House Bill 1526 would make possession of up to an ounce of marijuana punishable only by a fine of up to $100. Pot possession would no longer be considered a misdemeanor offense, as is the case in Massachusetts after voters there passed a ballot measure.
[…]
Another bill to be discussed at the hearing, HB 1527, would go even further, exempting the cultivation of marijuana under the controlled drug act.

Freshman Rep. Kyle Tasker (R) is one of the first bill’s primary backers, and expressed his hope that a compromise would be reached that would allow the House and Senate to secure enough support to override a likely veto from the governor. “This is a bipartisan issue. Everyone agrees there’s a need for change,” Tasker told the Union Leader.

The pro-legalization advocacy organization NORML lists 14 states that have decriminalized pot “to some degree,” though several of the states listed still treat possession as a misdemeanor. In New Hampshire, as with many other states, marijuana convictions are almost always pleaded out, resulting in lesser sentencing while still attaching a criminal record to violators, law enforcement officials say.

Yet liberalizing state marijuana laws will only achieve half of what’s necessary to reform America’s overreaching drug laws. Even if every single state repealed their marijuana laws tomorrow, that would do nothing to change the federal government’s strict prohibition. Despite a study by the Centers for Disease Control which revealed that 15,000 people died in 2008 from overdosing on legal prescription painkillers, the federal government still treats the much less dangerous drug marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance — in the same category as cocaine and heroin. Legal prescription drugs like OxyCotin and Vicodin remain in lower classifications with fewer regulations.

Polling in New Hampshire that was conducted the last time the legislature debated these bills in 2008 indicates that a large majority of voters support reforming the state’s pot laws. That’s similar to a national Gallup poll in 2011 that showed for the first time a majority of voters support legalizing the use of marijuana.

In announcing his retirement, Frank said he believes his leverage as a legislator has diminished and that he can better influence Congress as a private citizen and activist. ThinkProgress has assembled a list of Barney Frank’s last crusades — policy struggles that progressives should take up with even more vigor now that the congressman has announced his retirement:

1. Drastically Curtail Military Spending: Last year, Frank assembled a list of budgetary and military experts of every ideology to form the Sustainable Defense Task Force (SDTF). Under Frank’s tutelage, the SDTF laid out a trillion dollars worth of military spending cuts the United States could enact within a decade without undermining its security. More recently, when the super committee failed to reach a deal, Frank said it was “good” because the Defense Department “will take a big share of the cuts” that will automatically be enacted during the mandated sequester process.

2. Defending The Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Law: Last year, Congress passed into law the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Frank has committed himself to defending this package of financial regulations from Republican attacks, even testifying before his colleagues in the Senate to defend certain parts of the law. With presidential contenders like Mitt Romney promising to repeal the law, it remains under attack.

3. Repealing The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA): Earlier this year, Frank co-sponsored legislation that would repeal DOMA. When Republicans complained that the bill may hurt them politically, Frank remarked, “The fact that we’ve now evolved to the point where the Republicans are complaining about the fact that we introduced this bill because it causes them political problems is a great sign of progress.” In his retirement speech, Frank challenged GOP presidential primary candidate Newt Gingrich to a debate over DOMA, saying that he is an “ideal opponent for us, when we talk about just who it is, is threatening the sanctity of marriage.”

4. Passing The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): Frank has repeatedly supported and introduced the ENDA bill, which would outlaw discrimination in the workplace against LGBT individuals. In a passionate moment while debating the bill in 2007, Frank, choking back tears, explained that he had “an obligation to fifteen year olds dreading to go to school, because of the torments, to people who are afraid they’ll lose their job at a gas station if someone finds out who they love, I feel obligated to use the status I have been lucky enough to get, to help them.”

5. Ending Federal Prohibition of Marijuana: Working with his Republican colleague Rep. Ron Paul (TX), Frank introduced a bill that would end federal prohibitions on marijuana and allow states to regulate it themselves. Frank said he was “particularly struck by the hypocrisy of public officials who will themselves talk about smoking marijuana, wink at it, and then make it criminal for other people.”

6. Establishing A Universal Health Care System: While he supported the health care reforms in the Affordable Care Act, Frank was ultimately an outspoken proponent of a single-payer health care system that operates like Medicare for all Americans. During an appearance on the Ed Show, Frank said, “I’m for single payer, which I think Medicare has shown is the best system. I will accept as second best a very good public option which, by the way, when the conservatives say will lead to a total public plan, they are conceding our point, namely that people will find that there is a better level of care.”

Frank was one of the 99 Percent’s best allies in Congress, and with his departure, progressives can honor his legacy by continuing to advocate for the causes of his unfinished crusades.

