Democratic Senator Kenny Yuko of Ohio doesn’t think cannabis should be classified with drugs also on the Schedule I list, ones that have the stigma of “no known medical use” and “high potential for abuse.” Drugs like heroin and Morphine-N-Oxide.
Twenty-nine states and Washington D.C. have medical marijuana and/or legalization laws in place, so one can see where Yuko is coming from. Federally, this enormous group of patients and imbibers are not protected and are committing a crime, regardless of what their state laws may say.
Also because of the Schedule I classification, researchers of the plant have a very difficult time. Not only getting the permits for research, but also obtaining cannabis to test. As of now, they are only allowed government provided pot, which is not of the same quality that is available at dispensaries and home grows. In fact government weed has been found to have mold in it – which can be deadly for patients with weakened immune systems. The stigma also limits the number of researchers willing to stick their necks out.
Ohio itself has been affected by the classification. Colleges (cannabis testing’s only havens) shied away from testing products once their law was voted in, scared they may lose federal funding, and lawyers were unable to advise clients on the ins and outs of the new law. And because banking institutions are unable to serve pot shops, some Ohio communities have gone back the way of prohibition due to fear about large amounts of cash floating around.
Though the resolution doesn’t say how marijuana should be scheduled, congresspersons have suggested II and III respectively. Both of them still contain illicit drugs, but that non-medical usage stigma would drop away and medical states could take a collective deep breath. Activists and proponents for cannabis believe that the plant shouldn’t be scheduled at all, and with zero deaths and the worst side effect being cottonmouth they’re probably right.
One step at a time. Congress doesn’t have to act on resolutions, but they do reach their ears and we can only hope someday soon their hearts. Patients across the country depend on it.
Netflix is a darling no more. The streaming service has become a major media platform, turning the movie and TV industries on their heads. Particularly within TV, their success has snowballed in recent years. They received 91 Emmy nominations this year, up from 54 noms in 2016, beating out every cable and TV network other than HBO. Their shows receive top mentions by critics and consistently create hyped fervor each time a new season drops, whether it’s House of Cards or Master of None.
Their cozy and influential relationship with standup comedy is undeniable. They essentially bought out the market, funding the comeback stories of Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock, but also jump starting previously lesser-known talents like Ali Wong. The creative freedom they allow artists has caused many to sing their praises, and that reputation has branded them into an ally of the creative community. Can’t sell a niche or obscure project to traditional buyers? Sell it to Netflix.
This attitude is unanimously true everywhere except the film industry. That’s where things get tricky. In any other subset of the entertainment industry, they don’t just get invited to the big kids’ table—they are the big kids’ table. Though Netflix has cornered the independent film market in some ways, they still cannot garner serious respect amongst the major film community.
The strategy they employ within the TV and standup comedy industries has not had the same effect in movies. That strategy goes a little something like this: Target known celebrity commodities and dump boatloads of money at their feet. Allow them to do whatever they want, but no promises of serious advertising. They can promote themselves if they want. That method netted them stars like Brad Pitt and celebrated filmmakers like Ava DuVernay and Bong Joon-Ho. Yet the streaming platform has yet to win an Oscar for any of their feature films or release a movie anyone would consider a masterpiece.
And this year major voices within filmmaking and fan lovers alike have struck back. The wedge between Netflix and these dissenting voices is the platform’s outright dismissal of the theater-going experience. They believe it a thing of the past. This contention reached a maelstrom at Cannes, the premiere French film festival, where the visionary director Pedro Aldomovar read a manifesto defending the theatrical experience. “What I prefer is to be seen in not only 190 countries but always to be seen on a big screen,” he said.
At the time, Will Smith defended Netflix because, well, his project Bright will release on the platform this year and Netflix reportedly paid $90 million for it. (Also something about Jaden and Willa Smith liking Netflix, I guess?) Later at a Cannes press conference, Netflix’s chief content officer Ted Sarandos labeled Aldomovar’s statements as, “beautifully romantic.” All this caused Cannes to ban Netflix from future festivals, unless they followed a French rule that stipulates a three-year window between a movie’s theatrical release and it appearing on streaming platforms. Netflix refuses to oblige.
Now Christopher Nolan has come out against Netflix, amidst the promotion tour of his new war film Dunkirk. In an interview with Indiewire, Nolan stated he didn’t support Netflix’s release strategy and wouldn’t work with the company.
