Drug Crimes
New Bill Would Eradicate Mandatory Minimum Sentences For Marijuana Possession In Louisiana
March 12, 2013
New Orleans Drug Crimes Defense Attorney
Elizabeth B. Carpenter Law — New Orleans Marijuana Defense Attorney
Serving Orleans, Jefferson, St. Tammany, St. John, Baton Rouge, St. Charles, Plaquemines Parishes.
New Bill Would Eradicate Mandatory Minimum Sentences For
Marijuana Possession In Louisiana
Both the Louisiana House and Senate will reconvene for the 2013 Legislative Session in April 8, 2013. As an attorney, I subscribe to email alerts regarding legislative news. This evening I was thrilled to see a proposed bill that would eradicate mandatory minimum sentences for Marijuana Possession.
This bill is House Bill 103, sponsored by state Rep. Austin Badon, D-New Orleans. The proposed bill will lessen penalties for repeat offenders and not subject offenders to Louisiana’s Habitual Offender Law (RS La 15:529.1). This new law would also apply to synthetic cannabinoids.
I am actually opposed to the legalization of synthetic cannabinoids due to the severe health complications associated with its use. Of course, complete legalization of Marijuana would obliterate the demand for synthetic cannabinoids.
As a final thought, I think that Representative Badon is going to have a battle to fight in Baton Rouge over this new bill. The state and local governments as well as substance abuse clinics love the money that they can extort out of people who are found guilty of Marijuana Possession.
The following is a chart demonstrating the proposed changes to the law:
If you or a loved one has been charged with a Marijuana Offense in New Orleans area. Contact a New Orleans Drug Crime Attorney – Elizabeth B. Carpenter. We offer discounted fee for Marijuana Offenses!
Posted in 
Tags: 
Synthetic Drug 25I: A New Schedule I Drug
November 13, 2012
New Orleans Drug Charge Attorney
By Elizabeth B Carpenter — Drug Crime Defense Attorney New Orleans
Elizabeth B Carpenter Law is one of the premiers law firms for Drug Crime defense. We have defended almost every type of Drug Crime imaginable in South Louisiana. If you are in need of a New Orleans drug crime attorney, contact our office today.
Synthetic Drug 25I: A New Schedule I Drug
State health officials, top lawmakers and law enforcement personnel announce steps they have taken to ban a dangerous new drug, 25i, making it illegal in Louisiana.
This relatively new drug, 25i, also called Smiles or N-Bomb, has been added to the state’s Controlled Dangerous Substance Act, effective immediately. It is classified as a Controlled Dangerous Substance — Schedule I.
Simple Possession of 25I will carry a sentence of 4 to 10 years.
Manufacturing and Distribution of 25I will carry a sentence of 5 to 50 years.
Lawmakers began eyeing criminalizing the drug after an Arkansas man died last week in New Orleans after reportedly overdosing on 25i at a festival.
At least five people have died nationwide this year after taking 25i, including the man who died in Louisiana, according to officials. Other deaths reportedly occurred in Minnesota, North Dakota, California and North Carolina. Today, Louisiana becomes the second state, along with Virginia, to make 25i illegal.
Louisiana revised statute 40:962, gives State Health Officials authority to add new compounds as a Schedule I drug in the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act by rule if the substance has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in the U.S., and if there is no accepted safety use of the substance under medical supervision.
Officials said the synthetic drug is commonly manufactured in China and India, and is being sold in powder and liquid form online, which is how people access it in the United States.
Elizabeth B Carpenter — New Orleans Criminal Defense Attorney
Appeals Court Considers Marijuana Reclassification — New Orleans Criminal Defense Attorney
October 20, 2012
NEW ORLEANS MARIJUANA DEFENSE ATTORNEY
If you have been arrested for a Marijuana Offense in Louisiana, Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. Our fees are always discounted for Marijuana Offenses.
Serving Clients in Orleans Parish, St. Tammany Parish, St. John Parish, St. James Parish, St. Bernard Parish, St. Charles Parish, Assumption Parish, Tangipahoa Parish, Terrebonne Parish, Plaquemines Parish and Jefferson Parish.
Appeals Court Considers Marijuana Reclassification
More than 10 years after it was initially filed, the latest petition to remove marijuana from Schedule Iof the Controlled Substances Act is finally giving the herb its day in court. The current classification lumps cannabis in with drugs such as heroin, LSD and mescaline.