The report comes as a growing number of states and the federal government debate the prohibition of marijuana. Just this week, the White House rejected several marijuana legalization petitions.

Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, giving the highest level of restriction possible. Painkillers like OxyCotin are Schedule II, while others like Vicodin are Schedule III. Yet while these less restricted drugs killed 15,000 people last year alone, “There are virtually no reports of fatal cannabis overdose in humans,” a widely-cited study from the National Institute of Mental Health found. Studies on animals have found lethal doses practically impossible to achieve, as a human physically could not consume the required volume.

As spelled out in the Controlled Substance Act, there are three requirements for Schedule I classifications, according to the DEA:

Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Of course, 16 states and the District of Columbia now recognize medicinal benefits of marijuana and have established safety standards. And while there is no doubt that marijuana has the potential for abuse, advocates say it is not high enough — on par with cocaine and heroin — to merit Schedule I status, and no higher than prescription drugs, the danger of which the CDC report clearly demonstrates.

In fact, when marijuana was initially classified as a Schedule I drug in 1970, its placement was intended to be only provisional pending the findings of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, also known as the Shafer Commission, as it was led by then-Pennsylvania Gov. Raymond Shafer (R). Two years later, the commission released its findings, concluding: “Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety.” Nonetheless, the Nixon administration did nothing and let the drug remain classified as Schedule I.

In a letter sent just last week, nine congressmen, including Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA) — called on President Obama to reschedule marijuana as either a Schedule II or III drug — the same status as Vicodin or Oxycontin. Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) have also introduced a bill to do just that.

Adamant in its disagreement with the policy choice made by the States of California to decriminalize marijuana for medical use — which is California’s sovereign right under our federalist system of government — the federal government has instituted a policy to dismantle the medical marijuana laws of the State of California and to coerce its municipalities to pass bans no medical marijuana dispensaries. . . . While the federal government is entitled to enforce its criminal laws against marijuana in the states that have decriminalized it for medical use in an even-handed manner, the Tenth Amendment forbids it from selectively employing such coercive tactics to commandeer the law-making functions of the State. This case is brought to restore the constitutional balance embodied by the federalist principles of our Constitution and the Tenth Amendment.

This is strong rhetoric, but it’s tough to find an actual legal argument in here. In essence, the lawsuit appears to claim that the federal government is violating something known as the “anti-commandeering doctrine,” which forbids the federal government from requiring a state government to take a particular action. As the Supreme Court held in Printz v. United States, “the Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.”

The problem with this lawsuit is that there is no indication whatsoever that DOJ is ordering California to do anything. The Justice Department is targeting marijuana clinics and individuals who do business with them. None of these people are the state of California.

Yet the fact that DOJ’s attacks on these clinics is constitutional does not make them right, and they expose a very real political danger for anyone worried about the tenther movement’s effort to replace our Constitution with a radical libertarian vision that would declare much of the Twentieth Century unconstitutional. The polling trend on marijuana policy is clear and unambiguous, and it leaves no doubt which side is on the right side of history:

Our current policy, which criminalizes an activity that nearly half of all Americans will engage in is unsustainable. And many people who want to take a machete to the Constitution are eager to exploit this fact. Randy Barnett, the extremist law professor who wants to make everything from Social Security to Medicare to child labors law unconstitutional, began his crusade by unsuccessfully arguing to weaken federal marijuana laws in the Supreme Court. The Tenth Amendment Center, an even more extremist organization that lists unconstitutional nullification of federal laws as one of its primary objectives, touts an unconstitutional hemp bill as one of its top priorities.

Progressives cannot afford to cede an increasingly popular issue to a movement that wants nothing more than to dismantle our social safety net, strip workers of their most basic legal protections and create a society where wealth becomes destiny. Our current federal marijuana policy is unambiguously constitutional, but that does not make it right.

JOHNSON: Yes. … After prohibition of alcohol was repealed, one of the untold stories was of all the pardons that went out to all those people who had been convicted or were serving jail sentences for trading in alcohol. I think that same phenomenon accompanies legalizing marijuana and what I call rational drug policy, which starts with looking at the drug problem or the drug issue first as a health issue rather a criminal justice issue.

Most offenders are convicted under state drug laws and thus not eligible for Johnson’s scheme, but activists have sought a presidential pardon for some egregious federal convictions.

Perhaps the most startling thing about Johnson’s stance is not the comments themselves, but the fact that only a fringe candidate with less than one percent support in most polls is willing to say them. As Johnson happily noted, a new Gallup poll released this week finds that a full 50 percent of Americans now support marijuana legalization, and not just for medical use. A CNN poll from April, a Pew poll from February, and many other recent polls have similar results, with support for legalization in at least the mid 40s. Meanwhile, support is as high as 62 percent other controversial among Americans under 30 years old. Support for other social policies is often not much higher, yet they garner immense attention while drug policy is largely ignored or taken for granted.

Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) have been perhaps the most mainstream politicians to take up the issue, introducing a bill to allow states to regulate marijuana as they please.

This month, U.S. attorneys representing four districts in California announced that the government would single out landlords and property owners who rent buildings or land where dispensaries sell or cultivators grow marijuana. Now, newspapers and other media outlets could be next.

U.S. Attorney Laura E. Duffy, whose district includes Imperial and San Diego counties, said marijuana advertising is the next area she’s “going to be moving onto as part of the enforcement efforts in Southern California.” Duffy said she could not speak for the three other U.S. attorneys covering the state, but noted their efforts have been coordinated so far. [...]

Federal law prohibits people from placing ads for illegal drugs, including marijuana, in “any newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication.” The law could conceivably extend to online ads; the U.S. Department of Justice recently extracted a $500 million settlement from Google for selling illegal ads linking to online Canadian pharmacies.

Because the law prohibits the “placing” of ads, it’s likely that it only applies to the dispensaries themselves and not to the newspaper and radio stations — but there’s no guarantee that media outlets cannot be prosecuted as well because a few courts have actually interpreted the law.

It is unfortunate that the Obama Administration would expend scarce prosecutorial resources on these kinds of cases. California’s marijuana dispensaries serve patients seeking medically prescribed treatments for their health conditions. Admittedly, it is also notoriously easy to obtain recreational marijuana from these dispensaries as well, but so what? Forty-two percent of Americans will smoke marijuana at some point in their lifetimes. Three people who’ve already used it are Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It’s difficult to justify treating an activity that nearly half of all Americans engage in as if it were a serious offense worthy of a potentially life-destroying jail sentence.

Harsh marijuana laws are hemorrhaging support, as a recent Pew survey shows a sharp and unambiguous trend in favor of legalization:

The numbers leave no doubt that the days of needless jail sentences for marijuana crimes are numbered. It’s time for the Obama Administration to get on the right side of history and back major reforms.

Over the weekend, the Washington state Democrats’ Central Committee passed a resolution endorsing the initiative. The resolution says the state is “wasting millions of dollars” on resources that “could be directed to more important public safety priorities;” therefore, the party is endorsing the legalization of marijuana as outlined in Initiative 502:

WHEREAS thousands of Washington adults are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for simple marijuana possession each year, wasting millions of dollars in police, court, and jail resources that could be redirected to more important public safety priorities; [...] THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, endorse and stand in support of Initiative Measure No. 502 to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana for adults 21 and over.

Earlier this year, the Washington State House of Representatives Office Of Program Research estimated that the state would save $240 million every year from marijuana legalization, both from savings to law enforcement agencies and new revenues generated by taxes.

After a 15-year old Madison East High School student was expelled for bringing marijuana to school in 2009, the Dane County Circuit Court adjudged the student delinquent and ordered the Madison Metropolitan School District (District) to provide him with alternative educational services during his expulsion period, up to three semesters. [...]

The majority concluded that while school districts may be encouraged to provide alternative education to expelled students, certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice Code do not override the District’s explicit authority to expel students and refuse further educational services.

In essence, the case turned on the tension between two state statutes, one allowing school districts to expel students and the other permitting judges to require juvenile delinquents to attend some form of schooling. Prosser and his fellow conservatives held that the first statute controls, while the three more progressive justices believed the second controlled.

Wisconsin’s constitution provides that public schools “shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of 4 and 20 years,” but the practical effect of this decision is that a child will have no access to education for as much as a year and a half. The mind baffles at how anyone could think that depriving him of public schooling for this long will do anything other than doom him to a lifetime of the very delinquency that led to his expulsion in the first place.

Nearly half of all Americans will try marijuana by their senior year in high school. It is simply not practical to impose draconian sanctions on each of these children, even if it were a good idea. Nor would it be anything other than disastrous if they were all subject to criminal sanctions if they used marijuana again after they became adults.

So, of course, we don’t arrest or expel every single person who smokes a joint. Most casual marijuana users — including the last three presidents of the United States — go their entire lives without ever suffering consequences. Meanwhile, a handful of disproportionately poor Americans lose a terrible lottery and obtain a career-destroying criminal record as a result.

Prosser’s decision will likely leave doom one Wisconsin student to a lifetime of hopelessness, but it is only a symptom of much larger problem with American drug policy. If nearly half the nation will use marijuana by the time they graduate from high school, maybe that’s a good sign that we shouldn’t threaten every one of those children to a potentially life-destroying expulsion or arrest.