are within any delegated 'prohibition' purview of any government legitimately authorized by this US Constitution. It's that simple.
With hoplophobic hysteria (among other problems already, to be sure) having gleefully descended on the freshly Democratically-controlled NH legislature this term, the several state RKBA groups have been working overtime endeavoring to get their constituents out to relevant committee hearings and contacting their ostensible "representatives". Thus, I've expected that the public hearings for these bills would be well-enough attended and sufficiently reported that my own camera wasn't needed -- indeed, unnecessarily taking an SRO spot from someone else, who just might provide compelling testimony, too.
Plus there are the obscene parking problems in the State House's vicinity lately, even without high turnout, what with construction and the booted meters and garage spaces reserved for the Privileged Class as far as the eye can see. It shouldn't be too easy to instruct your servant government, after all...
But this day, 5/14/2019, is the typically far less well-attended Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Session to hash out and arrive at said committee's official mob-rule/damn-our-constricting-lawfully-delegated-authority recommendations to the full body on, among others, 4 of those gun bills (so there's still time to contact your Senator), all beginning at about the 9:20 mark:
HB109, "requiring background checks for commercial firearms sales", ("Ought To Pass" 3-2), HB514, "imposing a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm", (OTP/As Amended 3-2), HB564, "(New Title) relative to possession of firearms on school property", (OTP/A 3-2), HB696, "establishing a protective order for vulnerable adults" (here are overviews on this one), (OTP/A 3-2).
So much head-smackingly self-assured cluelessness that cries out for addressing here, certainly -- not that it hasn't been addressed before, ad nauseam, to no effect. But I'll confine myself to arguably the most egregious: the empirically false, addle-pated conviction, at base, that criminals obey laws. And further that if the children can be assured that if the rights of (only, since they're the only ones who will comply, duh) law-abiding citizens may be violated (without Constitutional authority, needless to say), then the children will rest easy that they are somehow now made safer. That the children would buy that speaks mostly to their government-school education, seems to me. The "gun-free" school bill stops everyone but the individual it (says it) wants to stop -- and, indeed, assures him publicly of that fact. What could possibly go wrong...?
And if you haven't stopped the criminal -- and again, unauthorized statutes stopping the law-abiding by definition won't stop him -- then "feeling safe" is, at best, entirely illusory, is nothing at all but a potentially more deadly "false sense of security", because you've purged the killing zone of any effective defense against those whom your statute won't stop. The school shooter is still coming. Seriously, have you not been following the news? All you've accomplished is to reassure him that his victims will be unable to defend themselves. The belief that an individual who would shoot up a school will still heed your prohibition on peaceful carry is flat-out delusional.
But first, they 'Exec' HB399, "relative to annulment of arrests or convictions for possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" at about :40 (OTP/A 3-2) and HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor" at about 6:45, ("re-refer to committee" 5-0 -- merely returning toward Constitutional constraints should get more study...!), legislative hearings for which may be viewed here and here (House) and here (Senate).
Consider. Both of these topics, guns and weed -- each of them (one explicitly, even) undelegated "prohibitions", functionally -- concern what, in a free society (hell, even in this one), should be jealously-guarded fundamentally-protected civil liberties: unilateral control of your own body, and the ability to effectively defend that right from those who, whether with or without a fancy hat, would presume to violate it.
How can the Constitution-averse Duopoly -- that assures you that it is government, and will be respected, even if ultimately it has to kill you to "earn" it (because make NO mistake, every statute is backed by a gun) -- so easily and recalcitrantly trade sides on them?
Does that seem right to you...?
From MPP New England Political Director Matt Simon, 6/14/2019, because it needs to go somewhere (and tell Sununu about the rest of your rights, too, while you've got him on the horn):
New Hampshire friends, as you may know, I have been trying to convince the state to allow patients to grow their own cannabis for more than a decade. In the fall of 2008, with support from MPP, I began meeting with patients all over the state and encouraging them to share their experiences to help educate policymakers. Since then, countless patients have testified at public hearings to explain why they need to be able to grow their own cannabis as an alternative to opioids and other potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals.
