New Hampshire House Passes Another Cannabis Legalization Bill
The New Hampshire House of Representatives last week approved legislation to legalize cannabis, the second time in just over a month the chamber has passed a bill to end the prohibition of marijuana.
Lawmakers in the House approved HB 198, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Jared Sullivan, by a vote of 208-125 on March 26. If passed by the New Hampshire Senate and signed into law, the legislation would allow adults aged 21 and older to possess up to two ounces of cannabis flower. The bill would also legalize possession of up to 10 grams of cannabis concentrates and other marijuana products containing no more than 2,000 milligrams of THC, the primary psychoactive compound found in cannabis.
'It is 2025. Let's stop arresting people and ruining their lives for possession of cannabis, something that many states in the country have already legalized,' Sullivan said before Wednesday's vote, according to a report from Marijuana Moment.
The bill would not legalize commercial cannabis production and sales. The public consumption of cannabis would also remain against the law.
The sponsor of the legislation said that lawmakers seem to agree that cannabis should be legalized. The remaining disagreements center on how cannabis sales should be legalized and regulated.
'Once we get it legal, we can continue to have that debate. That seems to be where the sticking points [are]: Do we want it to be a private, industry-based model? Do we want to be a state-run model?' Sullivan asked his colleagues in the House. 'These things are where we're getting kind of caught up in the weeds, and it seems like most people agree that we should legalize it.'
The New Hampshire House of Representatives has approved two separate bills to legalize marijuana ... More possession this year.
The passage of HB 198 came about five weeks after the New Hampshire House passed HB 75, a different bill to legalize the possession of marijuana without authorizing regulated sales of cannabis.
If passed, the bill from Republican Rep. Kevin Verville would remove criminal penalties for possessing and using cannabis by adults aged 21 and older. Like Sullivan's bill, the legislation would not create a regulated cannabis industry or legalize sales of recreational marijuana. Public consumption of cannabis would also remain illegal.
Marijuana would still be illegal for those under age 21 under Verville's bill. Those under age 21 caught using or possessing marijuana would be guilty of a violation. Minors under age 18 found to be possessing or using cannabis would be referred for substance use disorders screening.
The same day House lawmakers passed HB 198, New Hampshire Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who took office in January, repeated her opposition to legalizing recreational marijuana.
'I've been very clear on this,' Ayotte told reporters on March 26, Marijuana Moment reported on Monday. 'I ran on this issue, and the people of New Hampshire know where I stand on it. I don't support it.'
'I don't think it is the right direction for the state for a lot of reasons,' she told reporters, according to a report from InDepthNH. 'I believe, if you think about our quality of life, if you think about some of the concerns that can flow from that. I know…we talked about safety on our roadways. I think that there are a number of issues that states who have legalized cannabis have experienced in those regards that I just don't think can be addressed at the moment with the existing technology.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer
According to the nature of our economy, it's typical that costs increase over time (hello, inflation). But what we're seeing in elections cannot be considered normal. The Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to list which issues are the biggest problems facing the economy right now. Seventy-two percent said the role of money in politics is a 'very big problem' — landing it the foremost spot above health care costs, inflation, the federal deficit, poverty and every other issue. This is significant. While candidates for Congress and the presidency quibble over who gets access to power, moneyed interests continue to creep into the system, making elections costlier than ever. Sometimes it starts to feel like a contest just for the contest's sake. Let's take a look at the numbers. Just three presidential cycles ago, in 2016, the total cost of all federal elections rang in at $6.5 billion, a (relatively) modest increase from 2012. But four years later, the total cost more than doubled to $15.1 billion and, in 2024, nearly matched that total ($14.8 billion). The U.S. vastly outspends all other nations on elections. The source of money has also changed. Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of candidates who raised more than $200,000 for general election campaigns collected that money from within their districts from people they would ultimately represent if they won (79 percent of House candidates, 62 percent of Senate candidates). As my organization has reported, congressional elections truly have now become national campaigns, with just 17.6 percent local money in House races and only 27.5 percent in Senate races for 2024. So, while more money is pouring into the U.S. election system than ever before, the traditional relationship between elected officials and those they represent has fallen apart. Thanks to the research done by Unite America, we know that nearly all congressional elections are decided by less than 10 percent of voters. Put those low voter participation rates together with low local fundraising rates, and you end up with elected officials who no longer represent the people. And if our officials are not beholden to their constituents, but rather to partisan forces, we end up with a dysfunctional government. We shouldn't be surprised that the American people have had enough. Amid a