A Truly Dopey Reaction: Marijuana, A Mayor, And A Vote
There are many ways to respond to today's lead story in New Hampshire's Union Leader (UL) about an angry mayor and a school district spokesman soft on marijuana laws. One of them is to call both men stupid: The mayor, Frank Guinta-R, who believes state representative David Scannell-D should resign his post as Manchester's school district spokesman; and Rep. Scannell, for not recognizing his vote to decriminalize some marijuana possessions MIGHT be a politically dopey move.
But I will steer clear of the obvious and the snark, primarily since I am not a Manchester resident (and because I avoid the town at all costs, though solely because I am a dirt-roads kind of guy). However, I will not steer clear of the demonstrably dopey statements found at the UL's online report (found HERE) on the controversy, particularly the comments thread that follows.
You see, not a few passionate defenders of Rep. Scannell's position have suggested that the mayor's action -- a mere letter requesting Scannell's resignation -- is somehow tantamount to denying the legislator his right to free speech. Even Rep. Scannell has raised the specter of such an egregious offense, or so reports the UL, with Scannell hinting he may even take legal action to protect his job and his speech.
Curiously, Scannell and some of his supporters seem to overlook one simple fact: His speech was not thwarted at all. In fact, he freely spoke without hindrance when he pressed the YES button in his seat at the state house. Had Mayor Guinta sent his police force out to arrest Rep. Scannell solely to prevent him from his duty and his right, THEN we could be talking about calling Amnesty International or the ACLU. But as it stands, the record proves that Rep. Scannell was wildly successful in speaking his mind and voting his conscience.
Moreover, it seems equally clear that Mayor Guinta is ALSO exercising his free speech rights: he has freely called for the resignation of Rep. Scannell, arguing that Scannell's vote disqualifies him from being a spokesman for a school district whose policies and philosophies are aimed at denouncing marijuana use in the strongest possible terms. Critics of the mayor have called for HIS resignation; amazingly, they are blind to the irony, and the fact, that by their own definitions, they are denying Mayor Guinta's right to speak.
But the broader point is that the mayor's critics are not advocating speech rights consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they want free speech that includes protections against the consequences of free speech. The argument put forward in defense of Rep. Scannell is that he really should not bear any responsibility, accountability, or consequences for his opinions. Despite that calls for Scannell's resignation come as a result of his freely speaking without censure -- that he was never thwarted in his voting whatsoever -- his defenders want him to be able to live without repercussions. How sad, really, that folks do not understand that the laws of the land do not protect us from the consequences of our own words. The laws only permit us the freedom to say them.
Germane to all of this, and lost in the free speech rhetoric, is that certain analogies do apply. For example, if Rep. Scannell was the Manchester police chief and yet voted at the state house to decriminalize cop-killing, he may have problems keeping his job. If Mr. Scannell was fire chief and yet voted to decriminalize "small" arsons, my guess is that he might experience no small blowback. If he was appointed head of the city's task force on pedophilia and child abuse and yet voted to reduce sentences for convicted sexual predators, I doubt we'd be wondering if his vote might influence his status on the task-force -- or his moral authority everywhere.
Ultimately, what this story is about is Rep. Scannell's lack of political savvy. Savvy politicians are quick to spot potential conflicts in the dock or on the agenda. What he should have done is quietly supported the bill, and then NOT voted at all. Surely MANY politicians have learned this simple skill.
In the end, I am not arguing for either side in this case. I am merely addressing the issues raised by this incident. But if I am to cast blame, I will not first see this as a partisan attack by a Republican on a Democrat. I will simply blame Rep. Scannell for being imprudent and naïve. That, really, is the bottom line.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008
Bill Gnade
8 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
First off the bill would not make pot legal, so your comparison to the small arson doesn't work. It simply lessens the penalty.
Secondly threatening a state rep based on his or her vote amounts to nothing less then blackmail. If this type of behavior from the mayor is supported it opens the door for other employers to likewise fire state reps based on a vote they may dislike. Maybe a state rep votes for a tax bill that increases the cost of business on their employer, maybe the owner of the business they work for wants regulations on his or her business lessened and they threaten the state reps job to gain support for a bill that would lessen them, etc. State reps should be able to vote with a clear continence on the issues before them.