The House of Representatives has listened, voting to pass *eight* medical cannabis home cultivation bills (in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.) Sadly, the only time the Senate agreed with the House was in 2012, and the bill was vetoed by then-Governor John Lynch (D).
It's good that we finally have a functional medical cannabis program and a few tightly regulated dispensaries, but many patients continue to suffer because they are unable to afford a regular supply of cannabis from the dispensaries. Since medical cannabis isn't covered by insurance, many patients simply can't afford it and are left with no choice but to continue taking opioids. Maintaining felony penalties against patients who cultivate cannabis for their own use is an insane, authoritarian policy, and it has no place in a state that has the temerity to call itself the "Live Free or Die" state.
I got into this intending to help *all* patients who could benefit from cannabis, and that is why I refuse to give up this fight.
This year, the Senate has once again listened to the needs of patients, and it has agreed with the House to allow limited home cultivation. HB 364 is on its way to the desk of Gov. Chris Sununu, who has not yet indicated whether he intends to sign it or veto it.
This morning, HB 364 even got an endorsement from Granite Grok, which bills itself as "the conservative voice of New England" and strongly opposes legalization for adults' use. And yet, because it is opposed by the police chiefs' association, the bill's fate remains uncertain.
On behalf of all the patients who have been asking for more than a decade, including many who have since passed away or moved to other states in disgust (note: home grow is now legal, not only for patients, but for all adults in all three neighboring states), I ask that you please take a moment to call Gov. Sununu's office (603-271-2121) and politely urge him to sign this critically important bill.
No, no, no. We might learn things that conflict with our religion. We might finally have to face them. And that could lead to ceding our ill-gotten authoritah. Maybe even to dancing. That simply won't do...
HB215, "establishing a commission to study the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana," Senate Judiciary Committee, 4/11/2017.
Rep. Almy in her testimony refers to this hearing from 2014, where, as Committee Chair, she had invited state bureaucrats to complain about how they'd be negatively impacted were their employers (that's you, taxpayer) to actually get their way and the servants end the dangerous, expensive -- in blood, treasure and liberty -- and unauthorized marijuana prohibition.
My commentary in part on that hearing, while it focused on actually doing something good rather than just talking about it more, still perfectly applies:
"Following an historic passage (the first affirmation by a state legislative body, as other successful legalization efforts have been by referenda) by the NH House on 1/15/2014, HB492, "relative to the legalization and regulation of marijuana," confronts its second House committee (the first having been Criminal Justice, so very long ago), Ways and Means, where the State explains why it believes ending prohibition is economically scary and endangers its oppressive Byzantine house of regulatory cards -- an abode enabled and constructed entirely by prohibition, 1/30/2014. And besides, feds. So... Hey, sometimes the Constitution and the nettlesome limits it intended to impose just have to take a back seat, y'know...?"
But yeah, this wouldn't turn into yet another stacked deck, or anything (like when the "citizen representative" seat on the medical marijuana commission was somehow filled with a cop). No, not at all...
'Course, to be fair, some of the Live Free Or Die State's New England neighbors have lit up a bit of a political blaze since the last time the NH state legislature visited this issue, what with MA and ME effectively ending (at least at the state level) "The War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™. And in addition to the continued stat that about two-thirds of voters want it, there's perhaps an air of inevitability and resignation finally entering the (selectively) unaltered consciousness of the prohibitionists.
SB66, "including a fetus in the definition of 'another' for purposes of certain criminal offenses," having been retained (to what purpose, anyway?) in the NH House Criminal Justice Committee, is somehow quickly resurrected for amendments and a final committee recommendation in Executive Session without benefit of public notice (even in the current House Calendar) or further publicly accessible hearings or meetings. The justification seems to be "oh, we've always done it that way." Mildly contentious procedural debate ensues, to be followed, with one exception, by party-line votes. The drama begins around the 8:00 minute mark, following some, umm, House-keeping chores, which include...