“Netflix has a bizarre aversion to supporting theatrical films,” Nolan said. “They have this mindless policy of everything having to be simultaneously streamed and released, which is obviously an untenable model for theatrical presentation. So they’re not even getting in the game, and I think they’re missing a huge opportunity.”
He condoned the Amazon model, which constitutes of a 90-day window between theatrical release and a title appearing on the company’s streaming platform. Nolan’s comments aren’t that surprising. He clearly favors large-scale epic films designed for maximum impact on the big screen. At the exhibitors’ conference CinemaCon in March, Nolan emphasized Dunkirk must be seen in theaters to truly appreciate the film.
Even when Warner Bros. worldwide marketing and distribution president Sue Kroll commented that audiences have spoken in wanting more options to consume content, Nolan didn’t back down. “The only platform I’m interested in talking about is theatrical exhibition,” he said.
Perhaps Netflix once felt they needed to horde their exclusive properties to drive membership subscribers to their streaming platform. They could promote themselves as the exclusive home to whatever star’s next big project. But how much water does that hold anymore?
With more than 100 million subscribers, releasing films in theaters will not drive away subscribers. No one will watch Okja or War Machine in theaters and think, “Welp! Don’t need Netflix anymore!” Netflix has already won its hard fought war. Through aggressively hording must-watch programming, and continuing to produce more of it, it has already established itself as a vital pillar in the entertainment industry. As millennials have proven with their dollars, having Netflix in your home far outweighs paying for a TV subscription.
So why not elevate the experience of your movies by showing them in theaters? Why not create hyped events around your releases and sustain increased excitement over your films and TV shows? Netflix almost seems to vehemently oppose watching their programs in any context outside of streaming it through their devices. You start to wonder if Netflix fears their programs becoming bigger entities than the bright red brand itself. Which is so utterly baffling. Netflix assumes the responsibilities of a production/distribution/tech company, but sometimes only operates with the mindset of a tech company.
Ultimately this is the end result of how contemporary tech media companies choose to view themselves. Netflix is not in the movie, TV, and comedy businesses. Netflix is in the content business. That is the word the company repeatedly uses in describing its projects. Because Netflix isn’t selling Stranger Thingsor Adam Sandler movies. Netflix is selling Netflix because that’s the only way the company assumes it can make money.
Netflix currently operates at a $2-2.5 billion negative free cash flow. While its CEO isn’t worried, believing their strategy will provide “enormous” dividends in the long run, it seems like ignorant foresight not to make money and positive good will where they can. It paints Netflix as the kid who takes his ball and goes home—and who likes that kid?
“I think the investment that Netflix is putting into interesting filmmakers and interesting projects would be more admirable if it weren’t being used as some kind of bizarre leverage against shutting down theaters,” Nolan told Indiewire. “It’s so pointless. I don’t really get it.”
A word on Netflix’s supposed disruption, perhaps the silliest buzzword in Silicon Valley these days. (Quick: If a technology startup disrupts in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does anyone care? Is it even a startup anymore?) Netflix didn’t really change the ritual behind watching TV. The machinations remain the same—you sit on the couch, turn on the TV, maybe smoke some weed or drink some wine, and slowly doze off. Maybe some teenagers and college kids watch on their phones or laptops instead now. For the most part, people still watch TV on their TV. Netflix changed how we receive TV—internet instead of cable or dish networks—not how we watch TV.
But the blanket statement that people don’t want to watch movies in movie theaters anymore is almost embarrassing in its arrogance. You can’t change the how of an entertainment experience and expect everyone to follow along. Netflix will tell you people consume content differently now, but how true is that? Netflix continues to refuse releasing the figures behind how many people watch their properties. Like Donald Trump, they expect us to trust their word on that one.
Years ago, network and cable companies blindly allowed Netflix to come underneath them and stake massive control in the TV world. Those companies did not value how their customers preferred consuming TV, even as technologies like TiVo and DVR rose in popularity: People want to watch TV wherever and whenever they want. Somehow Netflix seems to be making the same mistake. Loads of people may not mind watching movies on TV, but a significant number do. Moviegoers want to watch movies at the movie theater. Demanding otherwise isn’t disruptive. It’s just dumb business.
I was introduced to Limoncello at a very young age. Like neon yellow Galliano liqueur, I downright demanded of my parents to allow me to taste it in my tender single digit years. Before you think they let me chug the stuff, it was more of a thimble full, which turned me off to alcohol altogether for probably another eight or so years. Like that very first taste of beer, I remember it vividly. It’s almost astringent citron taste, something that so many artificially flavored liquors try to nail is perfume like.
