Despite uncertainty about the Trump administration’s stance on marijuana, New Hampshire may be on the verge of taking a long overdue step forward in how it regulates the drug. Meanwhile, legislation pending in Congress would provide much-needed clarity by resolving a conflict between federal marijuana law and practices adopted by several states.

Last week, the New Hampshire House voted overwhelmingly in favor of decriminalizing possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. Gov. Chris Sununu says he will sign the bill into law if the Senate goes along. This is by no means a sure thing, but there are many reasons to hope the Senate concurs. One is that decriminalization would align New Hampshire law with those of the other New England states. Another is that pursuing criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of pot wastes law enforcement time and resources, as well as the taxpayers’ money, as our colleague Jim Kenyon has chronicled in several columns about the Lebanon Police Department’s zealous — some would say overzealous — enforcement efforts.

More important still, the negative consequences for individuals arrested for marijuana possession at present far outweigh the seriousness of the offense. Having a criminal record can affect everything from educational and employment opportunities to access to housing. Any time a punishment is disproportionate to the severity of a crime, respect for the rule of law itself is undermined.

The New Hampshire bill also, wisely in our view, stops short of outright legalization, which in the current political climate may be threatened by federal action. Last month, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters that “I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement” of federal drug laws prohibiting recreational use of marijuana, potentially affecting the seven states, along with the District of Columbia, that have legalized it. This would reverse an Obama administration policy of not interfering with state marijuana laws as long as certain safeguards were in place. (Medical marijuana, which is legal in 28 states, including Vermont and New Hampshire, would not be affected by a Trump crackdown, as Congress has already prohibited the Justice Department from intervening in states that authorize its use.)

The conflict between state and federal laws is addressed by a bill filed recently by U.S. Rep. Thomas Garrett of Virginia that would remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act, under which it is currently classified as a dangerous Schedule One drug with “high potential for abuse.” In effect, the bill would allow every state to make its own decisions on marijuana policy without federal interference. According to The Washington Post, Garrett, who interestingly enough is both a Republican and a former prosecutor, frames the issue as one of states’ rights and economic development. Indeed, legal marijuana was a $1.3 billion industry last year in Colorado alone.

Even more important, in our view, is the need to end a situation in which federal law conflicts with state practices that appear to represent the public will. A recent Quinnipiac poll indicated that 59 percent of voters nationwide support full legalization of marijuana use, while 93 percent support medical use under a doctor’s supervision. That is a remarkable consensus in a bitterly divided country, and one with which federal law should not be at odds.