[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_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":73},"mediaId",6624181,"mediaKeyId","2766653-b62c8a12ac6613ebae7b5364c41679ce","parentId",2766653,"title","Wide-ranging repeal bill would remove most state cannabis prohibitions; sponsors and critics spar over public-safety and market effects","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",7735000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2766653-b62c8a12ac6613ebae7b5364c41679ce&start=7735&end=7735","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2766653-b62c8a12ac6613ebae7b5364c41679ce/thumbnail_7735000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6624181/New-Hampshire/Wide-ranging-repeal-bill-would-remove-most-state-cannabis-prohibitions-sponsors-and-critics-spar-over-public-safety-and-market-effects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624181-18e6252880841dbd490c498e080d9137/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140705&Signature=n3a1IYezt~MIzcniNbXK3b~lqW~4oSFkBwjLChVK9Ae9f0hhA3b-3~s~AwFkJjZPXF3zBCEUGqYrygg0Qk0INOwhxk8GVw3B3h8cOr0c5LMI9~1FsmKWxmH4~zG0dwIGBuh1JFknDL6oO58yGMEIEQ8ox-l-IYEMFixZBZQgWWaZG9YeC9nc1ZUphvl00wQnvlarMUn5COKQZ0pJItq9XS5c-z9TuyJlPfTuWlpEWl2JqoWtZrApxaHoAC0QE8h~y0ABhvS5WJWxI0zeHOjAkb63wGKZK1MlY1cUutYDtnYrdf96o24NRjcn~D2ET26y0gJaQf4ha3gHTrGYDNZ7xQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-03-25T19:59:11.76Z","article","House Bill 75, as presented in committee testimony, would legalize adult possession and use of cannabis for people 21 and older by removing most state-level prohibitions while retaining rules for minors and the existing medical program.

Representative Keith (delivering remarks on behalf of the bill’s prime sponsor) said the measure “removes all references of to cannabis in New Hampshire RSA except the prohibition for minors and our medical cannabis statutes.” The sponsor’s written remarks argued the state should “end the demonstrably failed prohibition of cannabis in New Hampshire” and shift enforcement responsibility to the federal government while keeping the state “out of the pot business.”

Support and framing
- Supporters including Dr. Joe Hannon framed legalization as a civil‑rights and public‑policy correction: testimony said prohibition has failed to keep cannabis out of youth hands, produced racial disparities and fueled an illicit market; legalization would let regulators focus on public health and consumer safety instead of criminal enforcement.
- Representative Keith told the committee the bill keeps the state out of commercial cannabis licensing and would not expand government bureaucracy; he said it passed the House on a voice vote.

Opposition and public-health concerns
- Multiple law-enforcement witnesses (Pat Sullivan of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police and others) opposed HB 75, arguing it would keep the black market in place, leave no revenue to fund treatment or enforcement, and increase risks including poly-substance use and impaired driving.
- Sue Hamala of SAM testified that the state’s experience elsewhere shows public-health costs can exceed revenue from legalization and pointed to voter rejections of propositions in other states (Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota) as evidence of waning public support in some places.

Practical questions raised in the hearing
- Critics highlighted the lack of state regulatory controls and quality checks under a repeal approach: without licensed retail and testing the state could have no quality-control standard, which witnesses said increases risk of contaminated or adulterated products on the market.
- Supporters argued the regulated, state‑licensed model is not the only path and defended a deregulatory approach that would remove criminal penalties while continuing medical program protections.

Procedural status and next steps mentioned in testimony
- Representative Keith said the bill passed the House on a voice vote and previously survived an ITL motion in a prior stage; testimony did not include a committee roll call on the bill in this hearing.