Tangentially but of considerable note, and having no "work product" to warrant a separate post, the bill for which your humble chronicler primarily had attended this day's festivities in the first place, HB656, "relative to the legalization and regulation of marijuana" -- House hearing here, Senate hearing for their own version, SB233, here
-- and expecting what the House Calendar dubbed a "work session", was instead simply assigned to a subcommittee without much fanfare, for work over the summer. Inquiring of the Chair when it became apparent the committee was done for the day, he volunteered that he believed that chances of
passage are good.
No surprise, really, given that the House has passed "legalization" before (the first US legislative body to have done so, in fact). But he seemed to be signaling an even more significant result this time -- which itself should also not be surprising, given that NH (the "Live Free or Die" State) is soon to be surrounded by compatriot governments that finally acknowledge the utter failure of the utterly unauthorized "War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™...
Can this really be surprising, though, when the hand-picked membership is overwhelmingly comprised of unrepentant on-the-record -- even vestedly self-interested -- drug warriors? Oh, the prohibitionist/authoritarian echo chamber. Thank you, late-commission-addition attorney Paul "How the hell did he get in here?!?" Twomey, for injecting a shudder of jarring objectivity and honesty into the juggernaut.
The titular revelation barely 4 minutes into this "impartial" commission's only second non-"organizational" meeting, 11/27/2017 -- the announcement that the Chair is already intending to speak in House session against this year's "marijuana legalization" bill, HB656 (the Criminal Justice Committee's equally tediously predictable Executive Session for which can be seen here), and his request for the commission's consent for him to speak on behalf of the whole group at that time -- and then Mr. Twomey's desperately needed subsequent objection to said presumptuous, disingenuous, "really, who needs a horse anyway when we got this here dandy pre-ordained cart?" Committee Chair's request round out the first 6 minutes.
If you'd just prefer to skip over all the essentially "the feds might get mad!" and "we have to protect voluntary commercial partners from themselves!" -- and, of course, the ever-popular catch-all, "REGULATE ALL THE THINGS!" -- bullshit that comes next, Marijuana Policy Project's New England Political Director Matt Simon -- who isn't on this commission, bringing some deficient balance, right next to the devoutly prohibitionist private-sector advocacy group New Futures, because...? -- starts at about 59:00, providing some rational facts regarding the recent history and current regional state of "The War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™.
(Some unfortunate audio difficulties in the middle as my mic battery slowly expired without notice, somewhat ameliorated in post, but it clears up with a mic swap just after 1:24:00.)
The devout and desperate prohibitionists have moved on, en masse, from hysterical (in both senses) to downright stupid and aggressively (even scientifically) ignorant: 'We're unfamiliar with the difference between correlation and causation, but we just know what's going on here is the one that supports our cause. Which one is that, again? Oh, and we'd love to see harsher ineffective penalties, please...!'
I feel compelled to ask them: Are you on drugs...?!?
HB1631, "relative to penalties for possession of marijuana," a concept -- decriminalization, a mere ramping down of criminal penalties for possession of a plant while harming no one -- again passed recently by the (Republican, notably -- and still the first legislative body in the country ever to pass 'legalization', btw) NH (where, too, a recent poll found 62% support even for full legalization) House, is again sent to the Senate (where it's ultimately died the 6 previous times since 2008 -- many hearings of which can be found here) Judiciary Committee, 4/5/2016.
It has invariably been torpedoed in the past by (generally the mere threat of) a "Democratic" (uh-huh) governor's veto and an all too reliably accommodating Senate -- "honor among thieves," or "professional courtesy," or something. Will they finally recognize that they're the very last recalcitrant police-state authoritarian Drug-Warrior holdouts in New England, and that they do not represent the will of the people -- to say nothing of the liberty spirit of their authorizing charters? Hey, give 'em a shout and ask 'em...
