[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6391845,"mediaKeyId","2110945-1afc21cb7711093987285f8960777baa","parentId",2110945,"title","Lawmakers hear arguments for and against study of liquor commission privatization","audioSeconds",5294,"startMs",11966000,"endMs",17260000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2110945-1afc21cb7711093987285f8960777baa&start=11966&end=17260","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2110945-1afc21cb7711093987285f8960777baa/thumbnail_11966000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6391845/New-Hampshire/Lawmakers-hear-arguments-for-and-against-study-of-liquor-commission-privatization","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6391845-4e9ff7d402d43c1ecf6ba2cbe874c0ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170760&Signature=n6ZTE-pP~~D-xoBBBRR-K9V06KS-jL7sdvgWvxKnnC2xuVR6kZeE7zHKABHGJ8dpIN6TAPGW4FXmkLCSPLkdoCANkejLk5ZEjTBChXop-Lxx-KJGrCvpOsvKrwgxmSpDnrxZpzd3unLmHHGNxt4OBflQkUoQhtuHOHizxxHGntjCIIlv1gVjRR04OKhoIgtxafF05CX8rsUmRUPMCNUA9123sAgbzSHyfCIqcB7dEMtxr1IpfxSa~Yc9H8iK138knWu0ujvn~3pqF0fX~LEhOleWgIL1SW7oPw8jMqt0nbTLgqkjdtUWIX11lf-dMkGtp07CB4PzXs78rFCK~N0XFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-01-14T00:00:00Z","article","The House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee heard public testimony on House Bill 79, a measure to create a study commission to evaluate whether New Hampshire should privatize or otherwise restructure its Liquor Commission.

Sponsor Rep. Peter Leishman said the commission would not preordain privatization but would examine whether state ownership is the most effective model, noting rising Liquor Commission expenses and a multi‑year revenue decline. “There’s been significant growth in expenses, but not a corresponding increase in revenue,” Leishman told the committee.

Liquor Commission Chairman Joe Mollica testified at length against privatization and in favor of the current control model. Mollica presented national data showing a recent decline in alcohol consumption after decades of growth and highlighted public‑safety and product‑integrity arguments that control states use to justify continued state involvement. He said the commission has transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to the general fund over recent years and argued a sale would not be a straight revenue substitute because the state would lose recurring transfers. “If you privatize the liquor commission and you put stores in place, prices in the state of New Hampshire are going to go up exponentially,” Mollica said, warning cross‑border sales patterns and consumer behavior would change.

Speakers representing industry and the employees association also opposed immediate privatization. Dean Williams, who ran a leased control operation in Maine, said prior privatization experiments produced price increases, higher crime and other disruptions in some markets. Bob Blaisdell of the New Hampshire State Employees Association warned of lost recurring revenue and cited Washington state’s experience after privatization as a cautionary tale. Brokers and distributors — Joe LaRocca of the New Hampshire Wine and Spirits Brokers Association and others — told the committee they value the state partnership and questioned the claimed fiscal upside of a sale.

Rep. Marjorie Smith, a co‑sponsor, said she supports creating the commission precisely because she does not favor privatization and wants a fact‑based review: “There is no reason otherwise for the state to be in the liquor business. It's just about the money,” Smith said, but argued the current structure has not delivered expected returns.

Committee members asked about enforcement responsibilities, employee impacts, potential one‑time proceeds from a sale and how auditing and oversight would be handled in a privatized model. Witnesses gave differing views: Mollica and other opponents said a sale would produce a one‑time infusion but cost the state recurring annual transfers and public‑safety oversight; Leishman said a carefully structured privatization could preserve enforcement and revenue streams via taxes or fees.

After a multi‑hour hearing with many stakeholders, the committee closed public testimony and will send the bill to subcommittee for detailed study.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Commerce and Consumer Affairs (01/14/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Peter Leishman proposed forming a commission to study whether the New Hampshire Liquor Commission should be privatized or restructured; the Liquor Commission, industry groups and former privatization operators urged caution and highlighted revenue, safety and employment implications.","taxTitle","Commerce and Consumer Affairs, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17743,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6391849,"Retailers, regulators spar over bill to limit scanning and storage of ID data",3577,2896000,6473000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2110945-1afc21cb7711093987285f8960777baa&start=2896&end=6473","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2110945-1afc21cb7711093987285f8960777baa/thumbnail_2896000.jpg","/articles/6391849/New-Hampshire/Retailers-regulators-spar-over-bill-to-limit-scanning-and-storage-of-ID-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6391849-0ca83f2e5bacdbeca88508d606866fe1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170760&Signature=ARAivNxY-3G~9SfOsN00D7LaytkZ~WKB6rFQIBOq6yUUYlFjVs6-lLJY8D431Or2e9IyNy5tfAZdPY4bOZmOku4Dkp1s-J3pB9kOlm8PasNptrGvzCO~21hM4XVAy-h5DRxAo3GqRt6NS1rSc1Ih3QbEsj2YpSV8LrWHiEce59CBHq3Bv9TZRt0cLZkPIR8aTUTFw-Yb8AHQtmTnor5pmmND0~3Gn36ixiyksvv8otUTqmdTm0Fm3xeKkcdZ4U-Gdmm58Ia-mamNy~-cdCpIQnt1iv~uFZHmTB~OIGHMs7-npWcN22yzZg5k5KTNoZ8Yi5frA27xtTpGE9H4FyR9Ug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee took testimony on House Bill 77, which would limit scanning and storage of personally identifiable information from driver’s licenses by merchants selling alcohol and tobacco.