Limoncello is the ubiquitous drinking spirit of anywhere south of Rome, where lemon groves grow accidentally and drape their dramatically fragranced leaves everywhere you turn. The mind wanders to how ideal these conditions must be for cannabis cultivation, with Italy’s similarity to California climate. Let’s combine the two and toast what could be if things progressed to a normalized degree.
Cannabis Limoncello
Danielle Guercio, 2017 Makes 12 oz, 5mg THC per shot
Zest of 10 lemons
10 oz unflavored high proof vodka or everclear
2 tsp Cannabis glycerin tincture*
⅛ cup sugar
⅛ cup water
Photo by Danielle Guercio
You should really know that you don’t want to used unwashed lemons for this recipe. Lemons almost always have ludicrous amounts of waxes and coatings to keep them fresh, so you have to wash them well.
You can also dip in boiling water for 5 seconds and wipe with a towel. I can tell you they don’t have this problem in Italy, and the lemons are exponentially more fragrant.
Photo by Danielle Guercio
Zest up your lemons, you can grate the skin if you are careful not to grate too much bitter pith, but I prefer to skin them with a knife or vegetable peeler. Collect in a large clean jar, and pour over your spirits.
Photo by Danielle Guercio
After 2-3 weeks, you’ll see the peels start to give up their color, and the fragrance oils embedded in the skin will also be released.
You can now strain out the peels and make the syrup that will sweeten it to a palatable degree and take down the alcohol content a little bit if you used Everclear to make the infusion.
Photo by Danielle Guercio
To make the syrup, boil some water and mix equal parts with 1/8th cup sugar until it’s dissolved. Add the glycerin tincture, pour into the bottle with the lemon spirit, and shake well. Serve neat in a shot glass or tiny aperitif glass with a lemon peel for garnish.
Photo by Danielle Guercio
*Cannabis Glycerin Tincture
In an oven safe container double sealed with foil, decarboxylate 3.5 grams finely ground cannabis at 225 degrees Fahrenheit. Put cannabis in a mason jar or vacuum sealed bag, pour over 2 oz vegetable glycerin and seal tightly. Place in a water bath at just under boiling for 1 hour. Strain and keep contents in a sterilized container. Stores indefinitely in freezer.
Photo by Danielle Guercio
Lord knows this recipe is hands-off. It takes some time to create, but like our cannabis amaro, this ish is next level.
Since we’re always trying to bring cannabis out into the beautiful sunshine, maybe or maybe not in Tuscany or the god awful Amalfi coast (pure sarcasm FYI), there’s no better marriage than the delightful and sometimes deadly composition of one of Italy’s most treasured local products with a sweet tincture. Try over some shaved ice for the most amazing summer granita you can dream up.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday announced a new Department of Justice policy that increases the ability of state and local law enforcement to profit from civil forfeiture.
This is a reversal of an Obama-era policy implemented in 2015 that limited state and local law enforcement from transferring seized property to federal agencies in exchange for receiving up to 80 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the seized property.
Advocates say that Sessions’ reversal of DOJ policy will incentivize police to exploit the war on drugs as an excuse to permanently take cars, cash and other property from people without needing to convict or even charge the property owner with any criminal wrongdoing.
“President Trump’s attorney general has just handed state and local police greater ability to profit from the seizure of your cars, cash and other property without having to prove any criminal wrongdoing,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “The Attorney General is taking this country down a destructive and foolish path by escalating failed drug war tactics like civil forfeiture that disproportionately hurt people of color and individuals who can’t afford to fight the forfeiture,” said Smith.
Federal civil forfeiture law allows the government to seize and keep cash, cars, real estate, and any other property from persons without any proof of criminal wrongdoing. Civil forfeiture begins when a federal, state or local law enforcement agency seizes property during a traffic stop or other encounter and takes legal action against the property seized from its owner by alleging that the seized property is connected in some way to illegal drugs or other criminal activity.
Property owners do not need to be charged or convicted of a crime in order for law enforcement to seize property; police need to only suspect the property of being involved in a drug law violation to seize and forfeit it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Congress expanded the use of civil forfeiture by federal, state and local law enforcement in the name of fighting the war on drugs. Numerous law enforcement agencies took advantage of these expanded policies to profit from the confiscation of cash and other property from people during roadside stops and other interactions.
