Marijuana

New Hampshire State House First Legislative Body to Vote Yes on Marijuana Legalization Bill

|

Great news in the long march of marijuana legalization through the states.

From a Marijuana Policy Project emailed press release, which I was not able to find on web yet:

The New Hampshire House of Representatives approved a bill 170-162 Wednesday that would regulate marijuana like alcohol. It is the first time in history that a legislative chamber in the U.S. has passed legislation to end marijuana prohibition and establish a legal market for businesses to sell marijuana to adults 21 and older.

The measure will be referred to the House Ways and Means Committee to review the revenue aspects of the bill. Regardless of how that committee votes, the bill will return to the full House of Representatives for a second vote in February or March. If approved, it will then be considered by the state Senate…..

HB 492, introduced by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) with a bipartisan group of four co-sponsors, would make the private possession and home growing of limited amounts of marijuana legal for adults 21 and older. It would direct the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration to license and regulate marijuana retail stores, cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, and testing facilities. As amended by the House, it would enact a wholesale tax of $30 per ounce and a sales tax of 15% per ounce. The House voted down a similar bill 228-89 in 2012….

Sixty percent of New Hampshire adults support HB 492, according to a WMUR Granite State Poll released in October by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. Just 36% said they are opposed. The entire poll is available at http://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2013_fall_gastaxpot102513.pdf.

Governor, alas, vows to veto.

Advertisement

NEXT: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Monsanto Seed Patent Lawsuit Case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The New Hampshire House of Representatives approved a bill 170-162 Wednesday that would regulate marijuana like alcohol.

    Ask Junior Johnson how “legal” alcohol really is. They are not legalizing, they are re-regulating.

    1. I met ole Junior once, early 90’s when Bill Elliott was driving for him. It took about a minute to figure out I was dealing with one very smart human being. He was really cool – extremely nice. Exceptionally knowledgeable.

      1. I knew them revenuers was cheatin’ when they caught him!

        1. Dude sure knows how to make cars go fast.

          1. That kinda cheatin’ is expected.

          2. Toss a little white lightn’n’ in the tank for that extra oomph.

    2. Now if somebody would legalize it without taxing it, we’d be talking…

    3. I’d say they are legalizing and re-regulating. “Legalize” can mean different things. It can simply mean removing any laws that make a thing illegal. Or it can mean bringing something that is not legal into a legal structure.

      Obviously, any libertarian will prefer the former meaning, but I wouldn’t say that legalization is the wrong term to use for what is happening now in some states.

  2. From the poll:

    Six hundred and three (603) randomly selected New Hampshire adults were interviewed by landline and cellular telephone between October 1 and October 7, 2013.

    Really? Do you have to be that cute? Way to undercut any sense of professionalism.

    Well, OK. It’s kinda funny. Maybe I’m just being a grouch.

    1. Who answers their cell phone when the incoming number is not recognized?

      1. Fools, that’s who.

      2. Who answers their cell phone when the incoming number is not recognized?

        I do. 99% of the time they ask for someone who is not me. I ask “What number were you trying to call?” and the vast majority of the time they tell me some number other than mine. On some occasions they have the number right, but the wrong person. So I did them a favor by getting a wrong number off their contact list. The rest of the time it’s my mortgage company trying to get me to refinance.

        1. Even though rates are higher now.

  3. HB 492, introduced by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) with a bipartisan group of four co-sponsors, would make the private possession and home growing of limited amounts of marijuana legal for adults 21 and older.

    When it is as legal to drive around with a truckload of pot as a truckload of hay, then it is legal.

    1. That’s a nice way of putting it. Have one internet, sir.

  4. I was pleasantly surprised in this small step of progress until I saw the last line in the posting, the governor vows to veto.

    1. She’s a prototypical statist CONTROL East Coast liberal. We’ll see if she changes her tune if this passes the Senate, which would make this a truly bi-partisan bill.

      1. But, but, but, I thought liberal Democrats were all pro-legalization and stuff.

        Pleez, shriek/Tony, help me out here! I haz a confuse.

        Well, at least the bill was sponsored by a Dem, right?

        introduced by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester)

        Dammit!

        1. Benghazi is a fake scandal. Something something haliburton. Christfags.

          1. Benghazi is a fake phony scandal

            FTFY

            1. But if we don’t sugarcoat it, and admit that yes, maybe it was a real scandal, what difference, at this point, does it make?

        2. It’s BOOOOOSH’s fault!! Obviously his intimidation tactics that were used to pass draconian tax cuts have permanently scarred the state government of New Hampshire. If it weren’t for the racist obstructionist rethuglicans, Obama (his lord and savior, amen) would have inspired new confidence to espouse liberal policies in the new hampshire state government.

