SENATE MAY SNUFF MARIJUANA BILL

State senators from both parties parried with advocates of marijuana
decriminalization yesterday, asking a number of skeptical questions
about a bill that cleared the House but appears doomed in the Senate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee did not take a vote on the bill,
although its chairman, Sen. Joe Foster, has previously said he knows
of no senator who supports it. Minutes after the House passed the
bill, Gov. John Lynch announced that he would veto the measure, which
would decriminalize possession of a quarter of an ounce of marijuana
and cut penalties to a fine.

Also yesterday, death penalty advocates and opponents turned out to
debate if and when a commission should be formed to look into capital
punishment. The commission is part of a broader effort spurred by a
bill that would expand the definitions of capital crimes to include
the murder of bailiffs, criminal and consumer protection
investigators, and family division judges.

At the marijuana hearing, Sens. Bob Clegg and David Gottesman zeroed
in on how the bill would compare with underage drinking laws, which
in some cases result in stricter penalties.

Clegg, a Hudson Republican, also said other laws make transporting
marijuana or possessing paraphernalia illegal.

"If they have a quarter ounce, how would they get to use it?" Clegg
said. "They can't smoke it in a pipe, and they can't roll it?"

Noting that the quarter ounce of marijuana that would be
decriminalized under House Bill 1623 equates to about eight joints,
Clegg said that someone could be charged with a violation for
possession of the drug but eight misdemeanors for each rolling paper.
Afterward, Clegg said: "This bill gives a false sense of security."

But a variety of proponents of decriminalization - including a
medical student and a corrections officer - argued that the bill
would be a first step in correcting a drug policy that they argued
was excessive and ineffectual. Matt Simon, of the advocacy group New
Hampshire Common Sense, said that 11 other states have passed
decriminalization laws.

"None of the gloom-and-doom scenarios have happened," Simon said.

Those testifying against the bill included representatives from the
state attorney general's office and the state Department of Safety.
Current laws on marijuana, which deem personal possession a
misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail, are not the problem,
said Karin Eckel of the attorney general's office.

"The problem is drug abuse and drug use," Eckel said.

Death Penalty

The bill to create a death penalty commission brought out collared
priests and uniformed police officers to a packed hearing yesterday afternoon.

Attorney General Kelly Ayotte asked senators to delay forming such a
commission until after the state's two pending capital murder trials
are finished, so as not to affect those choices. She also objected to
the charge of the commission as written, terming it "one-sided."

The Manchester detective who is heading up the investigation of the
murder of fellow Officer Michael Briggs also testified against the
creation of a commission right now. Lt. Nick Willard said doing so
would detract from efforts to provide a fair trial for Michael
Addison, the man charged with capital murder in Briggs's case.
Moreover, Willard said, the record from the case could prove valuable
to a commission.

"It doesn't make sense to me as a layperson and as a knuckle-dragging
police officer to conduct a study just as we're litigating a death
penalty case," Willard said.

Those who supported the idea of a commission said New Hampshire
should take a look at the death penalty's efficacy and flaws. Barbara
Keshen, a former prosecutor and defense attorney who now works for
the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, said "the important thing is
to take the blinders off on this issue."

Claire Ebel of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union said that she
would support postponing the commission until January. "I would
rather it happen now, but I would much rather that it happen," she said.

Foster indicated that to him, the key question is not whether, but
when, such a commission's effective date should be. He said that if
the commission started in February 2009, it could look at the record
from the capital murder trials.

"The commission would have a lot more information: what the costs
were, what the results were, what the problems were," he said.