What a lovely day to coo. Or to start a coup... Hemp was last month, and medical marijuana is still to come, but HB492, "relative to the legalization and regulation of marijuana," HB337, "legalizing marijuana and cannabis," HB621, "decriminalizing possession of less than one ounce of marijuana," all have their initial public hearings before the NH House Criminal Justice Committee on Valentine's day, 2/14/2013. Can ya feel the love?
First, though, we'll lead off with a little historical compilation, because FSP-spawned NH political activism has historical context now, don'tchaknow. Peter Morency, president of the "NH Chiefs of Police Association" at the time, and Ian Freeman, representing "NH Organized Crime," separately but unitedly advocate for the preservation of the status of certain inanimate substances as arbitrarily "illegal," and for the continuation of the tragic, destructive and entirely preventable phenomenon of "prohibition-related crime," before the same committee back in January of 2008 on HB1623-FN(the entirety of which hearing can be relived here). The former for cushy monopoly job security (as in this clip he wistfully waxes nostalgic over the "good-times" Capone-era alcohol prohibition responsible for such "common good" benefits to society as the incident referred to in this post's title) -- and the sheer power-trip, of course -- and the latter as continued "force-monopoly" protectionism for his organization's prevailing government-enabled black-market business model. Then Ian testifies again for the same organization, before the same committee, on this day, in opposition to HB492. Sadly, the new House majority is also a humorless majority, evidently, and subtle satire is lost on them, however incisive: this time the Chair seems confused by Ian's employment of Mark Twain-style analysis. So Ian subsequently takes a shot at them out of character for HB337. The difference between Peter and Ian (similarly testifying in opposition), of course, is that Peter is deadly serious. Peter, you represented the chiefs' vested self-interest (on the taxpayers' dime) so earnestly, so proudly and so well. Where have you gone? Ahh. Expanding your empire, I see...
It's profoundly sad that NH has had so many opportunities to lead on this issue -- substantively thwarted in recent years by an ostensibly liberal governor, ironically enough -- and yet finds herself playing catch-up as other states successfully rediscover their 10th Amendment prerogatives, reassert their sovereignty over an increasingly rogue yet intentionally limited general government, put their servants back in their place, and stop persecuting peaceful people for the temerity of assuming that they actually own their own bodies, that they're not the property of the state. It's long past time for servant bureaucrats to lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
And by the way, just to finally say it in print (although I did inquire of the Senate almost a year ago, at the very end of that hearing), there is absolutely no excuse for the people's employees to be lobbying, in their official capacity, against the people's wishes. None. Take off the badge or the uniform or the fancy hat, and you have just as much right to an opinion as anybody else. But as a public servant, your duty is to follow the public's orders, not to undermine them. We say "jump," you say "how high?" You aren't paid to contradict us. We tell you what is nece...!
If you, faithful reader, also believe your representatives should be preferentially listening to and accommodating you rather than your other servants, if you believe that the Legislative Branch is supposed to represent and be accountable to the people and not to the Executive Branch, tell them.
One more thing. Since it's an astonishingly indignant complaint we hear oppressively often in your committee room, Committee Chair Pantelakos, if you will promise that your government will start accepting its subservient role and consistently respecting and defending the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" self-ownership of peaceful people, as is its intent, I promise we'll quit wasting our time by obliging you to "put up with" us, and we can all go do something more productive and enjoyable. Otherwise, you reap what you sow. Deal?
By your government's own faithless actions, you have compelled, you have necessitated our presence, our resistance, our hovering oversight of you -- and inventive tactics in the never-ending effort to actually get through to you. Get used to it, or convince us you don't require our supervision anymore. Your choice.
On with the show. Primary videos will appear in this post as they're uploaded over the next day or so. Six hours edited, for your sanity, to only the pro-(all)-rights speakers (though HB621 is complete). I may isolate other testimony in a future post...