The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments this week in the case of Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, providing an opening for medical marijuana reform advocates to challenge the conventional law enforcement contention that marijuana has a “high potential for abuse” and is “without accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”
Joe Elford, Chief Counsel for Americans for Safe Access, described an endless cycle orchestrated by federal drug enforcers in an effective effort to keep marijuana on Schedule I indefinitely. He argued that the Department of Health and Human Services is actively stifling much-needed research into marijuana’s medical benefits, citing the Schedule I classification as the basis for controlling research. The DEA completes the cycle by arguing that marijuana can’t be removed from Schedule I because there isn’t enough available research. This strategy has for years put a stranglehold on any opportunity for federally-accepted research into the medical marijuana benefits found in other studies.
“They’ve created a catch-22 so that they never have to be responsible for moving marijuana off of Schedule I,” said Kris Hermes, spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access. “They’re placing politics before science.”
DEA attorney Lena Watkins argued that the federal government does allow for research into the medical efficacy of marijuana, and that there have been 15 such studies that have met the government’s exacting standards. When asked by the three-judge panel why those studies have not convinced the DEA that marijuana has a legitimate medical use, Watkins said, “we don’t have the final results yet.”
Watkins reminded the court that neither state legislatures nor voters are qualified to judge the accepted medical use of marijuana, and stressed that “marijuana is the most widely abused drug in America.”
“The DEA often argues that just by the fact that marijuana is used by so many in the United States, that it’s tantamount to having high potential for abuse,” Hermes said. “That’s a ludicrous standard, and it’s not consistent with the way it’s used by the FDA.”
Key Legal Hurdle
The issue that tripped up two prior appeals of marijuana’s classification may be the downfall of this effort as well: A plaintiff must prove that he’s been harmed in order to have legal standing to sue. Past attempts to reschedule the drug failed because the plaintiffs weren’t able to prove this to the court’s satisfaction.
Before adjourning, the appeals court ordered the plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing to make their case for standing, indicating it could be a fatal stumbling block yet again.
“They’re taking the standing issue very seriously,” Hermes said.
The plaintiff in this case is Michael Krawitz, a disabled United States Air Force veteran. Krawitz uses medical marijuana in combination with more conventional medications to alleviate pain resulting from a military service injury. But Krawitz is being denied medical services by the Department of Veterans Affairs because he’s a medical marijuana patient.
Krawitz said marijuana’s Schedule I classification has “caused my fellow patients to be imprisoned, be denied work, be denied housing, be denied the right to a firearm, and be removed from transplant lists.”
“Despite being an Oregon card-holding medical marijuana patient, I’ve had to access medical treatment for my pain outside the VA,” Krawitz said, adding that “this is done openly as punishment to stop me from using cannabis.”
A Curious Question
Since the appeal of this petition was granted, medical marijuana advocates have argued that regardless of the outcome, the opportunity to bring evidence of marijuana’s medical benefits before a court is a victory in itself.
They may need to look for victories where they can, as Judge Merrick Garland asked one question that suggested an ominous outcome.
“Don’t we have to defer to the agency?” he asked, referring to the DEA. “We’re not scientists. They are.”
Far from being scientists, the DEA is a federal law enforcement agency operating within the Department of Justice.
Do you think that marijuana should be removed from Schedule I? How do you think it should be classified? Let us know in the comments section below.
Attorney Elizabeth B Carpenter has been a supporter of reforming Marijuana Laws for many years. Currently, Louisiana has some of the harshest marijuana laws in the country, and it has the fifth-highest marijuana arrest rate in the United States. Additionally, Louisiana has never had a law that effectively protects medical marijuana patients from arrest. In the last several sessions, Louisiana legislators have been too busy trying to increase marijuana penalties and refusing to introduce compassionate medical marijuana legislation.
Louisianans must form a united front and remain determined to stand up to the injustice of marijuana prohibition and accomplish decriminalization, no matter how long it takes to succeed.
Possession or Distribution of a Schedule V Controlled Dangerous Substance — Louisiana
August 19, 2012
New Orleans Drug Possession Distribution Attorney
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. — New Orleans Criminal Defense Attorney
Defending those accused of Drug Crimes in Jefferson, St. John, St. Bernard, Orleans, St. Tammany, Plaquemines St. James, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne and St. Charles Parishes!!!
Distribution or Possession of Drugs Listed in Schedule V Controlled Dangerous Substance – La. R.S. 40:969
See Schedule I
See Schedule II
See Schedule III
See Schedule V
It is unlawful:
To produce, manufacture, possess with intent to producea controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule V;
To create, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute, a counterfeit controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule V.
These crimes are felonies.
Penalties — Manufacturing, Distributing or Possessing with Intent to Distribute a Schedule V Controlled Dangerous Substance.