In recent years, there has been strong bipartisan momentum for major civil forfeiture reform both in Congress and statehouses across the country. A growing number of states are reforming their forfeiture laws in the interest of protecting the rights of property owners and eliminating perverse incentives like those perpetuated by the Equitable Sharing Program.
In October, the most populous state in the nation, California, passed sweeping civil forfeiture reform that removed the financial incentives for law enforcement to seize property and pursue forfeitures with federal agencies in cases where one is arrested, charged or convicted of a crime. California’s reform effort added to a growing list of states ― including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia, Wyoming ― who have taken a stance against policing for profit.
In Congress, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in the Senate and Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) in the House have sponsored the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act (S.642/H.R. 1555). This strong bipartisan bill would undo the actions taken by Attorney General Sessions today by eliminating the Department of Justice’s Equitable Sharing Program that has incentivized state and local law enforcement to transfer cash and property in circumvention of state law.
Last year, the House Judiciary Committee passed a more incremental civil forfeiture reform bill. Groups that have supported comprehensive reform come from across the political spectrum.
“Congress needs to take up comprehensive civil forfeiture reform and reign in the excessive use of federal forfeiture by Sessions,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “A major overhaul of federal civil forfeiture laws by Congress has been long overdue to help innocent people get their wrongfully seized property back from the government,” said Smith.
In 2015, the Drug Policy Alliance released “Above the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuses in California,” a multi-year, comprehensive look at forfeiture abuses in California that reveals the troubling extent to which law enforcement agencies have utilized the adoptive forfeiture process in violation of state and federal law.
Speaking to SiriusXM’s “Sway in The Morning” about her new movie, Girls Trip, ada Pinkett Smith’s conversation shifted from the movie to her relationship with Tupac.
For the first time, she opened up about how they REALLY met.
“It’s kind of hard because I haven’t really told the whole story. One of the things that’s very interesting that I’ve never really said before is that when I first met Pac, I was a drug dealer.”
“That’s how we started,” she continued. “Then as I was coming out, something very bad happened to me. As I was coming out of the life, he was coming more into the life.”
“Pac and I’s relationship was about survival,” she said. “That’s how it started. I know that most people want to always connect it in this romance thing and that’s just because they don’t have the story. It was based in survival, how we held each other down and when you have somebody that has your back when you feel like you’re nothing, that’s everything. There’s a lot of components to our story that we’ve never shared for a very specific reason. I just decided that this one little piece was important to share finally because it gives more insight to who we were. It was about survival and it’s always been about survival between us.”
Ben Affleck Drops Out Of Netflix Film ‘To Focus On His Wellness & His Family’
Ben Affleck has decided to drop out of Triple Frontier, the JC Chandor-directed hot button thriller that is mobilizing at Netflix. Affleck is going to take some time to focus on his wellness and his family. The film will move forward without him; it is casting up quickly. [From Deadline]
Love the fresh dirt we bring over daily from Naughty Gossip? Let us know in the comments!
This is a first, at least for the U.K. There’s a restaurant chain in London that takes most of the work out of your Instagram shots.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQKwBVCAvHS
Dirty Bones, obviously not wanting crappy pics of their food posted to social media, offers Instagram “kits” to diners that includes a portable LED light, a multi-device charger, a clip-on wide-angle lens, a tripod, and a selfie stick. In fact, the entire restaurant was built with Instagram in mind, having been designed to include neon backdrops that read: “Keeping it real,” “Good vibes only’ and “Gimme some of that.”
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWfln94D4AO
The menu also lends itself to a Pinterest board or two. The menu items are creative, as are the drinks, and plated as if someone with an overhead iPhone camera was hovering above them.
The shtick seems to be working. Most of the photos the restaurant posts on their IG account are from other people, who obviously knew how to make their photo op pop.
Canada is currently preparing to legalize marijuana nationwide. It is a major moment in cannabis legalization, as the United States still finds itself in persistently dogged battles over marijuana. Some may ask how our neighbors to the north differ in its cannabis programs to those that exist in the United States. Here are three key medical marijuana differences between the two countries.
Federal Vs. State Regulation
In the United States, the government has made cannabis a states’ issue. Each state must legalize on its own before preceding to establish cannabis programs. Some have reasoned this creates testing grounds across the country, getting all the kinks worked out, before reaching the federal level.