Bottom line: HB 75 exposes a fundamental policy split—some witnesses see full repeal as the cleanest way to end criminal penalties and address social‑justice harms, while opponents argue repeal without state market regulation would leave consumers and communities exposed to unsafe products and increased public‑health harms.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary (03/25/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 75 would largely repeal New Hampshire’s state-level cannabis prohibitions for adults 21 and older while preserving medical program rules and prohibitions for minors; sponsors described it as a way to end the state’s enforcement costs, while opponents warned it would leave a quality‑control vacuum and increase public‑health harms.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6624186,"Bill would let people petition to have low‑level cannabis convictions annulled; law enforcement warns of workload and scope issues",1473,5995000,7468000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2766653-b62c8a12ac6613ebae7b5364c41679ce&start=5995&end=7468","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2766653-b62c8a12ac6613ebae7b5364c41679ce/thumbnail_5995000.jpg","/articles/6624186/New-Hampshire/Bill-would-let-people-petition-to-have-lowlevel-cannabis-convictions-annulled-law-enforcement-warns-of-workload-and-scope-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624186-6e1d9c90997dc8728f9145804a0ddd51/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140705&Signature=ZYOScfJQQaOyXNly8tbfNHksNgz2vxBRymRcBx9GPHljxiVa6Lp~VABRBsfkom2XgyfuYIObz3tnmdKv86fmIETCKhtwaVxCr9vXalZ6lkjEMEoV7xdq2rpXYgO11J5K-9uIKFanXDCQSie2sNvtaTyLJ38qJf~ejk41IFYvHVIsO56magiXWiwwmH6iWvd2DHu0JX3TElotxDnbp8CwSgOrJq4TorGCf31NiJ69VAINAMhoQrzcYE-kw180cZS5hQmwX23KZmfnuz0M2bgRTsiWiw6waAp8BiHxFTUc7OxGIkxeMFnmk1chEV5p5gGWUyTkLx7fO5D5rzicARbzpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 196 would change New Hampshire’s annulment procedures to allow people convicted of certain low-level cannabis offenses to request that the Department of Safety examine their arrest or conviction for possible annulment without the current $300 petition fee.

Sponsor Representative Wheelock framed HB 196 as a restorative measure: “This legislation would amend the statute to allow people to simply request that they can get an annulment hearing, without having to have the onerous $300 charge,” and said the change would remove a barrier to employment, military service and other opportunities for people with qualifying cannabis convictions.

Supporters’ case
- Representative Wheelock and Dr. Joe Hannon described the bill as a fairness and reintegration measure that would let people clear records for low-level possession offenses (the sponsor described the targeted offenses as possession up to two ounces or 5 grams of hash in testimony) and noted the disproportionate long-term effects of past enforcement.
- Wheelock told the committee that an earlier, broader version of the bill proposed automatic annulment for qualifying convictions but that the enacted, amended version creates a petition process and was revised with Judicial Council input; he said the measure passed the House (sponsor stated it passed unanimously in the most recent biennium after amendment work).

Law enforcement concerns about scope and workload
- Major Bill Bright of the New Hampshire State Police and Lieutenant Derek Cataldo of the Manchester Police Department (speaking for the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police) opposed the bill on implementation grounds. They said the Department of Safety’s Criminal Records Division lacks resources to process what could be thousands of petitions and that the bill’s language is ambiguous about what records should be annulled (arrest, complaint, conviction or combined records).
- Lieutenant Cataldo said the bill could allow petitions from cases that resulted from plea bargaining (for example cases pled down from larger offenses) and that current law requires a petitioner to prove eligibility under a narrower standard; the chiefs’ association said the expansion could “remove the consequences” of past law without individualized review.

Procedural and technical points raised in testimony
- The Department of Safety witnesses asked for clarity about whether the agency should be the first recipient of petitions or whether petitions should proceed through the court system as under normal annulment practice; witnesses said the bill’s current wording could cause confusion about process and would likely require additional IT and staff resources.
- Captain Victor Muzzy (Justice Information Bureau) explained that criminal-records practice distinguishes arrest, complaint and conviction records and that the bill as written lacks specificity about which records to annul.