more politicized landscape in which partisans are moving increasingly toward the extremes, money in politics is one of the few issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on — with 66 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats citing it as a very big problem. And yet, our leaders appear uninterested in changing a system that helps them stay in power. In every Congress, a handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reform the role of money in politics, but none of those bills have any chance at becoming law. In fact, a meaningful campaign finance law has not been enacted since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed in 2002 — nearly a quarter-century ago. Since then, the courts have eaten away at the restrictions created by the law, clearing the way for super PACs and the untraceable ' dark money ' funds that support them. And then there's the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with regulating campaign fundraising and expenditures in line with current law, enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the law. But even in the best of times, the FEC rarely takes action. When fully staffed, it has three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, leading to partisan gridlock. But deadlocked votes would be a welcome change from what we are facing now. In order to take action, the FEC requires a quorum of four commissioners. Right now it only has three, so it cannot complete most of its core functions. That leaves the judiciary as the only branch of government considering changes to campaign finance laws. All eyes are on Maine, where voters overwhelmingly approved a 2024 ballot measure setting caps on contributions to super PACs. Opponents have sued to overturn the measure, and the case has been teed up for a federal district court's review. It is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the next couple years, in what will likely be the most significant ruling on money in politics since Citizens United. Before that case makes it to the high court, the justices may consider another campaign finance case. Current law limits how much money party committees can spend in coordination with candidates' campaign committees. That law is being challenged and the case could be heard this fall. While all this is happening (or, at the FEC, not happening), political operatives are already gearing up for the next elections and strategizing how to raise as much money as possible. If nothing changes, the dollars will only get bigger, and voters will be even more dissatisfied. We deserve better.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Rep. staying in House chamber after rejecting DPS monitoring
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — The Texas House is adjourned until Wednesday morning. But one State Rep. is staying in the chamber, staging a protest that's gaining attention. Before the House adjourned Monday, House Speaker Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, ordered the doors to the chamber to be locked. He said that members needed written permission to leave the chamber. But he added an extra step for Democrats who broke quorum and had arrest warrants issued. The Speaker said those members would be granted written permission to leave only after agreeing to be released into the custody of a designated Department of Public Safety officer who will ensure they return to the House on Wednesday at 10 a.m. State Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, refused and was not allowed to leave. 'I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts,' Collier stated in a news release. Texas Democrats highlighted her protest, sending out a news release stating that Collier was locked in the chamber, 'detained as political prisoner.' The Texas House Democratic Caucus set up a live stream of Collier remaining on the House floor and offered reporters live interviews with the representative. At one point, supporters gathered outside the chamber chanting, 'Let her go!' A social media post by the Texas House Democrats showed video a group of activists appearing to be arrested outside the House chamber. Other Texas Democrats have taken to social media, posting pictures and videos with Collier to show support. Late Monday, NBC News reporter Ryan Chandler reported that Collier had been told she can leave the House floor to go to her office, which is located in another part of the Capitol. She reportedly cannot leave the building without a DPS escort. Early into Collier's protest, the Texas House committee on redistricting voted out of committee a new version of a bill with proposed new congressional maps. The committee vote sets the stage for the full House to consider the redistricting legislation, where it is expected to pass. The maps are designed to boost Republican representation in the Texas congressional delegation. The push for the redistricting legislation comes after President Donald Trump called on Texas leaders to redraw voting lines to gain five Republican seats in Congress during the mid-term elections. State Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, defended the plan to boost Republican representation. 'The U.S. Supreme Court … says that jurisdictions may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering, recognizing that politics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment,' Hunter said before Monday's committee vote. 2024 Election Coverage The maps will likely push out Congressman Marc Veasey, a Democrat who represents the area that includes much of Collier's state house district. Collier believes the maps will have a negative impact on her constituents. 'My community is majority-minority, and they expect me to stand up for their representation. When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents,' Collier stated in a news release. 'My constituents sent me to Austin to protect their voices and rights,' Collier added.
