New Hampshire gubernatorial candidates split on marijuana legalization, a Central California county will vote on requiring welfare recipients to undergo drug tests, and more.

[image:1 align:right caption:true]Marijuana Policy

New Hampshire Gubernatorial Candidates Split on Marijuana Legalization. There is a clear choice for Granite State voters who are concerned with marijuana policy. Republican nominee Kelly Ayotte opposes marijuana legalization, while Democratic contender Joyce Craig is for it.

Craig said Tuesday she could get behind a legalization model that "supports our small businesses, our local farmers, and that provides local control. Obviously has to be properly regulated and labeled," added the former Manchester mayor, "and I would suggest that the revenues that we receive from this be put toward public education and affordable housing, two things that we need to focus on over the next few years."

Craig also noted that legalization has broad popular support in the state, with polls showing "the vast majority" of residents support legalization. Those polls put the level of support at around 70 percent.

But Ayotte demurs, citing concerns about youth use, problem drug use, and impaired driving.

"One of the deep concerns I have about legalizing marijuana is the impact that marijuana has on youth mental health," said the former US senator and state attorney general. "Also, the studies show between the ages of 15 and 25 that it actually increases incidents of anxiety, schizophrenia [and] mental health issues, and I don’t want to add that to the mix with challenges we already have on mental health."

Ayotte also repeated her talking point that the drug recovery community opposes legalization.

"I have yet to meet someone in recovery who thinks we should legalize marijuana as we take on, you know, the challenges we have with addiction in the state," she said.

For the past few years, marijuana legalization bills have come close to passage in the legislature but have been unable to get past the finish line. A legalization bill last session that finally won the support of Gov. Chris Sununu (R) would have created a state liquor store legalization model, but it was defeated by lawmakers who said they preferred another legalization model.

Medical Marijuana

Nebraska Poll Has Nebraska Paired Set of Medical Marijuana Initiatives Winning. Voters in the Cornhusker State are set to approve a paired set of initiatives that would legalize medical marijuana in the state if a new Emerson College Polling and Midwest Newsroom poll is correct. Some 59 percent of respondents said they would vote yes on legalizing medical marijuana, with only 33 percent saying no, and eight percent undecided.

If the poll is accurate, even if every undecided vote broke against the initiatives -- a highly unlikely scenario -- they would still win.

The first measure, the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Patient Protection initiative, would create a doctor-patient system for medical marijuana to protect patients from arrest. It would allow patients to possess up to five ounces of medicine.

The second measure, the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Regulation initiative, would create a framework for a regulated medical marijuana industry in the state. The plan envisions a commission to create rules and regulations for a commercial marketplace, with licensed businesses before October 1, 2025.

The only demographic groups that did not support the initiatives were Republicans (42.3 percent said yes), past Trump voters (41.6 percent yes), and people 70 or older (45.6 percent yes).

Nebraska Public Media host Dale Johnson said the broad finding of support underscores a difference between voters and their elected officials. "This would go back to my observation about voters differentiating from lawmakers in the legislature," Johnson said. "Here in Nebraska, there's huge opposition to medical cannabis [in the legislature], but yet, you ask the person on the street they want it passed…"

"So many states that border Nebraska have it," replied Midwest Newsroom data journalist Daniel Wheaton. "The reality of what's legal versus what is possible to obtain is different in Nebraska."

This is the third time activists have tried to get the issue before the voters, and they are hoping the third time will be the charm.

Drug Testing

California's San Joaquin County Will Vote on Drug Testing Welfare Recipients. Voters in San Joaquin County in the Central Valley east of the San Francisco Bay area will vote on a local ordinance that would require welfare recipients suspected of drug use to undergo drug testing or lose their benefits. Those who tested positive for drugs would be forced to enter drug treatment or lose their benefits.

The proposed ordinance is Measure R. It asks: "[Should we require] single adults age 65 and under, with no dependent children, who receive County funded public assistance benefits and whom the County reasonably suspects are dependent on illegal drugs, to participate in screening, evaluation, and treatment for drug dependency in order for those adults to be eligible for those benefits be adopted?"

An accompanying explanation says its goal is to help people on drugs get into treatment: "Although reasonable participation in treatment programs will be required, sobriety of participants will not be … Perfection isn’t the goal; improved health and life outcomes is."

County welfare benefits are not huge. Individuals can get $75 monthly on an EBT card and a maximum of $367 in rental assistance, with $340 paid directly to a landlord.

Under the measure, the county Human Services Agency would be charged with determining whether there is "reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is dependent upon illegal drugs." How it would do so is not specified.

The proposed ordinance reflects a broader trend in the state. San Francisco voters earlier this year approved Measure F, which also removes benefits from people who refuse to submit to drug testing. That measure will take effect in January.

"Treatment should be voluntary and readily available and humane -- not coercive. "California is in the middle of an identity crisis," said Denise Elerick, founder of the Harm Reduction Coalition of Santa Cruz County. "We have been a leader in justice reform, but nobody's had the courage to push back on these police unions and the far-right wing who's behind a lot of this, and to hold our so-called progressives accountable for buying into it."

International

Mexican Troops Kill 19 Sinaloa Cartel Gunmen on Outskirts of Culiacan. Nineteen Sinaloa Cartel gunmen are dead after a "clash" in which soldiers suffered no injuries, raising suspicions that like similar past incidents, the "clash" may have been a mass execution.

The confrontation occurred Monday night on the outskirts of the state capital, Culiacan, and was only the latest bloody incident in a Sinaloa Cartel faction fight that has been ongoing since the kidnapping of cartel leader Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada by one of the son's of imprisoned cartel leader Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. The son turned both Zambada and himself in to US authorities at an airstrip in Texas.

According to the military, the dead gunmen belonged to Zambada's faction, "Los Mayitos," and attacked the soldiers after they detained a top member of the faction. The military said there were 30 attackers and that 11 escaped. It said soldiers fired in self-defense and "strict adherence to the rule of law and with full respect for human rights."

A similar instance took place in Mexico state in 2014, when soldiers killed 22 suspects at a grain warehouse. While some died in an initial confrontation with an army patrol that left one soldier wounded, a later investigation determined that at least eight and as many as a dozen were summarily executed after surrendering. In that case, seven soldiers were eventually arrested, then freed, then arrested again on charges of abuse of authority. Those charges have yet to be settled.

(This article was prepared by StoptheDrugWar.org's 501(c)(4) lobbying nonprofit, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also pays the cost of maintaining this website. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)