Thirdly it could be argued strongly that this bill corrects an unconstitutional situation in this state. Article 18 of the state constitution states that penalties should be proportionate to the offense. A $200 fine for what amounts to a couple of joints would be a proportionate punishment... time in jail, thousands in legal fees and a completely ruined life is NOT.
So based on all of this I fail to see how you can conclude that Rep. Scannell is the one who's naive here. Far be it from me to stick up for the democrats but here is a strong case of the Republican being in the wrong.
Excellent argument, and I applaud you for being non-partisan about it. A couple of points, though:
As a practical matter, nobody goes to jail for simple possession of a small quantity of pot. They get fined a couple of hundred dollars. this bill recognizes that we have de facto decriminalization already.
The House voted for this bill not because it likes marijuana, but because it was made aware of unintended consequences that result from it- over 500 NH college students have lost or been denied financial aid because theu were convicted of simple possession. This is due to a quitk in federal student loan program. By making the offense a violation instead of a Class A misdemeanor, kids will not be barred from getting student aid.
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the input.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that the bill in question lessens the severity of certain penalties for possession of some smaller amounts of marijuana. Is this summary of your position, and the bill in question, accurate? I THINK it is, but do correct me if I am wrong.
But if I am not wrong, I am actually dead on with my analogy about "smaller arsons." Note that I did NOT say "all arsons." I was careful to keep my terms quantitatively balanced. If a fire chief were to support legislative action that contradicted the very goals of his own department, I think it reasonable to assume the chief might be contacted by his superiors.
Hence, I think it perfectly appropriate (politically speaking) for the mayor to seek Mr. Scannell's resignation. Mayor Guinta believes Mr. Scannell's position, now very public, is contrary to the goals and aims of the school district he represents. I see no problem with this at all. The mayor is interested in having serve in a public role that public figure who can publicly uphold what the mayor believes are the objectives of the school district's philosophy on drugs.
There is nothing remotely like blackmail going on here. There is no "or else" here; there is no going public with some shameful secret that Mr. Scannell is now scrambling to hide. This is all entirely above ground, and it is pure politics.
Gifted and alert politicians know when certain votes may get them in trouble. Barack Obama's state legislative decision NOT to vote on certain abortion bills was brilliant in its shrewdness, and illustrates my point. And his abstention was all because he was advised by pro-choice activists not to vote: his vote COULD be used against him. (I choose Mr. Obama solely because he is current. I do not mean this example to be either supportive or denigrative of his current candidacy. And I may even have his Illinois story wrong. But, well, I think you get my point.)
In the end, I hold Mr. Scannell responsible for the heat he is now feeling. HE IS IN POLITICS, for crying out loud. Did he think his public positions exempt him from public scrutiny, even ridicule? If so, then he is, indeed, naïve. His vote was not a private act or privately expressed opinion. It was a legislative act; and in instant, his action became part of the hard and brutal fact known as the legislative record. The second he pushed the button in support of the bill in question, he threw privacy to the wind.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Dear Mr. Barnes,
¶3 in my comment above should read as follows:
...But if I am not wrong, I am actually dead-on with my analogy about "smaller arsons." Note that I did NOT say "all arsons." I was careful to keep my terms quantitatively balanced. Also, my use of the word "decriminalize" is contextually accurate: in this context, it means to "lessen the criminal severity of." Both the UL reporters and the Nashua Telegraph's Kevin Landrigan use it this way in their respective reports. Hence, if a fire chief were to support legislative action that contradicted the very goals of his own department, I think it reasonable to assume the chief might be contacted by his superiors. ...
[I hope this clarifies my initial statement. Unfortunately I thought I had successfully amended the above COMMENT earlier, unaware as I was that my editing window had timed out.]
Blessings!
Gnade
Likewise, I was thinking about the idea of small arson vs large arson. Many people in NH often get permits from their local fire departments for small arsons or bonfires. These "small arsons" are perfectly legal.