Schedule V shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not more than five years; and, in addition, may be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than five thousand dollars
Possession a Schedule V Controlled Dangerous Substance
Penalties
It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule IV unless such substance was obtained directly or pursuant to a valid prescription. Any person who violates this Subsection shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than 5 years and, in addition, may be required to pay a fine of not more than $5,000.00
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. – Louisiana Drug Crimes Attorney
Schedule V Controlled Dangerous Substance — Louisiana
August 19, 2012
NEW ORLEANS DRUG CRIME DEFENSE ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. — New Orleans Criminal Defense Attorney
The following is a list of Schedule IV controlled and dangerous substances as defined in the Louisiana Criminal Code. You can find the statutes pertaining to illegal possession, manufacturing, and distribution here.
SCHEDULE V CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE — La. R.S. 40:964
SCHEDULE V
A. Narcotic drugs containing nonnarcotic active medicinal ingredients. Any compound, mixture, or preparation containing any of the following limited quantities of narcotic drugs or salts thereof, which shall include one or more nonnarcotic active medicinal ingredients in sufficient proportion to confer upon the compound, mixture, or preparation valuable medicinal qualities other than those possessed by the narcotic drug alone:
(1) Not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams.
(2) Not more than 100 milligrams of dihydrocodeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams.
(3) Not more than 100 milligrams of ethylmorphine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams.
(4) Not more than 2.5 milligrams of diphenoxylate and not less than 25 micrograms of atropine sulphate per dosage unit.
(5) Not more than 100 milligrams of opium per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams.
(6) Not more than 0.5 milligrams of difenoxin and not less than 25 micrograms of atropine sulfate per dosage unit.
B. Narcotic drugs. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing any of the following narcotic drugs and their salts, as set forth below:
(1) Repealed by Acts 2006, No. 54, §2.
C. Stimulants. Unless specifically exempted or excluded or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances having a stimulant effect on the central nervous system, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers:
(1) Pyrovalerone
D. Depressants. Unless specifically exempted or excluded or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances having a depressant effect on the central nervous system, including its salts:
(1) Pregbalin
(2) Lacosamide
E.(1) Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine. Unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing any detectable quantity of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, their salts or optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers.
(2)(a) Nonprescription products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine shall not be sold or distributed in a quantity greater than nine grams of ephedrine base, pseudoephedrine base, or phenylpropanolamine base to the same purchaser within any thirty-day period.
(b) Notwithstanding the prescription requirements for Schedule V controlled dangerous substances as provided for in R.S. 40:978(C), nonprescription products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine may be dispensed without a prescription.
(3)(a) No person shall purchase, receive, or otherwise acquire more than nine grams of ephedrine base, pseudoephedrine base, or phenylpropanolamine base within any thirty-day period.
(b) This limit shall not apply to any quantity of such product, mixture, or preparation dispensed pursuant to a valid prescription written by a licensed health care professional having prescriptive authority.
(4) Wholesale drug distributors licensed by the Louisiana State Board of Wholesale Drug Distributors and registered with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration shall be exempt from the storage, reporting, record keeping, and physical security requirements for controlled dangerous substances for nonprescription products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine which are not listed in another schedule.
(5) Except for sales log requirements and the transmittal of transaction information to the central computer monitoring system authorized by the provisions of Part X-F of Chapter 4 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, pharmacies and pharmacists licensed by the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy and registered with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration shall be exempt from the storage, reporting, record keeping, and physical security requirements for controlled dangerous substances for nonprescription products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine which are not listed in another schedule.
(6) The transaction information provided for in R.S. 40:1049.3 for the purchase of a nonprescription product containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine shall constitute an “order from a practitioner” as provided for in R.S. 40:970(C). Possession of a nonprescription product containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine pursuant to a valid transaction as provided for in R.S. 40:1049.3 shall be a defense for a violation of R.S. 40:970(C).
Can the Police Search My Car?
July 30, 2012
Drug Possession Distribution Attorney Louisiana
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. — New Orleans Criminal Defense Attorney
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches. The amendment applies to government agents, like police officers. It does not apply to searches by private individuals. This protection extends to automobile searches, but it is not absolute. However, if a court finds that evidence was taken during an unlawful vehicle search, the court will not allow the prosecution to use that evidence.
Searches and Your Expectation of Privacy
A “search” can occur when a governmental agent intrudes in an area where you have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Deciding a “reasonable expectation of privacy” involves two questions. First, did you have an actual – meaning subjective or in your own mind – expectation of privacy? Second, would the subjective expectation of privacy be reasonable to an objective, uninvolved person?