          /democratunderground

        3. It will be interesting to see how the teams align on this in the next election.

        4. But, but, but, I thought liberal Democrats were all pro-legalization and stuff.

          That’s what happens when you get your news from a cosmotarian magazine

      2. It was a horrible sign that a typical liberal Masshole transplant could get herself elected Governor.

        Makes me rethink my plans of building my compound in NH.

      3. She also got worse on this after becoming governor. As a senator, she favored a much less restrictive medical law than she allowed to pass as governor and seemed much more open to decriminalization of possession, at least.

        Though it is much less so now, NH is still a traditionally Republican state and I think that Democrat governors feel like they have to be all “grown up” and middle of the road on a lot of things like this. Even though Republican dominated legislatures in NH have passed multiple medical MJ and decrim. bills that were then vetoed by fucking prick bastard Lynch.

  5. Two things I don’t understand:

    1. Why are all these laws for people 21 and up and not 18 and up?

    2. Why are there all these “no more than an ounce” (or whatever the weights are) rules? What’s the difference?

    I mean, I actually DO in fact know the answer to my questions. I just find it ridiculous.

    Got into an argument with a hard core lefty customer of mine (calls himself an Independent, of course) who fought me tooth and nail that this was “legalization”. He couldn’t comprehend my assertion that it’s just a new set of rules.

    1. 1. Why are all these laws for people 21 and up and not 18 and up?

      Tradition that intoxicants and vice got pushed up to 21 years ago?

      2. Why are there all these “no more than an ounce” (or whatever the weights are) rules? What’s the difference?

      We can’t just go legalize the shit… we have to acknowledge the dangers and protect the children while tipping the hat to legalization.

      Washington legalized pot by super-double-pinky-promising that producers couldn’t produce too much, had to insure that they weren’t selling to people transporting it across state lines etc. etc., then agreed to state-set production limits… price controls… it’s a mess.

      1. Tradition that intoxicants and vice got pushed up to 21 years ago?

        Fair enough. My thing is that being baked and being hammered on whiskey are nowhere near the same thing.

        1. Why? The 21 year age limit is equally retarded for both.

          1. I agree with you.

      2. Tradition that intoxicants and vice got pushed up to 21 years ago?

        The irony is that it wasn’t societal tradition at all and is proof positive that the state is actually very effective in social engineering via criminalization.

        Literally overnight in 1984 was this tradition established. You could say the same thing for MJ prohibition in 1937.

        1. Absolutely. The 21 age ‘limit’ was largely forced through by federal nannies, and accepted by local nannies who wanted to keep their noses in the federal trough. It’s amazing what money can buy.

          1. Or not. I’ve heard an interesting assertion that the various strings on highway tax-sharing (which is how many Federal desires are pushed through State legislatures to get around the Tenth Amendment) cost more than the highway money itself; and that, when a State legislator points this out and proposes not complying, the respective Party National Committee quietly says “So you’re not planning to ever run for Federal office, eh?”.

        2. It wasn’t completely made up. 21 is a traditional age of adulthood. Though of course for most of history, it didn’t have much to do with what products you were allowed to buy or possess.

      3. I don’t think it’s tradition. I think the Feds used highway funds for ransom to get states to bump the drinking age up to 21.

    2. 2. Why are there all these “no more than an ounce” (or whatever the weights are) rules? What’s the difference?

      They figure if you buy more than an ounce then you’re going to sell it.

      1. But if a million people want to buy an ounce each, somebody has got to have more than an ounce on them.

    3. 2. Why are there all these “no more than an ounce” (or whatever the weights are) rules? What’s the difference?

      Judge K-9 can still issue a search warrant on an olfactory “alert” because his nose can’t weigh the weed. If they “decriminalized” larger amounts the suspected presence of marijuana would no longer be pretext for detention and a cavity search.

  6. New Hampshire looks more and more like a place I might be interested in living some day.

    1. I am moving there this fall for school. If I find it to be as free as the Free Staters claim, I’ll stay.

      1. You might want to re-read the last line of the article.

    2. You and me, Almanian!, we have a non-sexual man-date

  7. The taxes are moronic, but at least making home growing legal will avoid the post-prohibition stupidity of 45 years of illegal home brewing.

  8. Jeez I remember in 1971 $30 got you an oz. Now that’s just part of the tax.

    1. Well, if something like this did become law, maybe real possession would be downgraded to tax evasion. Officers would be writing summons for tax payments, not making felony arrests.

    2. $30 went a lot further in 1971, period.

  9. Free State Project participants in the state house provided the margin of victory. Libertarians: winning here.

  10. Go ahead and veto this if it clears the Senate too, Gov. Hassan. It would be delicious to make you a one-termer, Governor Skeletor.

  11. Sam Crow is not gonna like that.

    http://www.AnonGlobal.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.