But I'm straying from your original question... yes what I was saying is that the bill in question only lessens the punishment. It changes the crime of having .25 ounces of pot from a $2,000 fine plus 1 year in jail (not to mention side punishments as Mike points out such as loss of government aid) down to a more fitting punishment of a $200 fine.
$2,000 in fines, a year in jail, loss of any chance of student loans and scholarships etc is not what I consider an adequate punishment for someone with a couple joints. 3 or 4 joints for personal use is far different then a huge pillowcase full with intent to distribute. Thus, both should be treated differently just as we consider someone doing 15 or 20 miles over the posted limit a lot differently then someone doing double the posted limit. If you were caught flying around at 80 MPH, you get a ticket and you pay a fine. But if your caught doing 150 MPH, you can lose your license, have your car impounded etc. Some states even put people in jail for speeds that high.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm just trying to point out that a punishment should fit the crime.
I thank you for your contribution.
Just a reminder that I have not argued here anything about the bill in question, or the penalties the bill seeks to reduce or correct. I have remained intentionally silent about that issue.
But I want to return to my analogy a little, not because I can't let go of things, but because some things are just too fun to let go. Note that I used the locution "'small' arsons"; the quotes around small, of course, were intended to indicate sarcasm and irony. Not that that matters much.
What does matter, at least to me, is that a legislator who advocates someplace for something he cannot advocate in another place is asking for political trouble. That Mayor Guinta has pointed this out is both predictable and reasonable. But I don't think a fire chief upset with certain arson laws (as in my analogy), would get very far if he suggested that the man who lights a car or shed on fire -- both 'small' arsons -- with criminal intent, is doing the same thing as that man who legally burns brush (the latter act implying that the man who does the burning manages the fire and its suppression, whereas the arson does not). Similarly, a man who publicly represents the philosophy of his company's drug policy in one place and then works elsewhere (publicly) to contravene that policy may in fact be trying to correct a wrong; but I would say his employers who hold strict views on drugs may think him wildly off-base for suggesting some drug possessions are "small" or even insignificant.
But as I said in the very beginning of my op-ed, this whole thing is rather stupid, or could be deemed so. My personal convictions regarding drug penalties are irrelevant, really, since I am much more interested in the discussion about free speech generated by Mr. Scannell and his supporters. That remains my interest. I think it fair to observe that Mr. Scannell failed to exercise good political judgment here. I am not saying he did anything wrong; I am not saying that Mayor Guinta is wrong. I am saying that Mr. Scannell's reaction to being publicly challenged reveals that he was naïve or just plain foolish when he voted as he did (even if the vote was the morally right thing to do, by the way).
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Very good point and I agree with you that that is a much more interesting discussion as the legality of drugs is being discussed in so many other places while the question of Scannell on a higher level is over looked.
I do understand Mayor Guinta's point but his calling for a resignation sets a very dangerous example. Any time a publicly elected official is punished as a direct result of his or her vote that sets a VERY bad example. Not to mention will make them fear repercussions when it comes to future votes.
I'm bad with analogies but I love to toss them out so I'll try one here to help explain my view.
Let's use the same two players here to make things easier... however instead of a bill regarding drugs, let's say the state considered a bill to increase penalties on underage drinking. Scannell sees it as pushing for too harsh a penalty so votes against the bill. Mayor Guinta who supported it again sees Scannells vote as setting a bad example since he voted against harsher penalties for under aged drinking and calls for a resignation.
Do you think anyone would support Mayor Guinta for that type of move?
Let's next assume that several state reps work for a union. They have a bill come before them that 95% of society supports however their union does not. Should they fear their jobs if they vote in support of the bill?
Think about it.
That statement brings up a side note I wanted to make... I too enjoy political discussions and often times disagreements that come with them and don't worry, I never take them personal. Andy Silvia, who for a while wrote for this site, disagrees with me on most things yet we have quite a few times enjoyed beers together while disagreeing on politics. As long as people don't get personal with each other there is no reason discussions cannot be fun while we disagree on things.
Anyway, back to the main points...