The NH House Criminal Justice Committee addresses a pair of prohibition-antagonistic bills in Executive Session, 11/14/2017. HB287 and HB656 -- dealing with what you're "allowed" to do with your body and what you're "allowed" to put in your body, respectively -- thus get their official committee recommendations to the full body, which will likely vote on them next week. Get those cards and letters flowing, people...
We've reclaimed the right to produce beer at home -- much as the Founders did. We've reclaimed the right to produce wine at home -- much as the Founders did. Why not liquor -- much as the Founders did? A craft hobbyist's goal, after all, is not to reproduce Budweiser, let alone a toxic product in addition to an insipid one. This is a labor of love and pride.
Indisputable: NH is already similarly defying the (entirely unauthorized) feds on medical cannabis. And equally defiant full "legalization" in the "Live Free or Die" state (thus removing our embarrassing current "island of prohibition" status) is within reach despite yet another recalcitrant governor defying the will of the people.
Further, while the 21st Amendment leaves to the states the regulation of alcohol, it does not -- it cannot -- authorize those states to ignore the rest of the Constitution as long as their regulation simply mentions alcohol. The First, the Fourth, the Fifth, etc. remain fully in effect. We need not trade one unalienable right in order to secure government's permission (does that seem right to you?) to exercise another.
Herewith, HB473, "allowing hobby distillation of liquors," before the NH House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, 1/24/2019. The protectionist NH Wine and Spirits Brokers Association opposes it, big surprise. The prohibitionist New Futures opposes it, big surprise. Neither bothered to testify. The public hearing for 2017's similar HB427 came and went before your humble chronicler was even aware of its existence, and went down in flames. Let's get it right this time...
There's incrementalism and legitimate (preferably temporary) tactical compromise in the fight to regain individual liberty, and there's abject capitulation to authoritarianism. Essentially bargaining to retain merely the status quo. In this case, an unauthorized, immoral and ridiculously expensive in both blood and treasure -- to say nothing of simply empirically appallingly failed in its stated mission -- status quo, that satisfies nothing but "Big Pharma" and the police and prison unions, accomplishes nothing but to protect their profits, at your wallet's and your liberty's expense. Guess which is on display here?
When the 2 chambers (House and Senate) of NH's Legislative Branch -- the General Court -- pass differing versions of the same bill, and the 2 chambers can't agree on one of them, they can approve what's known as a Committee of Conference, where "leadership"-selected delegates from the 2 bodies meet to try to hammer out a compromise version that will be satisfactory to their peers.
This is such a Committee of Conference, 5/24/2016, regarding this session's edition of NH's mind-numbingly unremitting marijuana "decrim" dance. Not "legalization," mind you, which nevertheless sports approval of almost two thirds of the electorate. No, merely lessening the penalties -- supported by more than 70% (how's that for "representative government"?) -- that servant-government-with-no-lawfully-delegated-prohibition-authority-to-begin-with can rain down on your head for the defiant temerity of preferring a (safer) drug that it DOESN'T sell on the side of the highway. (You can find the Senate hearing on the House's original and typically overwhelmingly-passed 2016 'decrim' bill here.)
What we come away with, in startlingly record time, is a "compromise" that they won't, in fact, increase fines, as the Senate contingent magnanimously agrees not to get even tougher on peaceful people harming no one. The House's "actual decrim" version was never even proposed; that body's contingent certainly made no effort to make the proceedings at all uncomfortable for the Senate's devout prohibitionists. Busy day, busy day...
This Kabuki is preceded by (most of -- oopsie) a news conference directed by Marijuana Policy Project's New England Political Director Matt Simon that itself lasts about 10 times longer and is, as is sadly to be expected, far more informative, rational and fact-rich than the Committee's clearly preordained "deliberations".
This election season, make your directions clear to those who would presume to "represent" you. The Carsons and Forresters and Hosmers and Hassans and assorted other authoritarians and blind prohibitionists of this world who purport to own you need to be sent off to find less harmful things to do.