Status and policy context
- Sponsor Wheelock said an earlier biennium version of the bill had bipartisan House support and that the amended version this session had unanimous House approval after adjustments with Judicial Council counsel.
- Supporters framed the bill as a limited, petition-driven path toward relief for people with low-level cannabis convictions; opponents recommended narrowing language and clarifying procedures to avoid large operational burdens on criminal-records staff.

Bottom line: HB 196 drew support as a second‑chance reform and drew law‑enforcement warnings about record-processing workload, statutory clarity and the need to align the petition process with normal court-driven annulment procedures.","House Bill 196 would let people request annulment review of past low-level cannabis convictions without paying a $300 filing fee; supporters framed the bill as fairness and rehabilitation, while state law-enforcement officials cautioned about implementation workload and statutory clarity.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6624191,"House bill to allow therapeutic cannabis patients to grow limited plants advances amid safety and oversight debate",1662,2538000,4200000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2766653-b62c8a12ac6613ebae7b5364c41679ce&start=2538&end=4200","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2766653-b62c8a12ac6613ebae7b5364c41679ce/thumbnail_2538000.jpg","/articles/6624191/New-Hampshire/House-bill-to-allow-therapeutic-cannabis-patients-to-grow-limited-plants-advances-amid-safety-and-oversight-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624191-63a7c25af51c00ea610efca833f1b73f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140705&Signature=ezYALlVtrqTPKIwEsB1ZCU604ZYAMrg5Nklr1Hc~IF4sWPyeZwt0YME2jFlz5Bgnmqaee1-XwUSGNeY6~AQ33LjO3ydQHTYcvJ9emB-YRpX~wZYm19bilw7gy~bHe05AdlRV~b9PGD1baLv6DQK~co~PhMJuZEJFYyHFHeoxjNk5yT6VaSN9k91nsUeUfhw5hb07nRB5f5TvfZRDtyuD~P311U38RWL1vzzRO7LOUfAY~ekTHK9aijk1TpTF3JMC8lxm2JIPGmwtgrurMNzqjN3yykd8FAYwDS2mHmqbh53TlnQuF4hq-VHDWGot6YKbBpE3wUUTY-oNalXdzfAVmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 53 would permit qualifying therapeutic cannabis patients and designated caregivers to cultivate cannabis at a private, secured location for therapeutic use, subject to registration and limits described in the bill.

Representative Wendy Thomas, sponsor of HB 53 and a registered therapeutic cannabis patient, told the House Judiciary Committee the bill would allow patients or designated caregivers to grow up to three mature (flowering) plants, three immature (nonflowering) plants and 12 seedlings (six inches or less). She described the change as a response to patient needs for affordability, accessibility and availability of specific strains: “Growing it would be a good option,” she said, noting many patients must travel long distances to the seven ATCs in the state.

Why it matters: Supporters said home cultivation would lower costs for patients who rely on cannabis for chronic conditions and expand access for people with transportation barriers. Several medical and patient witnesses testified that certain cannabinoid/strain profiles are uniquely helpful to individuals and that some patients want the option to grow the cultivars that work for them.

Supporters, safeguards and scope
- Jerry Kurnirk, M.D., chair of the Therapeutic Cannabis Medical Oversight Board, said TCMOB voted unanimously to support home cultivation and that the bill contains “robust protections” such as plant-count limits, registration of cultivation sites, and a requirement that plants be enclosed, locked and not subject to public view (testimony references lines in draft language describing “locked and enclosed” cultivation spaces).
- Matt Simon of Granite Leaf Cannabis and other ATC-affiliated speakers said dispensaries could offer seedlings and classes to help patients comply with the rules; ATCs stated they support the bill and would assist patients.
- Testifying patients described medical and mobility reasons for wanting home cultivation; one speaker noted specific cannabinoids and cultivars she uses, and another described horticultural expertise.