However, this has never been the case in Canada. While the country is made up of various provinces and territories, Canada has always treated marijuana as a federal issue. The Canadian Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR) in 2001 granted legal access of marijuana to patients with HIV/AIDS and other illnesses. Patients could grow their own plants or obtain it from authorized distributors. In 2013, the country passed the Medical Marijuana Purposes Regulation (MMPR), which established a more regulated system of cannabis distributors. The final medical marijuana program was passed in 2016, the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR).
Marijuana Research
Unfortunately, both countries have scientists frustrated at the lack of scientific research available on the effect of the drug. That’s because there are major hurdles in each case for the countries’ scientists to have access to research.
Thanks to its Schedule I classification, those in the United States must receive approval from three different governing agencies to access medical marijuana for research. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to obtain marijuana to research, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to submit an investigational new drug application, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to receive an investigator registration and proper licenses. This process can be cumbersome and lead to numerous dead ends for researchers.
Meanwhile Canadian researchers must apply for specific exemptions from Health Canada for each compound of the cannabis plant they want to study. As there are hundreds of compounds, this system can be extremely limiting to the scientific community. That’s not to mention the unwieldy methods required to obtain the medical marijuana and the lack of money available to fund any research.
Methods Of Acquisition
It is illegal to otherwise ship or move any federally restricted substance like cannabis across state lines or through the US postal system. If you do, you’re liable to receive felony charges. Therefore, medical cannabis patients must visit state-authorized dispensaries to acquire their product. Ordering anything online is strictly prohibited.
The opposite is true in Canada. Medical cannabis patients must have their product shipped directly to them. As the government website states, “Neither the ACMPR nor any other Health Canada regulations authorize licensed producers to provide cannabis for medical purposes through a storefront.” However it is illegal for patients to ship medical cannabis to each other. Only authorized distributors may transport or ship medical marijuana. While there are cannabis dispensaries currently in Canada, they operate under legal gray areas, and may be subject to law enforcement actions.
On Wednesday July 19th, Colorado representative Jonathan Singer was handed an oversized check for $500,000,000.00 to commemorate the half billion milestone in cannabis revenue in his state. The check was presented by VS Strategies in Denver, “…a government relations, issue advocacy, and strategic communications firm dedicated to advancing the cannabis industry in a dynamic yet responsible manner.”
Surpassing half a billion isn’t even entirely new. Since that number hit in May, already millions more (Almost 100 million!) have been generated. However, it was only Wednesday that VS Strategies publicly released the data.
The VS report also revealed that the taxes have increased exponentially every year since the law’s inception in 2014. Making 76 million in its first year, 135 million the next and then having the revenues spike to 198 million in 2016 is a joy to watch. More and more revenue is being generated, not only because ingesting cannabis’ rise in popularity nationwide, but because marijuana taboos are going up in smoke.
So where does the tax revenue go? Over half of it is put into school systems that desperately need a boost. Other taxes go toward combatting homelessness and improving the state of the roads. Funds also go toward compassionate substance abuse programs.
If we follow the percentage model of rising tax revenues, things get really exciting, though the fact of the matter is, when it comes to improving schools and roads, 500 million doesn’t come close to cutting out the problems. It makes a dent, but a smallish one at this point.
The above fact is something naysayers are grasping onto as they go through the painful motions of watching cannabis do great things for communities. Grasping at straws is never a good look though and that big, oversized check that Singer held not only looked good, it was more than a few steps in the right direction.
Usher Raymond reportedly cut a $1.1 million check in order to settle a lawsuit from a woman he infected with herpes.
According to Radar Online, legal documents detail how Usher had ‘rigorous unprotected sex’ without disclosing he had the virus. The papers also show that he was ‘exposed to herpes’ in 2009 or 2010. Usher finalized his divorce from Tameka Foster in 2009.
Update: You can read the official court documents here. The woman has been identified in the documents posted by Radar as Maya Fox-Davis — the SAME bridesmaid who Tameka Foster accused Usher of sleeping with in court.
Via Radar Online:
In a disgusting revelation, a “greenish discharge” once oozed from the performer’s penis, but otherwise he had no signs of the infection and was labeled an “asymptomatic carrier” by doctors.
After initially admitting concern to his partner, Usher — who’s worth a cool $180 million — later convinced her that an STD examination result was negative, and they continued to engage in unprotected sex.