Well, that was oppressive (but I do it for you, gentle reader). So here we are again with NH's very deliberately hand-picked "Prohibition Justification Commission", AKA, the Commission to Study the Legalization, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana, which has deigned this day, 4/16/2018, to hear from actual -- if not actually all that representative, if polls are any indication at all (and, too, it needs noting, mostly rent-seekers) -- citizens.
The "public comment" portion begins at about 22 minutes, following a college paper. Excepting your humble chronicler's own svelt testimony, delivered from behind the camera at about 43:45, and weighing in at about a minute and a quarter, the remaining 10 average a torpor-inducing ~15.5 minutes apiece (granted, they get commodious "help" from the commission). Today's relentless catch-phrase: the ever-popular 'for the children'. Adults must simply accept being treated like children by their betters.
Here is the issue, mentioned by Commission member, Attorney Twomey a dozen ticks shy of the 19-min mark, regarding Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and his proper political intercession, on behalf of his actual constituents no less, against the DoJ's sabre-rattling regarding re-igniting the dying embers of that very "War On People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™. After that, maybe a freedom-oriented person might want to just skip to Rick Naya, the final speaker, at about 2:29:00.
The cognitive dissonance is strong in these crusaders, at least several of whom actually helpfully instruct the commission that the horrifically expensive (in blood, treasure and liberty) drug war does not work -- and yet they're here advocating that NH should continue that unwinnable drug war. Does that seem right to you -- especially if you're among, according to many polls now, the two-thirds of voters who want it ended, maybe even believe it was never authorized in the first place?
One more time. In a free, civil society, the rule of law must be respected. Therefore, in a free, civil society, servant government ought to obey its instituting Constitution. In a free, civil society, unauthorized fiat prohibitions must end. This aggression will not stand, man.
If you want prohibition -- of cannabis, or alcohol, or cigarettes, or harmful calories (watch the video, understand the "health choices" hypocrisy) -- you are first required to get the People to pass an authorizing amendment. A mere legislative statute is flatly insufficient in this Constitutional Republic. Once upon a time, even servant government understood that -- and the People eventually rectified their own grievous and costly mistake.
But no amendment is needed in order to repeal an undelegated authority. All that requires is an honest, servant government.
I don't know if something changed in Concord's water, or what, but from the newly inoperable IT system (rendering bill tracking all but impossible -- "intentional?" I hear you ask...) to Medicaid Expansion to backsliding on REAL ID and marijuana legalization to..., it's been a rough early legislative session for liberty lovers in NH. Herewith, for example, the House Criminal Justice Committee's resistive public hearing on HB1546, "permitting the audio recording of a public servant performing a public function," 2/12/2016. Already decided by 'Glik' and 'Gericke' and 'Alleman'. And yes, the bill clearly and explicitly modifies the language in the existing statute to require, rather than the current "all parties," "AT LEAST ONE PARTY TO THE COMMUNICATION." So still no "third party" recording. But your servants are bashful, so...
Whose privacy is the -- "at all times accountable," according to Part First Article 8 of the NH Constitution, remember -- government employee protecting if the only other person who can record him is the taxpayer he's currently lying to...?
Will justice prevail? Selected testimony from the brace of marijuana bills heard by the NH House Criminal Justice Committee, 2/14/2013.
First, Rich Paul testifies regarding the unalienable right to pursue happiness and HB492, "relative to the legalization and regulation of marijuana." Then Rep. Mark Warden introduces HB337, "legalizing marijuana and cannabis." Following, a couple new arrivals (to my knowledge) -- and very welcome, indeed -- to NH liberty activism join Rich Paul again in also addressing HB337. Finally, Marijuana Policy Project Legislative Analyst Matt Simon and NH Common Sense Executive Director Kirk McNeil speak during the hearing on HB621, "decriminalizing possession of less than one ounce of marijuana," but reference all 3 bills. See more of these hearings here.