Sponsor Representative Kevin Verville framed the bill as a consumer-privacy measure: constituents reported that some retail scanners captured and retained full license information — name, address and license number — raising identity‑theft concerns. Verville said the bill was narrowed from a broader ban and he is open to amendment language that preserves age‑verification while preventing data retention.

Deborah Johnson, a Grantham resident, demonstrated a commercial product marketed to scan and store driver’s licenses and urged broader protections. “It scans and stores driver licenses… and creates a searchable database of the scanned cards,” Johnson said while showing packet materials that included marketing screenshots.

Retail and grocery associations, convenience‑store operators, and liquor enforcement witnesses pushed back. Tom Prasol of the New Hampshire Retail Association and Rich Parsons of the New Hampshire Grocers Association said many point‑of‑sale systems use a “red light/green light” scan to confirm only age and do not retain personal data; Chris Gagnon of the New England Convenience Store Association said his company’s scanners “do not store any personal information” and help reduce human error and illegal sales to minors. The Liquor Commission’s Deputy Chief Danielle Ellison told the committee that the agency supports tools that help licensees verify age and avoid sales to minors, but said any retained personal information would violate current rules. “We pull receipts. We interview staff. We pull surveillance video if that’s the case… If a person under the age of 21 is caught in possession of alcohol inside your licensed establishment, then you are liable as the licensee,” Ellison explained.

Committee members pressed for technical details: whether scanners are locally hosted or linked to DMV/Real ID verification services, whether devices retain records, and whether the Department of Safety had authorized specific uses. Several witnesses and the Liquor Commission said some systems simply read a barcode or QR code on the back of licenses and perform an on‑the‑spot age calculation without storing other personal fields. Opponents asked to remove the word “scan” from the bill and instead ban storage or retention of information while preserving scanning for immediate age verification.

The attorney general’s office and Department of Safety were referenced in testimony about an authorization process; residents said they sought but did not receive clear answers from authorities. Retail groups noted recently enacted state privacy law (SB 255) that requires businesses to provide consumers a way to purge stored data.

The committee closed public testimony on HB 77 after a long hearing; Representative Verville said he would work on language to remove problematic wording while achieving the bill’s privacy goal. The matter was referred for further review by subcommittee.","House Bill 77 would restrict merchants from scanning and retaining personal data from driver’s licenses when selling alcohol and tobacco; witnesses from retail, grocery, convenience, liquor enforcement and privacy advocates debated whether scanners retain data and how to balance privacy with age‑verification and compliance needs.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6391854,"Lawmakers weigh bill to allow patrons to take purchased alcoholic drinks into restrooms",1381,1169000,2550000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2110945-1afc21cb7711093987285f8960777baa&start=1169&end=2550","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2110945-1afc21cb7711093987285f8960777baa/thumbnail_1169000.jpg","/articles/6391854/New-Hampshire/Lawmakers-weigh-bill-to-allow-patrons-to-take-purchased-alcoholic-drinks-into-restrooms","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6391854-22bf3eb15cf91feedad53c116afd8ad7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170760&Signature=ghn3cjwVnBXpYNsDiDv6CHH4IzIVSHfUIUlI~7bl~473bUxV5dq7cKpoSR1bHuG4lGYTQDNpvb5ma7Re7iQ901bSgX4C6P-EmITPUkyESe46s-WKvsw2Y2sWvQqlUn5~Bnhy~7kt9D-4X113PP2q~u4O3efSMVT7hdN5hsuCNGxLduxYvGi8qq3vMzTpjxJu0hVxGNcJn3z5NdMSi20KyPEZLJx9LWw0Sy3W41Dm8YseMAopQ0fO5tyjfLx~-LBvUTOXCWYLMNOxm0S5Kw-DJ4--6bzyXgPb7bcKjwaIS0uHcVG9t2kNvxn1TE0MauhVzkofYnGOn-e~AkV~HdrM0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee held testimony on House Bill 81, which would remove the statutory prohibition on taking a purchased alcoholic beverage into a restaurant restroom.

Proponents say the change helps individuals keep control of their drinks and may reduce opportunities to spike beverages; opponents and Liquor Enforcement officials said the change could increase underage access and complicate enforcement of overservice statutes.

Rep. [first name not specified] Sullivan, the sponsor, described the bill as rooted in concerns about drink‑spiking and personal safety. Sullivan said a close friend was roofied outside New Hampshire and that “people should be in charge of their own drinks.” He told the committee he had recently seen a bar post a sign forbidding drinks in restrooms and said the ban undermines personal control of beverages.