Consent to Search
In certain situations, you may refuse to let a governmental agent search your vehicle. The agent is not required to inform you of your right to refuse. If you agree to the search, it must be voluntary – meaning you weren’t under pressure to comply. You also have the right to limit where the agent can search – the trunk but not the glove box, for example. You are free to change your mind at any time, even after the search has started.
Probable Cause to Search
A government agent with probable cause can search your car without you agreeing. Probable cause means a reason to believe the car more than likely contains evidence related to a crime. A routine traffic stop can develop into probable cause to search the vehicle. After pulling a car over for a traffic violation, a police officer might notice that the driver matches the description of someone suspected of stealing parts from automobiles. The officer also notices automobile parts in the back seat. These additional facts most likely create probable cause for the police officer to search the vehicle.
Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
When a police officer makes a lawful arrest, the officer may search not only the arrested person but also the area immediately around the arrested person – like the car the person was traveling in just before the arrest. However, this only applies if the person is arrested. If the driver is only given a traffic ticket, the police officer cannot search the vehicle. If a police officer has the choice to either issue a ticket or make an arrest, the officer must make the arrest in order to search the car.
The law surrounding searches of vehicles is complicated. Plus, the facts of each case are unique.
“The goal of every drug crime case is to not be convicted”
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. — New Orleans Criminal Lawyer
Elizabeth B Carpenter Law is one of the premiers law firms for Drug Crime defense. We have defended almost every type of Drug Crime imaginable in South Louisiana. When approaching a Drug Case, the first issues we examine are the client’s constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure:
- Did the police have the right to pull our client over?,
- Did the police have the right to search our client’s home?,
- Did the police have the right to search out client’s car?
Our first goal is to try to exclude / suppress any and all evidence of a drug crime. If the evidence is suppressed, the state cannot use the evidence to convict our client. The goal in every drug crime case is to not be convicted.
If you have been arrested for Drug Possession, contact our office for a consultation. We want to protect your rights!
Phenazepam is now listed as a Schedule I in Louisiana — New Orleans Drug Crime Attorney
June 25, 2012
NEW ORLEANS DRUG CRIME DEFENSE ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. — New Orleans Criminal Defense Attorney
Governor Bobby Jindal has signed Act 346 of the Louisiana 2012 Legislative Session. This act adds phenazepam to the list of Schedule I controlled dangerous substances.
Phenazepam is a benzodiazepine drug, which was developed in the Soviet Union and now produced in Russia and some CIS countries. Phenazepam is used in the treatment of neurological disorders such as epilepsy, alcohol withdrawal syndrome and insomnia. It can be used as a premedication before surgery as it augments the effects of anesthetics and reduces anxiety. Recently, phenazepam has gained popularity as a recreational drug; abuse has been reported in the United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden and the United States.
Elizabeth B Carpenter Law is one of the premiers law firms for Drug Crime defense. We have defended almost every type of Drug Crime imaginable in South Louisiana. When approaching a Drug Case, the first issues we examine are the client’s constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure:
- Did the police have the right to pull our client over?,
- Did the police have the right to search our client’s home?,
- Did the police have the right to search out client’s car?
Our first goal is to try to exclude / suppress any and all evidence of a drug crime. If the evidence is suppressed, the state cannot use the evidence to convict our client. The goal in every drug crime case is to not be convicted.
If you have been arrested for Drug Possession, contact Ms. Carpenter’s office for a consultation. We want to protect your rights!
Possession and Distribution Bath Salts — Louisiana Drug Crime
April 2, 2012
ST. TAMMANY DRUG CRIME DEFENSE ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. — New Orleans Criminal Defense Attorney
In early 2011, the Louisiana Legislature passed emergency legislation making the Possession and Sale of “Bath Salts” illegal under La R.S. 40:966. These Bath Salts are considered a Schedule I Controlled Dangerous Substance — by definition, this means that the substance has a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in the U.S.
Illegal “Bath Salts” can be broken down into the following chemicals:
3,4-Methylenedioxymethcathinone (Methylone),
3,4-Methyenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV),
4-Methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone),
4-methoxymethcathinone,
4-Fluoromethcathinone and
3-Fluoromethcathinone
By adding these chemicals to the controlled dangerous substance act as Schedule I drugs, the possession, manufacturing or distribution of these drugs will carry penalties similar to those of heroin, which could mean up to 30 years in prison.
“The goal of every drug crime case is to not be convicted”
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. — New Orleans Criminal Lawyer
Elizabeth B Carpenter Law is one of the premiers law firms for Drug Crime defense. We have defended almost every type of Drug Crime imaginable in South Louisiana. When approaching a Drug Case, the first issues we examine are the client’s constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure:
- Did the police have the right to pull our client over?,
- Did the police have the right to search our client’s home?,
- Did the police have the right to search out client’s car?