“Believing Raymond’s statements that it had been nothing and cleared up, [she] continued her relationship,” a lawyer for the victim wrote in a legal complaint for damages.
Their romps went without a hitch until three weeks after a passionate hookup when the victim — whose identity is being withheld by Radar — woke up “feeling very sick” with a “fever of 100 degrees, chills, headache, and aches and pains.”
She “also developed lesions and blisters in her vagina,” and was so terrified she sought treatment at urgent care, where a doctor promptly diagnosed her with herpes.
According to the document, the “Yeah!” singer — going by the pseudonym “Papa Bear” in messages — posted a check covering her medical bills totaling $2,754.40.
Usher — now married to Grace Miguel, former executive chef on The Cosby Show — is accused of “consciously and purposefully” withholding his herpes diagnosis from the woman “and continued to have unprotected sex.”
The legal complaint was filed at the Superior Court in Los Angeles. California law requires a person who knows or should know they are infected with genital herpes to avoid sexual contact with an uninfected person — or to warn potential partners before sexual contact occurs.
After being confronted by his partner for infecting her, Usher called her two days later with his doctor, who confirmed he carries the herpes virus.
Her test results confirmed a first-time infection and a file in the settlement reads: “In a series of telephone conversations and online chat sessions, [Usher] has apologized for infecting [her] and told her he would take care of things.”
In a declaration, the celebrity fashionista said she “feels that her health and body have been ruined,” and she “has suffered severe emotional distress and has been extremely depressed … knowing there is no cure.”
Usher eventually settled with his ex on Dec. 28, 2012, coughing up a total of $1.1 million.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about ONE out of SIX people in the United States between the ages of 14 to 49 have genital herpes.
Cannabis enthusiasts in New England rejoice: There will be no more jail time for small amounts of marijuana in New Hampshire.
Gov. Chris Sununu on Tuesday signed a bill into law that will prevent citizens from going to jail for carrying small amounts of cannabis — the 22nd state in the nation to pass such legislation. The law officially will go into effect in 60 days.
“The governor deserves credit for his steadfast support of this commonsense reform,” said Matt Simon, New England political director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “Unlike his predecessors, who opposed similar proposals, Gov. Sununu appears to understand that ‘Live Free or Die’ is more than just a motto on a license plate,” he added.
HB 640 was introduced by Rep. Renny Cushing and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, where it passed by a v0te of 318-36 in February. The Senate amended and approved it in May by a 17-6 vote. The House passed the Senate version last month.
“A lot of credit also goes to the House, which has been passing decriminalization bills since 2008,” Simon said. “It is refreshing to see the Senate finally come to an agreement with the House on this issue. This is a big step toward a more sensible marijuana policy for New Hampshire.”
The new law will reduce the penalty for possession of up to three-quarters of an ounce of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor — currently punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $2,000 — to a civil violation punishable by a $100 fine for a first or second offense and a $300 fine for a third offense within three years of the first offense. A fourth offense within three years of the first offense could be charged as a class B misdemeanor, but there would be no arrest or possibility of jail time.
According to an analysis performed by the ACLU, New Hampshire spent more than $6.5 million enforcing marijuana possession laws in 2010. The study also concluded that African Americans were 2.6 times more likely than white people to be busted for possession.
Maine and Massachusetts voters have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes. Vermont legislators are debating legalization but the bill stalled earlier this year. Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut have all passed decriminalization laws.
“There is no good reason to continue arresting and prosecuting people for marijuana possession,” Simon said.
More than two-thirds of New Hampshire adults (68 percent) support making marijuana legal, according to a Granite State Poll released last month by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
So what happens if you get caught with cannabis in New Hampshire? Here are some highlights of House Bill 640:
Possession of up to three-quarters of one ounce of cannabis or up to five grams of hashish will only be a fine. No arrest. No criminal record. Before decriminalization, this infraction would have been punishable by up to one year in jail
The final under the new law will be $100 for a first or second offense.
A third offense within three years of the initial offense will result in a fine of $300.
A fourth offense within three years of the original offense can result in a misdemeanor charge, but no arrest or jail time. and a $2,000 fine.
Those caught possessing cannabis who are under 18 will be sent to juvenile court.
Adults who fail to keep edible marijuana secure, allowing access to minors, are subject to a new misdemeanor offense.
100 percent of the revenue from fines imposed under the law will go to a special fund for substance abuse prevention programs.