Mike Summers of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association said allowing drinks into restrooms “really does raise the liability for the restaurant owner or the licensee,” and he emphasized the club’s concern about underage patrons receiving drinks in bathrooms. Deputy Chief Danielle Ellison of the Liquor Commission’s Enforcement and Licensing division described the agency’s investigative process for suspected overservice and underage possession: investigators pull receipts, interview staff and review surveillance video, and the commission enforces a statute that makes licensees liable when a person under 21 is caught in possession of alcohol on licensed premises.

Committee members pressed for details on liability and enforcement. Representative Shu asked who would be responsible if a beverage left unattended was tampered with. Sullivan replied that if a licensee properly monitored service and sold only a limited number of drinks, that should shield them from liability; the Liquor Commission said it would investigate overservice claims the same way regardless of where a beverage was later found.

Industry groups expressed broad concern about underage access in restrooms and about enforcement limits where there is no camera coverage. Summers and the Hospitality Association recommended leaving the restriction in place. New Futures’ Kate Fry supported the bill on prevention grounds; she argued that the public‑health benefits of keeping individuals in control of their drinks should be considered, but she also asked that any change avoid creating enforcement gaps that would jeopardize federal substance‑use prevention funding (Synar compliance) tied to underage sales monitoring.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 81 after testimony from both sides and did not record a final vote. The matter will be available for subcommittee review.","Representatives, industry groups and the Liquor Commission debated House Bill 81, which would lift the statutory prohibition on taking a purchased alcoholic beverage into a restaurant restroom; supporters cited safety and drink-control, opponents raised underage and liability concerns.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6391859,"House panel hears fix for brewpub licensing clerical error",492,675000,1167000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2110945-1afc21cb7711093987285f8960777baa&start=675&end=1167","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2110945-1afc21cb7711093987285f8960777baa/thumbnail_675000.jpg","/articles/6391859/New-Hampshire/House-panel-hears-fix-for-brewpub-licensing-clerical-error","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6391859-4604bd9d6d0b2d903dcf805e166c778b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170760&Signature=EFzyfq-5ue-I3Oke-ecVnFzmpoY8zz9TA2NYbSCdUYNrWEZ~HMw6oZrQxgnW0rYwQ8ucXn3JXdDMm145iurcLP9Slgf3OmxwOD2QAZMjRdjPpmsr6d8r309hJUM4L3Nz~jXHT5vVRdk9GtkSRVM9oXLyU6lstzOZXLQjodKY9u8CxYnxWVO57tRxwNT4N6f4eMsKos5LL5tZCXfW2wG-ioBc4JJBEMfu4aO4U9m1O3DDQUyT6pLWX6MqZHXIQUMLYw-uemRh3xuQ5A~fonY3iEA80MztZYEJQjUjkre7247r788KGMe73zBbVpzN7tTYigngVBkcPHbk~jtyZBr-yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee opened public testimony on House Bill 242 on the state’s brewpub license framework, a bill the sponsor described as correcting a clerical error from the prior session.

The bill matters because it would restore the intended language that allows certain brewpubs limited self-distribution while keeping the state’s three-tier regulatory structure in place.

Scott Shire of the New Hampshire Beer Distributors Association summarized the proposal as a technical correction. “So we’re here to basically adopt the right language and correct what happened at the end of last session,” Shire said, describing an agreed fix after prior hearings and a clerical mistake in the statute. Mike Summers, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, said his group worked with Shire and supports the bill. “I think this cleans up the clerical error, but we are in support of the bill,” Summers testified.

Representatives of the New Hampshire Liquor Commission’s enforcement and licensing divisions described the bill as narrowly targeted. Lieutenant Matt Culver and Chief Mark Armaganian of Liquor Enforcement said the change applies only to the brewpub manufacturing license and its limited self-distribution to the licensee’s own on- or off-premise locations, and that the volume limits in current law remain in effect. Armaganian told the committee the brewpub license is “one of the only manufacturing licenses” that requires an on-premise restaurant and that House Bill 242 focuses on distribution language.

Committee members asked few questions during the hearing. The sponsor and testifiers said industry stakeholders and the Liquor Commission had previously negotiated the language and that the bill simply restores the version lawmakers intended last session.

Chair remarks and committee scheduling: the chair told members the Commerce Committee will send liquor bills to a liquor subcommittee for more detailed review and said the subcommittee would meet next week to consider two liquor bills, including this item.

With limited opposition or additional comment recorded during the public hearing, the committee closed public testimony on HB 242 and moved the bill into subcommittee consideration.","The Commerce Committee opened public testimony on House Bill 242, which corrects language related to brewpub licenses and distribution limits after a clerical error in last session’s law; industry groups and the Liquor Commission supported the technical fix.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers hear arguments for and against study of liquor commission privatization

Retailers, regulators spar over bill to limit scanning and storage of ID data

Lawmakers weigh bill to allow patrons to take purchased alcoholic drinks into restrooms

House panel hears fix for brewpub licensing clerical error