Our first goal is to try to exclude / suppress any and all evidence of a drug crime. If the evidence is suppressed, the state cannot use the evidence to convict our client. The goal in every drug crime case is to not be convicted.
If you have been arrested for Drug Possession, contact our office for a consultation. We want to protect your rights!
NOLA lawmaker wants harsher punishment for heroin possession, distribution
March 28, 2012
Criminal Defense Attorney New Orleans
Elizabeth B Carpenter Law — Attorney New Orleans
NOLA lawmaker wants harsher punishment for heroin possession, distribution
By Paul Purpura, The Times-Picayune
A New Orleans lawmaker proposes stiffening the penalities for possessing and distributing heroin. Democractic Sen. J.P. Morrell’s Senate Bill 66 and Senate Bill 67 would increase the mandatory minimum sentences and the sentencing ranges in laws relating to the narcotic.
File photoSen. J.P. MorrellMorrell, who also hopes to change the second-degree murder statute to include narcotics-related deaths, did not respond to an e-mail request for comment this week. The bills are among several narcotics-relatedproposals he has sponsored in the 2012 legislative session.
His SB 66 would increase the punishment for possession with intent to distribute heroin to 10 years minimum to a cap of 50 years.
The present law sets the range at five to 50 years in prison. His proposal would also double the maximum fine, up to $100,000 upon conviction.
Morrell also filed SB 67, which if becomes law would increase the penalties for possessing heroin:
- Possessing 28 grams to 200 grams would carry a punishment of eight to 45 years in prison. The present law is five to 30 years.
- Possessing 200 grams to 400 grams would carry a punishment of 15 years to 45 years. The present law sets the range at 10 to 30 years.
- Possessing 400 or more grams would carry a sentence of 24 years to 45 years of imprisonment. The present range is 15 years to 30 years.
Morrell also proposes widening the felony-murder doctrine under the state’s second-degree murder law. The punishment for second-degree murder would remain unchanged: Mandatory life in prison with no probation, parole or suspended sentence.
“The prospect of life in prison is a scary prospect,” Morrell told The Times-Picayune in January.
Second-degree murder in Louisiana is defined as the “specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.”
The law also defines second-degree murder as a death occurring during the commission of any of 15 underlying felonies. For instance, if someone dies during an armed robbery, even if the perpetrator has no intent to kill, then that person is guilty of second-degree murder.
Morrell proposes adding another underlying felony to the list: “the unlawful sale, distribution, or dispensation of heroin, methamphetamine or ‘crack’ cocaine.”
The existing underlying felonies, including attempted perpetration, are aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, seond-degree kidnapping, aggravated escape, assault by drive-by shooting, armed robbery, first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery, simple robbery, cruelty to juveniles, second-degree cruelty to juveniles and terrorism.
The three bills are in judiciary committee, according to the Legislature’s web site.
New Hampshire House Passes Marijuana Decriminalization Bill
March 10, 2012
Louisiana Marijuana Defense Attorney
Elizabeth B. Carpenter, Esq. – Serving clients in Orleans, Jefferson, Terrebonne, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. Tammany, St. John, Assumption and Plaquemines Parishes.
Support the decriminalization of Marijuana!
New Hampshire House Passes
Marijuana Decriminalization Bill
The New Hampshire House barely passed a marijuana decriminalization bill Thursday. The bill squeaked by on a 162-161 vote, not enough to overcome a threatened veto by Gov. John Lynch (D).
Supporters were able to win passage only after Republican House Speaker Bill O’Brien abstained, allowing the one-vote victory.
The bill, House Bill 1526, would make possession of less than a half-ounce of marijuana a civil infraction for the first and second offenses, with fines capped at $250 and $500, respectively. Subsequent offenses would be misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Current law specifies up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine for any simple marijuana possession offense.
The bill is “a measured and calculated reduction in penalties,” wrote Rep. Kyle Tasker (R-Nottingham) in a report on the measure he wrote for the Criminal Justice Committee, which earlier approved it. It has worked well in neighboring states that have adopted it, he added.
But Gov. Lynch has promised to veto the measure if it makes it past the Senate.
“Marijuana is a controlled drug that remains illegal under federal law. New Hampshire parents are working to keep their kids away from marijuana and other drugs. We should not make the jobs of parents — or law enforcement — harder by sending a false message that some marijuana use is acceptable,” Lynch spokesman Colin Manning told theAssociated Press after the vote.
Fourteen states have decriminalized marijuana possession, including New Hampshire neighbors Massachusetts, Maine, and Connecticut.
Concord, NH
