Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chadwickipedia t1_j6hlalh wrote

Reply to comment by Dannon35 in New Hampshire GOP governor says he’s considering 2024 White House bid by Jesuslovesthepackers

The only reason he is against it is because he wants to regulated it like the state liquor stores. Can’t do that unless it’s federally legal

15

Darwins_Dog t1_j6hnhoo wrote

That's not a good reason to ignore a majority of constituents.

24

whydidilose t1_j6holde wrote

For all the reasons to be against legalization this is probably the best one. It makes a lot of sense to have state owned dispensaries- will bring in a lot of extra revenue from other states.

4

nhbruh t1_j6i07jo wrote

No, it won’t. Cannabis isn’t liquor where the product is the same across states and the differentiator is price. Maine has some of the best bud in New England right now and NH is too far behind to compete with their market cap.

5

Darwins_Dog t1_j6hpcxq wrote

The best reason still isn't a good one.

−1

whydidilose t1_j6hqam8 wrote

Can you elaborate why it’s a problem to wait for legalization?

Weed is decriminalized in NH and most of our citizens live close to the MA or ME borders. So having access to weed isn’t an issue, and you aren’t going to get arrested for it. So how does changing things right now affect a majority of people?

If they legalize it now, it won’t be able to be sold at state owned stores since it’s still illegal federally. That means the state either loses out on all that potential out of state revenue, or the private sector takes it over only to be replaced by the state in the future.

Neither of those seem like great options to me considering there’s no issue with obtaining or having weed currently.

2

Darwins_Dog t1_j6hs8gt wrote

There's no guarantee it will work as well as liquor stores since production and distribution don't work the same. Prices are more variable and there's more local production so there's no Coors or Jack Daniels that we can always sell for cheaper.

In the absence of national brands, people are building loyalty to stores instead. Some of them even have loyalty programs and give away weed when you hit a certain mark. The longer we wait, the stronger the loyalty.

The state can still tax weed sales just like every other state. We are actively losing out on that revenue. It doesn't make sense to keep waiting on the basis that it might generate more revenue for the state.

It robs local entrepreneurs of the chance to open a dispensary and start a business. I would rather see the economic benefit go to people than government.

I've also never seen a quote or official statement that this is why they are waiting. Reddit seems pretty convinced, but idk.

4

whydidilose t1_j6hzw9g wrote

>It robs local entrepreneurs of the chance to open a dispensary and start a business. I would rather see the economic benefit go to people than government.

I do want to point out that large conglomerates have taken over the business in many other states. It sounds nice to keep things local for smaller merchants, but without any laws in place they’ll inevitably be driven out by much larger companies.

4

Darwins_Dog t1_j6i2mv6 wrote

There's room for both. IME in Mass, Maine, and Colorado there are both large chains and independent stores (just like every other business). Besides, that's still not a compelling reason to have a state monopoly. That's just picking who gets control.

2

RonJahnPS2 t1_j6i4es6 wrote

Is MA “losing out on revenue” by selling it privately and taxing it? No they are not. It’s a pathetic excuse for the NH governments desire to monopolize marijuana.

3

Yourcatsonfire t1_j6hrbe6 wrote

And if you do let the private sector in on it, it will make it extremely hard to then take that away and make it state run later on.

2

Knelson123 t1_j6i17p5 wrote

Why does the state have to be the only ones selling it? Makes no sense that they get that much control.

2

whydidilose t1_j6i1sre wrote

Generates a lot of money in taxes without raising taxes that affect everyone (ex: property tax).

2

akmjolnir t1_j6icly8 wrote

Subjective vs. objective.

There's a lot of things that are more important than your desire to smoke weed under a different legal status. It's already decriminalized... so go buy it and smoke it.

Meanwhile... the rest of us adults have already figured out that roads, schools, medical care, and a million other social services are more important than you being able to stroll into a NH dispensary.

It's not like you're in the middle of Texas, and need to drive for 6 hours to get to the nearest state border.. Hop in a car and go to ME, MA, or VT... or grow it like the rest of us.

1

Darwins_Dog t1_j6iovkl wrote

I'm not quite sure what your point is. The status quo works fine for me, but we could be bringing in more revenue (and supporting local businesses) by making a change that has massive public support.

Adults in other states have figured out how to sell and tax weed without a state monopoly on sales. I think holding out for federal changes is just giving money to other states; money that could be improving our roads, schools, etc. right now.

1

akmjolnir t1_j6is1it wrote

There seems to be an overused rallying cry to legalize NH weed, as if it will solve the problems plaguing the state, or somehow make everyone happy.

Or, "I don't like (insert individual) because they won't let me smoke weed".

It's lame, and unproductive.

1

Darwins_Dog t1_j6iuids wrote

You brought it up. Legalizing and taxing weed will bring in revenue (hopefully we agree on that much) so the question is then which system will be the most effective. I think private ownership is better (in part because it can be implemented now), you appear to be on the side of eventual state ownership.

Dismissing the debate with hyperbole and arguments that I never made is lame and unproductive.

2

zetterbeauty t1_j6inayw wrote

Have you seen how many vetos he has under his belt? He’s always willing to ignore the majority of his constituents.

2

jomar5946 t1_j6hpjfh wrote

The solution there is a half trigger law, half immediate law. Legalize possession, restrict sales to the state, but don't start selling until federally legal. In the meantime, be lax in enforcement of the sales prohibition.

6

emptycoils t1_j6hyr2f wrote

That may be his reason on paper but the real reason is the law enforcement lobbies own the man and when they say jump he says how high

1

kearsargeII t1_j6jdbkl wrote

Except it isn’t even his reason on paper. His reason on paper will always be pivoting to the opioid crisis for a random nonsequitor about how hard it is hitting the state and how that means weed should remain recreationally illegal here. There is zero evidence he has given any thought to some sort of plan of selling it in liquor stores.

1

Tullyswimmer t1_j6jk3k6 wrote

People call him out on this as if we didn't have a Democrat governor for 4 years who adamantly refused to legalize it because she wanted her donation from the cops.

Sununu has done more to relax the laws around cannabis in this state than any other governor we've had from either party.

1