Opposition and enforcement concerns
- Sue Hamala of Smart Approaches to Marijuana emphasized the program’s privacy protections and argued the state lacks mechanisms and resources to monitor home cultivation effectively. She said the bill would authorize widespread home growing and cited limited enforcement tools, potential for barter or informal sales, and the privacy shield that would make law-enforcement verification more difficult.
- Pat Sullivan of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police raised similar oversight concerns, warning caregivers might be able to claim costs and improperly profit and that landlords could be exposed to federal risk if cultivation occurs on leased premises without clear landlord consent.

Key operational and statutory details discussed
- Plant and possession limits described in testimony: up to 3 mature flowering plants, 3 immature plants and 12 seedlings; a cultivation-location possession limit of 8 ounces of usable cannabis and a general possession limit of 2 ounces away from the cultivation site were discussed as statutory mechanics for balancing cultivation and possession limits.
- Caregiver compensation: testimony referenced statutory language allowing caregivers to be reimbursed for costs (not labor) and an added cap “not to exceed $500 per calendar year” for costs associated with caregiving/growing.
- Security and notice: cultivation locations must be secured, locked and not subject to public view; written landlord permission required for rental properties.
- Product testing: the bill would allow home cultivators to submit material to state labs for cannabinoid profiling and contaminant testing.

Institutional positions and status
- TCMOB reported unanimous support for HB 53 in committee testimony and the ATCs expressed support; witness Matt Simon said the bill has repeatedly passed the House in prior sessions and “patients feel strongly that they should be free to cultivate as their counterparts in other New England states.”

Outstanding questions and enforcement trade-offs
- Law-enforcement witnesses and SAM urged clearer oversight mechanisms, raised concerns about diversion and enforcement capacity, and questioned how officials could prove a given quantity was home-grown versus purchased off-market.
- Supporters said statutory limits and registration, coupled with lab-testing options, would address safety and dosing concerns.

Bottom line: Testimony showed a clear split between patient and medical advocates seeking affordability and access and enforcement/anti-legalization groups focused on oversight and diversion; the Therapeutic Cannabis Medical Oversight Board and ATCs expressed formal support for the home‑cultivation proposal.","House Bill 53 would let registered therapeutic cannabis patients and designated caregivers cultivate a limited number of plants at a secured, reported location; supporters described affordability and access benefits while opponents warned of enforcement, oversight and diversion risks.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_46":105,"_48":106,"_50":107,"_52":108,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":109,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":110,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6624195,"Bill would let New Hampshire therapeutic dispensaries use hemp-derived, nonintoxicating cannabinoids",596,422000,1018000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2766653-b62c8a12ac6613ebae7b5364c41679ce&start=422&end=1018","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2766653-b62c8a12ac6613ebae7b5364c41679ce/thumbnail_422000.jpg","/articles/6624195/New-Hampshire/Bill-would-let-New-Hampshire-therapeutic-dispensaries-use-hemp-derived-nonintoxicating-cannabinoids","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624195-f8b4f85f90d3f812115e64d8e24fbf1d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140705&Signature=ZWOWMs0Bw6Cp5OcB8O3IJsOEx3rdfBbc0IGtokG-mPMiH6FKG0xrMnP9PaeOiKWIqH2EQ-ZfBPL0x8D~zn-bvXNSbNTpx0rD3nGpkDypWvPZTMQgq2TtsmQgWYZFSHFKmxbYmOP266IHjIK0383gprVwu1ylTgoTPk9eVppCUsaQd6dcqKj0C2BRPgzYLfUIXi~ku2y6iTzRNlPRVvGyJ9jBC0J9xkhCshGUmpXH1BeZTz2LtnwosZcrQOTfvM9T7Zyzh9LLHG3WOY0oPIMowEeoRppMtSk4NLyPgHENaqK3D00kBza3lWd6CN6xSI-6Yd4uSH~YX8w06yXY05immQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 51 would permit alternative treatment centers in New Hampshire to obtain hemp-derived, nonintoxicating cannabinoids such as CBD from federally legal hemp producers and use them in products sold to registered therapeutic cannabis patients.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Wendy Thomas (representing Merrimack), told the committee that HB 51 “would allow ATCs, which are alternative treatment centers, to buy non intoxicating cannabinoids from federally legal hemp producers and utilize them in some of the products that they use for patients in New Hampshire.” She emphasized the bill would not apply to hemp-derived THC products, “which are not legal in New Hampshire.”

