While American taxpayers spend billions on efforts to stamp out opium crops in Afghanistan, coca plants in Colombia, and all manner of illegal drugs here at home, police in Keene, New Hampshire, this week have been quietly observing groups of marijuana rights advocates lighting up their illegal joints in the downtown Central Square without making any arrests.

The pot smokers have been gathering and lighting up at precisely 4:20 p.m., a time they chose, they said, because 420 is the code number police use for marijuana. The crowd in the square grew to about 75 yesterday after an article about the demonstrations appeared on the front page of yesterday's New Hampshire Union Leader. Not all present were smoking the illegal substance, however. Some came just to express support for those opposing marijuana laws. Police stood outside the square and observed the goings on but did not intervene.

Last week the Keene City Council voted in favor of a resolution calling on the state Legislature to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. But two of the councilors in the 9-5 majority later said they were confused about the meaning of the resolution and wanted to change their vote. A motion to reconsider is expected at next week's meeting. Since the resolution would have no legal effect, some members argued that the council should stick to issues within its control. Yet the councilors also considered and narrowly defeated a resolution calling for legalization of medical use of marijuana. Both houses of the state legislature this spring passed a bill legalizing medical marijuana, but Governor John Lynch vetoed the measure. A bill to decriminalize possession of a quarter ounce or less of marijuana was passed by the New Hampshire House last year, but was defeated in the state Senate.

The resolution in Keene was recommended by Frederick Parsells, a retired city police officer and former member of the city council. Parsells said reducing possession from a criminal violation to a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine, would spare young first-time users the burden of a criminal record for "a moment's indiscretion." Other police officers, current and former, along with retired and active judges and others in law enforcement around the country, have come out publicly for the legalization and regulation of all drugs. Members of an organization called Law Enforcement Against Drugs, or LEAP, argue that the national and international War on Drugs has had much the same result as the Prohibition of alcohol did in America in the 1920s and 30s. It is costing billions of dollars to enforce laws they say creates an underworld industry that spawns violent crime.

"Ending Prohibition saved lives because it took gangsters out of the game," former Baltimore, Maryland police officers and current LEAP members Peter Moskos and Neill Franklin wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed article. "Regulated alcohol doesn't work perfectly, but it works well enough. Prescription drugs are regulated, and while there is a huge problem with abuse, at least a system of distribution involving doctors and pharmacists works without violence and high-volume incarceration. Regulating drugs would work similarly: not a cure-all, but a vast improvement on the status quo."

But whatever people may have to say about it through their city councils and state representatives, federal laws prohibiting possession of marijuana and other drugs are not apt to be changed anytime soon. Even in states that have legalized marijuana for medical use, federal agents continued to enforce the ban until February of this year, when Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Drug Enforcement Agency would no longer raid state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries. Otherwise, the federal War on Drugs goes on as before. As Reason magazine senior editor Brian Doherty wrote:

"The Drug War tends to be a quiet public policy matter, of interest only to what more sophisticated and jaded policy folk can write off as boring fanatics and aggrieved family members. It is rarely at the top of any politician's concerns —neither party, after all, can score points against the other on the matter."

One issue rarely raised in public policy debates over drug laws is the question of where Congress found the authority to write our drug laws. The United States had no federal drug policy prior to the Narcotics Act of 1914. A few years later a constitutional amendment was passed to ban the manufacture and sale of alcohol. If the prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment, why was an amendment not required for the prohibition of drugs?

"We simply urge the federal government to retreat," wrote Moskos and Franklin. "Let cities and states (and, while we're at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall."

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (19)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Damian N said:

	Time For Reason When confronted with sound evidence that supports the decriminalization or legalizatio of marijuana , the drug warriors response is to "Think of the children". An unregulted drugs market is what subjects youth to the widely available pharmacopia of substances. Drug dealers dont check ID.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 25, 2009
Votes: +5

Jack Hope said:

This could be the time... I made the comment the day after Obama won the election that this could be the time in which we see tobacco outlawed and marijuana legalized. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about marijuana use. I am not a user of drugs other than tobacco and only occasionally partake of alcohol. That said, I do have a high disregard for the unjust treatment meted out to recreational users of pot and to the enormous financial burden placed on taxpayers in the form of drug enforcement and overcrowding of jail/prison systems. I truly believe that the profits from drug trafficking are being used successfully to corrupt our government officials and destroy our great republic.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 25, 2009
Votes: +4

Some Guy said:

Is it even a crime? I'm against all crimes. You can't have a crime without a victim. You can't be your own victim. If a crackhead steals a TV to pay for his habit, he stole a TV which is a crime. If someone sober steals a TV to pay for a video game, he stole a TV which is a crime. If someone drives home safely while high, no crime has taken place. If someone drives home safely and hits my mailbox, a crime has taken place. Interesting....

report abuse vote down vote up

September 25, 2009
Votes: +1

Bill Harris said:

Peace on the home front Nixon promised that the Schafer Commission would support the criminalization of his enemies, but it didn’t. No matter, the witch-hunt was on. No amendments can assure due process under an anti-science law without due process itself. Psychology hailed the breakthrough potential of LSD, until the CSA halted all research and pronounced that marijuana has no medical use, period. The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. Americans shouldn’t need a specific church membership or an act of Congress to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. Denial of entheogen sacrament to any American, for mediation of communion with his or her maker, precludes free exercise of religious liberty. Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate any governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? The Mayflower sailed to escape coerced conformity. Legislators who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction. Common-law must hold that adults are the legal owners of their own bodies. The Founding Fathers decreed that the right to the pursuit of happiness is inalienable. Socrates said to know your self. Mortal lawmakers should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Persons who appreciate their own free choice of path in life should tolerate seekers’ self-exploration.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +8

Bill Harris said:

Psychoactive substance users are not criminals One need not travel to China to find indigenous cultures lacking human rights or to Cuba for political prisoners. America leads the world in percentile behind bars, thanks to ongoing persecution of hippies, radicals, and non-whites under banner of the war on drugs. If we’re all about spreading liberty abroad, then why mix the message at home? Peace on the home front would enhance global credibility. The drug czar’s Rx for prison fodder costs dearly, as lives are flushed down expensive tubes. My shaman’s second opinion is that psychoactive plants are God’s gift. Scripture (Gen.1:12) is clear. Behold, it’s all good. Canadian Marc Emery sold seeds that enable American farmers to outcompete cartels with superior local herb. He’s being extradited to prison, for doing what government can’t do, reduce U.S. demand for Mexican. Only on the authority of a clause about interstate commerce does the CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) reincarnate Al Capone, endanger homeland security, and throw good money after bad. Official policy is to eradicate, not tax, the number-one cash crop in the land. America rejected prohibition, but it’s back. Apparently, SWAT teams don’t need no stinking amendment. Father, forgive those who make it their business to know not what they do.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +5

End Prohibition said:

	Good article Correction: LEAP stands for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, not Law Enforcement Against Drugs.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

canadianonymous said:

	... beer is legal and more harmful than marijuana. young kids dont drink beer all the time. young kids dont smoke tobacco all the time. why would marijuana seem different? In fact i think many children would be dettered from smoking cannabis just because theyve been told for so long that its evil
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009
Votes: +2

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Josh said:

Patrick Henry: The legalization of any substance isn't about being making them "correct". The point is that the government can't interfere with personal choices. We obviously don't want people doing meth, but has the drug war stopped the use of meth? Let me decide what drugs I want or don't want to do. I'm not going to consume alcohol (except for a can now and then). Do I want people to stop doing alcohol and committing crimes? I even would rather have people not drink at all. But is that my choice? or your choice? or the government's choice? or even the majorities choice? In the land of the "free" we have the right to make personal decisions like that.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009
Votes: +3

malcolm kyle said:

... When pure pharmaceutical grade Bayer heroin was legally sold in local pharmacies and grocery stores for pennies per dose the term "drug-related crime" didn't exist, and neither was the United States the most incarcerated nation in history. Nobody is suggesting that drugs are harmless and certainly youngsters must be educated about and deterred from their use. However the current system of prohibition does nothing to protect children and criminalises what would be otherwise law abiding citizens. Prohibition was expected to rid the world of drugs by now, but the drugs trade which is reckoned to be the second largest world trade after oil is totally in the hands of criminals. To continue with present policies is to accept and effectively tolerate the existence of the criminal gangs that control the trade.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009
Votes: +3

scottportraits said:

Steps Towards Decriminalizing Pot are Wise and Long Overdue... I salute Frederick Parsells for 'taking a small step for a man, but a LEAP for mankind'. Every inch of progress towards turning our current drug and cannabis policies around is a step in the right direction. Glad to see there are more and more police personnel favoring these changes; changes that will effect the future of many young 'offenders' who, in the past, would have ended up with arrest and even conviction records. It's a sane policy that New Hampshire is pursuing. Hope the rest of the country follows in your footsteps.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009
Votes: +1