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
In Maine, a political novice makes a long-shot bid to oust Senator Susan Collins
Advertisement 'We need to stop using the exact same playbook that keeps losing over and over and over again,' said Platner, a political unknown who serves as the local harbor master in the tiny town of Sullivan. 'Running establishment candidates who are chosen or supported by the powers that be in D.C. -- in Maine specifically -- has been a total failure, certainly in attempts to unseat Susan Collins. It is time for us to try something new.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up A competitive pistol shooter who worked as a bartender at the Tune Inn on Capitol Hill while attending George Washington University on the GI Bill, he said that 'everyone knows we live in a system that is not built to represent working-class people.' Platner said he had been approached in the past to run for local office, and had always turned it down. But when a group of labor unions focused on climate issues reached out to him about running for Senate, Platner found himself open to the idea. Advertisement 'The political situation feels like a precipice,' he said. 'It feels like it will go really, really dark, or we have an opportunity to claw something back for working people in this country.' An untested candidate like Platner may be a risky bet, but some Democratic strategists said that at a moment of deep anti-Washington sentiment, voters are demanding new faces over veteran politicians they view as part of a system that has failed them. Platner said he was recruited by political organizers who were worried that 'there was going to be a bad decision made for this race, and they went looking around this state for someone. I am terrified that the Democrats are going to squander what could otherwise be a spectacular opportunity.' He said his campaign would focus relentlessly on the dire economic landscape that has made it difficult to afford a house or health care in his state. And his pitch is that he has a unique ability to 'appeal to a lot of voters in Maine who aren't usually on the side of a Democratic politician, or a lot of people who just stopped voting, because they see a political system they feel does not and cannot represent them.' He has already attracted some national political operators to work on his campaign. His sepia-toned launch video was produced by Morris Katz, a top adviser to Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor. A senior adviser is Joe Calvello, who previously worked on the campaign of Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. Advertisement Platner, whose light social media footprint indicates that he has supported Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said he did not define himself as a progressive or a centrist. But he laughed at the idea that he would have any challenge in connecting with supporters of President Donald Trump. Half of his friends and colleagues at the dock voted for Trump, he said. 'I'm a waterman who works in the ocean with his hands. I'm a competitive pistol shooter -- that's my weekend hobby. I have an extensive combat background,' he said. 'Even if I tried to put myself into the buckets that we as a society have created, I don't fit into any of them.' Maine Republicans disagree. 'Being a Bernie Bro and Kamala Harris donor is a profile to appeal to Portland progressives, not centrist and conservative voters in rural Maine,' said Jason Savage, the executive director of the Maine Republican Party. (Platner made a small donation to Harris' campaign last year, and in 2016 donated to Sanders' presidential campaign.) Jordan Wood, a progressive former congressional aide, entered the race in April, making a pitch that Collins 'hasn't changed the system -- she's part of it.' For years, Collins, 72, who leads the powerful Appropriations Committee, has been able to fend off well-funded Democratic challengers despite Maine voting Democratic in the past three presidential elections. But this cycle, she is facing record-low polling, and her race is one of the top targets for Democrats seeking to win back control of the Senate. Platner may need to hone his attacks on Collins as he tries to make the case against her. In the interview, he criticized Collins for allowing Trump's sprawling domestic policy bill to win approval by the Appropriations Committee, then voting against it on the Senate floor. Yet the legislation was not a spending bill, and never went through the committee. Advertisement Mills, a two-term governor and former prosecutor, is still seen by her party's establishment as the strongest candidate to defeat Collins. She clashed with Trump at the White House this year over his threat to deny federal funding to Maine over the issue of transgender athletes competing in women's sports. But Mills is also not viewed as a perfect candidate. At a time when many Democratic voters are demanding generational change, Mills, if elected, would be 79 when taking office, making her the oldest first-term senator in history. 'I would think seriously about it, but I'm not ready to make any decisions along those lines,' Mills told a local television station in Maine this month. This article originally appeared in