Why it matters: Supporters say the change would reduce costs and expand patients’ access to CBD and other nonintoxicating cannabinoids that some patients prefer for conditions such as chronic pain, anxiety and seizures. The bill would also require DHHS oversight and testing: supporters stressed products would be tested for contaminants and cannabinoid profiles to maintain safety and consistency.

Proponents’ arguments and safeguards
- Jerry Kurnirk, M.D., chair of the Therapeutic Cannabis Medical Oversight Board (TCMOB), said the board voted 7–0 to support HB 51 and described the practical reason for the change: “Because industrial hemp can be grown commercially just out in the field without the high level of security, it's a very good economical source for CBD and other non intoxicating cannabinoids.” Kurnirk said the bill would allow ATCs to purchase hemp-derived cannabinoids, have them formulated into concentrates or infused products, and sell them within New Hampshire.
- Matt Simon of Granite Leaf Cannabis, an ATC operator, said ATCs already produce CBD-only and CBD‑ratio products and that buying lab‑tested hemp-derived cannabinoids would lower costs and let ATCs supply more CBD-rich products.
- Dr. Joe Hannon and other medical witnesses urged the committee to treat hemp-derived cannabinoids used in the therapeutic program with the same testing and labeling standards used for ATC products, calling it a consumer-protection measure.

Opposition and legal concerns
- Pat Sullivan, representing the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, said chiefs were concerned about interstate transportation and that the proposal seemed like an expansion of marijuana legalization efforts.
- Sue Hamala of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) urged caution, citing legal complexity around the federal 2018 Farm Bill and a 2022 DEA letter about seeds. She warned that New Hampshire does not have a USDA-approved state hemp plan and urged alignment of state definitions with federal law before changing statute.

Key provisions mentioned in testimony
- The bill would expand the statutory definition of “cannabis” within the therapeutic cannabis program to include nonintoxicating cannabinoids derived from industrial hemp (THC ≤ 0.3%).
- Supporters said the bill would require testing for contaminants and cannabinoid profiles and would prohibit use of hemp-derived products containing more than 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis.

Record of institutional support and procedural status reported in testimony
- The Therapeutic Cannabis Medical Oversight Board (TCMOB) reported a 7–0 vote in support of HB 51.
- Jerry Kurnirk stated HB 51 “passed the house” and that the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee (HHSCA) had a 17–0 vote in favor (as described in his testimony).

What remained unsettled in the hearing
- Law-enforcement witnesses and some witnesses warned about unresolved questions concerning interstate sourcing, the USDA state plan for hemp, and whether the state definitions align with federal terms. Supporters repeatedly said the bill was limited to nonintoxicating cannabinoids and that interstate transport would be limited to federally legal hemp (≤0.3% THC).

Looking ahead: The testimony closed with the sponsor and supporters urging passage and opponents urging further legal alignment and oversight steps before statutory change.

","Supporters told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 51 would allow New Hampshire alternative treatment centers (ATCs) to buy federally legal hemp-derived, nonintoxicating cannabinoids such as CBD for use in therapeutic cannabis products, while opponents warned of legal uncertainty around sourcing and interstate transport.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Wide-ranging repeal bill would remove most state cannabis prohibitions; sponsors and critics spar over public-safety and market effects

Bill would let people petition to have low‑level cannabis convictions annulled; law enforcement warns of workload and scope issues

House bill to allow therapeutic cannabis patients to grow limited plants advances amid safety and oversight debate

Bill would let New Hampshire therapeutic dispensaries use hemp-derived, nonintoxicating cannabinoids