What are state lawmakers doing that actually affects your daily life? Lots! Find out with Front Door Politics: jargon-free, non-advocacy state house news at www.frontdoorpolitics.com.

bipartisan drugtake-back program: The often adversarial nature of politics—this session in the New Hampshire Legislature being no exception—begs the question of what it takes to find common ground. The reality is complicated. For all their public bickering, lawmakers often do get along, especially at the committee level. But that fact of life doesn’t make many headlines.

Enter the pharmaceutical drug take-back program. In many ways, House Bill 71 is a case study in successful bipartisan legislative work.

The bill creates a new way for New Hampshire cities and towns to confront the issues of pain medicine addiction and water supply degradation. Several state agencies collaborate in setting guidelines for how communities and private entities, in conjunction with law enforcement, can collect unused medications. It’s “enabling” legislation, or a law that allows communities to take part in the program on a volunteer basis. The goal is keeping prescription drugs off the street and out of the water supply, which happens when people flush old meds down the toilet or rinse them down the drain.

An earlier proposal had called for pharmacies to establish take-back programs, but a study committee recommended against it due to corporate liability issues. Lesson learned, and a new mechanism was created. House Bill 71 is the product of a successful pilot program last fall—in which more than a ton of unused pharmaceuticals was collected statewide—followed by fine-tuning from legislative interim study recommendations.

On April 7, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee held a public hearing on HB 71, which passed uncontested by a voice vote in the House last month. Sponsored by Rep. Chris Nevins (R-Hampton), the bill enjoys significant bipartisan support. 

defending self-defense: When is deadly force justified? In the Granite State, the answer hinges not just on “when,” but also “where” deadly force is used. It’s known as the Castle Doctrine (as in, “a man’s home is his castle”) and the N.H. House and Senate are taking up two bills to change it. 

The Castle Doctrine says that someone in his or her own home is permitted to use deadly force in self-defense or to protect another person from a rape, kidnapping, or other serious crime. According to currrent law in New Hampshire, if you’re not at home, you must retreat from a dangerous situation if you’re able to do so safely. The doctrine does not apply to people who pick fights (otherwise known as “initial aggressors”) in situations involving deadly force.

House Bill 210 would bring the doctrine outside the domain of the “castle.” Permission to use deadly force in self-defense or to protect another person would be granted to anyone “who is in any place where he or she has a right to be or reasonably believed he or she had a right to be.”

Sponsored by Rep. Richard Okerman (R-Windham), the bill passed the House along mostly partisan lines by a veto-proof 270-92 majority on March 15. Its second public hearing was held on April 7 in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Meanwhile, a related bill passed the Senate last week by a veto-proof 17-7 majority. It received its second public hearing in the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on April 12.

Senate Bill 88, sponsored by Sen. David Boutin (R-Hooksett), would remove a person’s “duty to retreat” from an encounter involving deadly force. It also adds that a person who brandishes a firearm or other means of self-defense—as long as they have a right to be where they are—is not guilty of criminal threatening.

The fiscal note for HB 210 includes observations by a few state agencies that suggest their costs may go down thanks to fewer criminal cases or incarcerations. Or they could go up, due to more potential homicide investigations.

Neither the Judicial Branch, Judicial Council, Department of Justice, Department of Corrections, or N.H. Association of Counties were able to estimate the number of their current cases that would have been changed by a different Castle Doctrine, much less the number of future cases that may be subject to it.

Gov. John Lynch vetoed a similar measure in 2006. But with veto-proof votes so far on both bills, he may have to be very persuasive to avoid having another veto overridden, should he choose to use it.

resuscitating the state’s cancer control plan: A New Hampshire cancer control fund and oversight board that’s set to lapse on June 30 may get extended. A House committee recently took up a proposal to make the fund permanent.

The House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee held a public hearing April 6 on Senate Bill 72, which passed the Senate in March. Sponsored by Sen. Molly Kelly (D-Keene), the bill would establish a permanent Comprehensive Cancer Plan Fund and Oversight Board.

In 2007, the N.H. Legislature established a similar fund and oversight board to provide resources for the Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan. That report was released to the public a year ago by the New Hampshire Comprehensive Cancer Collaboration.

According to the Collaboration, cancer is the leading cause of death in the state. Every day, according to the report, 19 people are diagnosed with cancer in New Hampshire and seven die of the disease. 

The original legislation called for the fund to “sunset” on June 30, 2011, save for a new legislative initiative. The state originally appropriated $6 million for the fund, but budget cuts reduced that to just $1 annually. Senate Bill 72 calls for no state appropriations; funding would come from public and private sector grants, gifts and donations.

The Cancer Collaboration’s volunteer oversight board decides how much funding goes to different programs (such as youth smoking prevention or breast and cervical cancer screening). The 13-member oversight board would be comprised of House and Senate members, representatives from the state’s Dept. of Health and Human Services, the Cancer Collaboration, the American Cancer Society, and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

When the House committee took up SB 72, it also held public hearings on Senate Bill 51 (to establish a state leadership team on issues for developmentally disabled adults) and Senate Bill 93 (which would allow pharmacists to administer vaccines.)