Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday on Rep. Jared Sullivan’s (D) HB 186, debating its merits as lawmakers push again to end the ban as neighboring states have done. After taking testimony, however, the jury voted 2-1 that the measure is “unfit to legislate.”
The bill passed by a vote of 208-135 last month.
“This provides a very good framework for how we would regulate the sale of cannabis and cannabis products in the state,” Sullivan told senators before the committee’s vote.
“I understand that it’s not a popular idea among many members, but I would say it’s a very popular idea among most people in the state,” he said. “The most recent poll I could find shows 70 percent of people in the state want legalization, including 55 percent of Republicans. I think it’s time to do what people want to do and match what most places in this country are doing now.”
In New Hampshire, all bills are considered for a vote even when they receive a negative committee recommendation, so the panel’s decision may be overturned by the full Senate when the legislation is taken up.
If enacted, HB 186 would make it legal for anyone over the age of 21 to possess cannabis products containing 10 grams of concentrate and 2 grams of THC. Six plants could also be grown at home, three of which could be mature.
Past cannabis possession convictions would be vacated, and non-discriminatory protections would be established for consumers, including for medical care, public benefits, child care and government employment.
A new Cannabis Commission would be created to license and regulate the marijuana industry, along with a Cannabis Advisory Board.
Sales of recreational cannabis would be taxed at 8.5 percent, with revenue split between the program’s administration, municipalities, substance abuse programs, public safety agencies and the state’s general fund.
Localities across the state would hold ballot referendums asking voters whether they want to allow the retail sale of marijuana.
“Prohibition makes control impossible. Unregulated cannabis is often contaminated with obscenities, dangerous pesticides and heavy metals,” Marihuana Policy Project (MPP) state policy director Karen O’Keefe said in testimony to the commission. “Legislation only supports common sense rules: requiring licensees to verify ID, banning lab testing, pesticides and dangerous additives, and mandating child-friendly packaging.”
“Adults should be treated as adults in the live or die state. The High Court has not banned eating junk food, being sedentary, climbing, riding motorcycles or drinking alcohol, despite the risks involved in these activities,” he said. “The Granite States fully agree that even adults should not be punished by their government for using cannabis, a plant that is far less toxic, addictive and addictive than alcohol.”
Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) has already threatened to veto the legalization bill that reaches his desk, even though the proposal to amend the Constitution would not require gubernatorial action.
At a committee meeting last year, Sullivan ultimately made a persuasive argument for moving forward with his legalization bill, pointing out. The House has repeatedly passed similar legislation and that the House should stand its ground, forcing the Senate and the governor to once again oppose a policy that is popular with voters.
“We know where it’s going. Let’s send a virtue signal,” Sullivan said. “Let them be the ones to piss off the voters who care about this.”
As originally introduced, the legislation would completely remove the penalties for obtaining, purchasing, transporting, possessing or using psilocybin, effectively legalizing it on an off-trade basis. However, a The House Committee amended the bill before it could advance unanimously last march
Marihuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
A coalition of transportation and safety organizations said they have “serious safety concerns” about the Trump administration’s move to federally regulate marijuana.
Led by the American Trucking Association, the groups sent a letter to federal officials Monday asking them to take steps to ensure truck drivers, pilots, transit operators and other safety-sensitive workers continue to be tested for cannabis.
“If employers do not take the necessary steps to preserve the ability of security-sensitive transportation workers to test for marijuana, this change could have significant consequences for the safety of passengers and the entire transportation industry,” wrote Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Terrance Cole, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, and Transportation Secretary J.
The organizations said they understand that federal officials are being “urgently” reorganized under an executive order from President Donald Trump, that they are “deeply concerned that the current process does not adequately take into account agencies responsible for transportation safety or protecting the traveling public” and that they want the agencies to “work together.” ongoing cannabis redistricting hearings and rulemaking process to address these concerns.
“Marijuana use is incompatible with safety-sensitive functions,” the department said.
Medical review officers (MROs) who receive drug test results indicating cannabis use cannot rule them out as negative for illegal substance use, even if an employee claims it was a result of state-licensed medical marijuana.
“Currently, there is no way for an MRO to verify that a laboratory-confirmed marijuana drug test result is positive when an employee claims the positive was caused by a state-licensed marijuana product,” the DOT said, explaining that after the reprogramming, medical marijuana dispensed under state law “does not” constitute a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The transportation groups said in the new letter that the DOT’s drug-testing program “is in accordance with the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs and HHS-certified laboratories.”
“While DOT has expressed its intention to continue testing marijuana, a commitment we greatly appreciate, it is unclear whether DOT will retain its ability to rely on HHS procedures and certifications after the rescheduling,” they wrote. “Without this alignment, DOT may retain the authority to conduct testing, but lack the scientific and procedural infrastructure to do so.”
“Practically, this would mean that truck and bus drivers, pilots, flight attendants, air traffic controllers, air mechanics, railroad workers, dispatchers and signal workers, transit operators and pipeline workers could continue to perform high-risk safety roles without a reliable means of verifying that they are not actively using marijuana. It relies on controlled substance testing to identify end use and prevent potentially impaired individuals from fulfilling their safety-related obligations. While the planning could create legal or regulatory loopholes, the regulated employer-based drug testing agency warned that the final rules should not jeopardize marijuana testing for safety-sensitive transportation workers.”
“Regardless of the broader policy goals of the review, the federal government should not move forward to preserve transportation drug testing programs and mitigate the risks of increased and unchecked deterioration of our roads, railroads, public transportation systems, pipelines, airspace, and maritime corridors,” the letter says.
The organizations specifically ask federal officials to:
Support long-term marijuana testing for all safety-sensitive transportation workers;
Confirm the authority of DOT-regulated employers to perform such tests;
Ensure HHS laboratory certification and testing guidelines remain available and aligned with DOT’s safety mission; and
Establish a coordinated federal strategy to address the transportation security implications of rescheduling.
“The public and the workers who keep our transportation system running safely deserve a process that ensures these safeguards are firmly in place before any final action is taken,” he said. the letter he says
Legislators and abolitionist activists argued that moving marijuana to Schedule III would lead to a 1986 executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan defining illegal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in relation to the use of cannabis by truck drivers and other airline employees.
“At a time when the culture is encouraging and celebrating the use of marijuana, we’re not talking about risk,” Duffy said.
Marijuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.