Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice Diversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs H 105 to lower diversion age to 12, asks staff to draft language adding cannabis possession
Summary
The Judiciary Committee discussed H 105, which would lower the age for diversion through the YSAS program from 16 to 12, and asked staff to draft language next week to add cannabis possession to the diversion pathway; no formal vote was taken.
The Judiciary Committee on April 23 heard testimony on H 105, a bill that would lower the minimum age for diversion through the YSAS program from 16 to 12 and could be amended to include possession of cannabis as an offense eligible for diversion rather than family court.
Proponents and agency witnesses told the committee the current patchwork of underage drinking laws is confusing and that standardizing diversion under YSAS would simplify handling for youth and for law enforcement. Kim McManus, Department of Fakes, Journeys, and Myers, said the department supports the version before the committee and “we have no issue with lowering the age from 16 to 12,” while emphasizing that suspensions for participants should remain in place.
A representative from the Office of the General (identified in the record as Marshall) said the bill “dumps all of our underage drinking provisions into 1 bucket so they're not scattered across, like, 3 different reading books and basically says, here's how they all get dealt with this through this 1 mechanism,” and described YSAS as a program that provides individualized screening and treatment rather than court-centric penalties.
Committee members discussed whether to add cannabis possession to the offenses routed to YSAS. Sarah Bowes said she supported treating cannabis similarly to alcohol in this context: “We now treat cannabis under the law like we do alcohol in sort of every other place. So it seems reasonable to me that we would treat it that way here.” Witnesses and committee members noted practical reasons for including possession: many young people cited for underage drinking are also cited for cannabis possession, and sending the same young person into two separate processes would be inefficient.
Panel testimony also flagged technical and evidentiary limits around cannabis impairment. Marshall explained there is not an established, science-based blood-level benchmark for cannabis impairment comparable to the 0.08 blood-alcohol threshold for alcohol, saying, in effect, that THC presence or quantity in blood does not reliably indicate impairment. Committee discussion reflected that possession—rather than a standardized impairment metric—is the practical charge that could be diverted under this bill unless the committee chooses to adopt separate provisions for drug-impaired driving.
The committee asked for draft amendment language to add possession of cannabis to H 105’s diversion provisions and requested that the sponsors or staff arrange for YSAS program representatives to testify when the amendment is presented. The Committee Chair said, in the record, “We're gonna get some language for that. Okay. Next week.” No formal vote on H 105 or on an amendment was taken during this session.
The next committee meeting will revisit H 105 with the proposed language on cannabis possession and any additional clarifying testimony from YSAS program operators or other witnesses.
