Hawaii-2018-HB2100-Introduced

SECTION 1. The legislature finds that certain state policies should be revised in response to our current economic climate. One of these policies relates to criminal offenses that prohibit the possession of cannabis. The legislature further finds that the costs to enforce criminal cannabis possession statutes are substantial. According to a report entitled The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Decriminalization and Legalization for Hawai‘i, which was completed in 2005 by Lawrence W. Boyd and a 2013 update of that report, Update to: Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Decriminalization and Legislation in Hawai‘i, completed in 2013 by David C. Nixon, state and county law enforcement agencies spent $9,300,000 annually, in 2011 dollars, to enforce cannabis possession laws. Meanwhile, a recent scientific survey of registered voters in the State conducted by Qmark Research in 2014 found that sixty-three per cent of those surveyed favored making possession and personal use of cannabis a civil violation instead of a crime, and sixty per cent favored outright legalization of cannabis. The 2013 decriminalization study update indicates that about 2.5 per cent of all arrests in Hawaii in 2010 were for cannabis possession. Furthermore, the 2012 study indicates that of the misdemeanor cannabis drug cases brought in district court, approximately sixty-five per cent are dismissed, stricken, or not prosecuted. A relatively small proportion, approximately twenty-five per cent, result in convictions. As the decriminalization study concludes: "Few [of those arrested for cannabis possession] are actually prosecuted under the law, fewer convicted, and virtually none serve jail time. Of those convicted, probation is the usual sentence for first time offenders." Clearly, although the cost to enforce cannabis possession laws is substantial, the resulting conviction rate is low.

The legislature finds that the low conviction and arrest rates do not act as a deterrent to cannabis users. The decriminalization study compared the findings of a study surveying the number of households engaged in the regular use of cannabis with actual arrest rates. The results of this comparison indicate that the risk of arrest is between 1.54 per cent and 2.16 per cent in any given year for members of households in which there is regular cannabis use. According to the decriminalization study, the chance of a cannabis user being arrested and convicted is approximately 0.4 per cent. It is clear that the arrest and conviction risks associated with cannabis use do not act as a deterrent to cannabis use, and few of those who use cannabis on a regular basis experience the consequences of these risks, notwithstanding the costs to enforce the criminal statutes prohibiting such conduct.

A number of states have passed laws decriminalizing cannabis to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount of cannabis for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation. According to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the following states have decriminalized possession of a small amount of cannabis for personal consumption: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The following jurisdictions have gone a step further and legalized the possession of some amount of cannabis for personal use: Alaska, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

According to a report prepared by the Connecticut Law Revision Commission for the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly, studies of states that have reduced penalties for possession of small amounts of cannabis have found that:

(1) Expenses for arrests and prosecution of cannabis possession offenses were significantly reduced;

(2) If cannabis use increased, it increased less in states with reduced penalties when compared to states that did not reduce their penalties, and "the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties"; and

(3) Reducing the penalties for cannabis possession has virtually no effect on either the choice or frequency of use of alcohol or illegal "harder" drugs such as cocaine.

In Hawaii county, a voter initiative was passed in 2008 by a majority of 35,000 voters that directs county law enforcement officials to treat the "adult personal use" of cannabis as its lowest law enforcement priority and prohibits the county from accepting or expending funds for the cannabis eradication program and for enforcing potential offenses for the adult personal use of cannabis.

The legislature further finds that the costs associated with criminal prosecution for possession of cannabis are extremely high in relation to the benefits of prosecuting those offenses. Authorizing the counties to legalize cannabis would greatly reduce the costs for prosecution and enforcement and generate tax revenue.

The purpose of this Act is to authorize the counties to adopt ordinances to legalize cannabis cultivation, possession, sale, transfer, and use for persons over the age of twenty-one.

SECTION 2. Chapter 46, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

"§46- Legalization of cannabis. (a) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any county may adopt an ordinance, excluding referendums and initiatives, to legalize cannabis cultivation, possession, sale, transfer, and use within its geographical boundaries by any person over the age of twenty-one years, whether for personal, commercial, or medicinal purposes.

(b) An ordinance adopted in accordance with subsection (a) shall:

(1) Supercede statutes prohibiting the cultivation, possession, sale, transfer, and use of cannabis, including part IX of chapter 329 and part IV of chapter 712; and

(2) Not be recognized in any county that has not adopted the same or similar ordinance.

(c) A county that adopts an ordinance under this section shall adopt administrative rules pursuant to chapter 91 to regulate the cultivation, possession, sale, transfer, and use of cannabis. An ordinance shall not become effective until the rules are adopted."

SECTION 3. Chapter 712, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to part IV to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

"§712- County legalization of cannabis. (a) A person who cultivates, possesses, sells, transfers, or uses cannabis in any amount shall not be deemed in violation of this part in any county that has adopted an ordinance and administrative rules pursuant to section 46- .

(b) This part shall not be enforceable in a county that has adopted an ordinance and rules pursuant to section 46- ."

SECTION 4. This Act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before the effective date of county ordinances adopted pursuant to this Act and administrative rules adopted thereto.

SECTION 5. New statutory material is underscored.

SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

INTRODUCED BY:	_____________________________

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES	H.B. NO.	2100
TWENTY-NINTH LEGISLATURE, 2018
STATE OF HAWAII