Ginger Merrill criticized the House for passing a bill reducing marijuana possession penalties, implying that small-time violators deserve to be saddled with a conviction that can follow them for a lifetime ("What were House lawmakers smoking?" Monitor letter, March 23).

Her reasoning that such a reform is somehow comparable to hypothetically reducing penalties for driving while intoxicated only makes sense if you believe a college student caught with a marijuana cigarette is as dangerous as a drunk driver. Which are New Hampshire citizens personally more afraid of, a stoned teenager wasting a few unproductive hours on the couch or a maniac who thinks he's Mario Andretti after a dozen beers?

[continues 115 words]

Re "Bills would lessen penalties for marijuana" (Monitor Local & State page, Jan. 23):

In your story on HB 1623, relative to reducing penalties for possession of small quantities of marijuana, you state that: "Peter Morency, president of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, described the issue in terms of crime, pointing to the high levels of crime that he said were drug-and-alcohol related."

In the very same testimony, Mr. Morency was asked if he would re-institute alcohol prohibition. In reply, he said he "certainly would consider it."

Don't take my word for it; see the video yourself at nhliberty.org/2007/hb1623. It's 2 minutes 37 seconds in.

Denis Goddard

Concord

(The writer is director of research for the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance.)

[end]