AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 7 of section 19-03.1-23 and subsection 1 of section 19-03.4-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to drug crime penalties and drug paraphernalia possession; and to provide a penalty.
HB 1367 revises North Dakota’s controlled substance and drug paraphernalia laws by adjusting criminal penalties for possession offenses and for paraphernalia used with certain drugs. The bill keeps simple possession of controlled substances generally unlawful, but it preserves and clarifies a tiered penalty structure: first offenses are generally a class A misdemeanor, repeat offenses can become class C felonies, and possession on school property can be charged as a class B felony unless the offense involves marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). It also specifies separate penalty levels for marijuana and THC possession based on quantity, including infractions for very small amounts and misdemeanors for larger amounts.
The bill also addresses treatment and supervision options for people sentenced to incarceration under this section. It authorizes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to place eligible individuals in designated drug and alcohol treatment programs and requires release to probation upon successful completion in certain cases. Courts may also use supervised probation, drug court, mental health court, veterans treatment dockets, or other facilities and programs as part of the sentence structure. A person who violates the possession law involving five or fewer pills, capsules, or tablets of certain controlled substances is treated as a class A misdemeanor, with repeat non-marijuana/THC offenses elevated to a class C felony.
HB 1367 also amends the state’s drug paraphernalia statute to make possession or use of paraphernalia for manufacturing, processing, storing, or concealing controlled substances a class C felony when the paraphernalia is tied to schedule I, II, or III drugs other than marijuana or THC. In practical terms, the bill updates and refines North Dakota’s drug penalty scheme, reinforcing harsher treatment for repeat offenders and non-marijuana controlled substances while maintaining lower penalties for marijuana and THC possession in limited amounts.
The overall sentiment reflected in the legislative record is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill passed the House 93-0 and the Senate 46-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement. No committee testimony or recorded debate was provided, and there is no evidence in the available record of organized opposition or significant amendment controversy.
The main policy tension inherent in the bill is between punishment and treatment, but the measure appears to balance both by retaining criminal penalties while expanding access to treatment-based supervision options. Another point of distinction is the bill’s differential treatment of marijuana/THC versus other controlled substances, as well as its enhanced penalties for school-property offenses and repeat violations. Those distinctions suggest the legislature aimed to target more serious drug activity while preserving lesser penalties for lower-level possession cases.
HB 1367 amends North Dakota Century Code sections 19-03.1-23 and 19-03.4-03, changing the state’s drug possession and paraphernalia penalty framework. It affects individuals charged with controlled substance possession, repeat offenders, people found with marijuana or THC in specified amounts, and those possessing paraphernalia tied to controlled substances other than marijuana or THC. It also gives the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and courts explicit authority to use treatment programs, drug court, mental health court, and veterans treatment dockets in sentencing and supervision.
The bill appears to have had very strong bipartisan support and little to no visible opposition. It passed both chambers unanimously, 93-0 in the House and 46-0 in the Senate, suggesting the changes were viewed as a routine or broadly acceptable update to drug penalties rather than a controversial policy shift. The available record does not include committee debate or testimony, so the sentiment can only be inferred from the unanimous votes and lack of recorded dissent.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available record. Based on the text, the most likely areas of policy debate would have been the bill’s penalty structure for repeat possession offenses, the felony treatment of paraphernalia tied to non-marijuana controlled substances, and the balance between incarceration and treatment-based alternatives. However, the unanimous votes and absence of recorded opposition indicate that any such issues were not politically divisive in this bill’s consideration.