Phil E. Drifter said:

war on minorities It's not a war on (some) drugs it's a war on minorities to replace outlawed slave labor with prison labor. Read tinyurl.com/1mn After slavery was outlawed at the close of the Civil War in 1865, racist politicians first wrote 'grandfather clauses' which prevented the newly freed slaves from voting. After the supreme court ruled those unconstitutional, uncle sam outlawed the *naturally growing* substances that minorities were using (instead of drinking the white man's alcohol). Look, we know what prohibition does because we studied alcohol prohibition in grade school. Why would cannabis/opium/cocaine prohibition be any different? All it does is fund a black market and create corruption of police. it makes our streets unsafe because dealers/buyers can't confront each other in court should a dispute occur. And yes, it's easier for kids to get cannabis, opium, heroin, cocaine than it is for them to get alcohol or tobacco because alcohol and tobacco are legal and regulated. You don't see people killing each other on the street for whiskey or cigarettes.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009
Votes: +1

Phil E. Drifter said:

... You wanna get tough on drugs, incarcerate people for DUIs. Just a week ago a Philadelphia man KILLED an unfortunate 'wrong place/wrong time' driver in Cape May, leaving his wife husbandless and his daughter fatherless. The kicker is, his name was John Lawless, he was driving on a suspended license, and he'd been arrested SEVEN TIMES in the past on drunk driving. WHY WAS THIS GUY ALLOWED OUT ON THE STREET? http://cbs3.com/local/John.Lawless.Previously.2.1181374.html

report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009
Votes: +0

Phil E. Drifter said:

... patrick henry: notwithstanding your 'doped up hippies' derogatory comment... pot is illegal and people are still driving under it's influence. But you show your pure ignorance on the matter. It's illegal yet it's already available and people are driving high all the time. You wanna know the difference? People who are high KNOW they're impaired and drive slower. Stoned drivers are more likely to sit at a stop sign waiting for it to change color than to speed on a highway and take out an innocent family of 4. Do some research before you make yourself look like a buffoon commenting online about something you clearly have no knowledge of.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009
Votes: +2

Jose said:

	Bogus approach to legalization Decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana is like legalizing one beer. It is completely bogus.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 27, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Anna said:

	... 420 is not the code that police use for marijuana
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 27, 2009
Votes: +1

Esther Cook said:

Prohibition Kills I think the Feds WILL legalize pot soon because of a new approach and book called "Marijuana is SAFER." I asked a cop a question from the police chief's intro: when was the last time you had to fight a person intoxicated on marijuana? A moment's thought, then: "I don't think I've EVER had to fight a person intoxicated on marijuana." Alcohol-yes, they fight those all the time. And mixed pot/other things. People are familiar with the dangers of booze and think it should be legal. They have no idea that marijuana is any safer when in fact it is drastically safer. Just wait til every rape victim in the country is told that almost all rape is alcohol related and if the perp had been on pot instead, she would be okay. Just wait until MADD grasps that pot-heads are reluctant to drive impaired and all those slaughtered children might be alive if the drunks had been on pot instead. We only lose 12 000 alcoholics a year directly to overdose. But nobody at all overdoses on pot. When we compare booze and pot and then realize the jtwo compete--yes, I think jwe will se the legalization of pot, first in many states and then by the Fed. Hard drugs are another story. They should be dealt with after the legalization of marijuana changes the dynamics. Some states should legalize them; others not, then compare results.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Valkyrie132 said:

IT'S ALL ABOUT HYPOCRISY If a woman decides to terminate the life of her unborn child, it's because she 'has the right to choose' what to do with her own body. If gays sodomize each other, it's because they have the right to do whatever they wish 'behind closed doors'. If Joe Blow decides to smoke a doobie (using his own body) behind the closed door of his own home, Government 'agents' can kick in his front door and cart him away, destroying his life in the process. So remember, murder is OK. Spreading deadly viruses (such as HIV) is OK. Relaxing in your own home after a hard day's work IS A FEDERAL CRIME. How's that 'hope and change' working for you, antway?

report abuse vote down vote up

September 29, 2009
Votes: +0

Josh said:

	... TAKE ACTION now to help legalize cannabis in New Hampshire. Please take the time to write to your senator(s) and representatives about why using cannabis should not be a crime. http://nhcompassion.org/content/take_action
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 02, 2009 | url
Votes: +1