At 4:20 the NH House became the 1st State Legislative Body to Legalize Marijuana

[Keith and stuff]

I'll post more about this when the articles come out but I wanted to get the news out now. Despite the veto threat from the Governor of New Hampshire, at 4:20PM today, the New Hampshire House became the 1st Legislative Body in the Nation to vote to Legalize Marijuana with a vote of 170 to 162.

Live Free or Get High? Eventually, this will become law in NH and you will be able to do both. I'm not sure how long the effort will take. But I do find the NH House waiting until 4:20 to be pretty funny.

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1521236_10151813682906816_638171105_n.png

[Kelly.]

t I do find the NH House waiting until 4:20 to be pretty funny.


i like that too.

wish i could stand the cold, i would already be in NH.

keep on keepin on

[Anti Federalist]

NH is no colder than CO in places.

[Keith and stuff]

i like that too.

wish i could stand the cold, i would already be in NH.

keep on keepin on

Thanks. NH is like your border state WY weather wise but less windy and without the crazy snow drifts that CO/WY/MT/SD/NE/KS get. It really isn't much different than CO. It's a little colder, a little more humid but perhaps less snowy with easier winter driving.

Putting New Hampshire’s weather into perspective
March 3, 2013
http://nhfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/putting-new-hampshires-weather-into-perspective/
Did you know that New Hampshire is warmer than much of CT, IN, IL, MA, NE, OH and PA?

[gwax23]

What about their Senate? and the Governor? Will this ever come into being?

[invisible]

Awesome. Now the problem is getting it past the state Senate and the Governor. IIRC, didn't the Governor campaign on saying she'd sign off on legalization / decriminalization if it passed through the state legislature?

It would be really nice to see this domino across all 50 states.

[invisible]

Awesome. Now the problem is getting it past the state Senate and the Governor. IIRC, didn't the Governor campaign on saying she'd sign off on legalization / decriminalization if it passed through the state legislature?

It would be really nice to see this domino across all 50 states.

[Keith and stuff]

Awesome. Now the problem is getting it past the state Senate and the Governor. IIRC, didn't the Governor campaign on saying she'd sign off on legalization / decriminalization if it passed through the state legislature?

It would be really nice to see this domino across all 50 states.
All 3 candidates for governor all said they would sign medical marijuana. A bill reached her desk last year and she signed it.

She threaten to veto this bill before the House voted for it. I suspect it would have had several additional supporters in the House without her veto threat. My guess is that the Senate will be even more persuaded by her veto threat (like they were a few years ago by a medical marijuana veto threat) and kill the bill eventually.

But we need to look at the big picture. This has never happened before in any of the 50 states. A state legislative body has not voted for legalization. Legislators hate to be the 1st one to vote for change to the status que. Now that it has happened once, it will make national news. And legislators in other states will now be more likely to vote for similar legislation. This is a huge win for freedom all over the nation. Maybe now the Rhode Island House will have the courage to do this, for example?

And this wouldn't have been possible without the free state project. The 2 lead lobbyist pushing for this are both free staters, not to mention co-sponsors and House reps speaking in favor of it on the House floor. So, you can say that by liberty activists moving to NH, helping write this bill, helping sponsor this bill, speaking on it and voting for it, they are helping free the whole nation. Today is a proud day to be a free stater ;)

[Keith and stuff]

I saw this posted to FedBook and thought it was cool :toady:



In New Hampshire, this many Republicans voted to legalize marijuana today:

Baldasaro, Alfred
Beaudoin, Steven
Belanger, James
Bickford, David
Burchell, Richard
Burt, John
Chirichiello, Brian
Coffey, James
Comerford, Timothy
Comtois, Guy
Danais, Romeo
Danielson, David
Duarte, Joe
Emerick, J. Tracy
Ferrante, Beverly
Fink, Charles
Gagne, Larry
Gionet, Edmond
Gray, James
Greemore, Robert
Grenier, James
Hikel, John
Hoell, J.R.
Itse, Daniel
Jones, Laura
Kidder, David
Kurk, Neal
Lambert, George
LeBrun, Donald
Lockwood, Priscilla
Marston, Dick
McGuire, Carol
McGuire, Dan
Meaney, Richard
Murotake, David
Murphy, Keith
Murphy, Kelleigh
Nigrello, Robert
O'Brien, William
O'Connor, John
Oligny, Jeffrey
Parison, James
Parsons, Robbie
Peckham, Michele
Pratt, Calvin
Sandblade, Emily
Sapareto, Frank
Schroadter, Adam
Sedensky, John
Shackett, Jeffrey
Sweeney, Shawn
Sylvia, Michael
Sytek, John
Takesian, Charlene
Tamburello, Daniel
Tasker, Kyle
Ulery, Jordan
Vadney, Herbert
Vaillancourt, Steve
Walsh, Thomas
Warden, Mark
Waterhouse, Kevin
Webb, James
Wright, Donald

[Keith and stuff]

What about their Senate? and the Governor? Will this ever come into being?

Here are the governor's thoughts on legalization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-neNYdNW0w

And here is a related funny commercial about the Official New Hampshire State Vodka.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cpi78VpskM

[muzzled dogg]

Cool

[specsaregood]

How is this different than what CO and WA? already did?

[Keith and stuff]

How is this different than what CO and WA? already did?

The taxes would be lower.

Or do you mean in how it passed? A bunch of states have state referendums. State referendums are usually used to increase the size of the government. Though, as CO and WA showed, they can also be used to increase freedom. In CO and WA, voters themselves voted on the issue. In NH, like has been tried 100 times in the US, the elected officials that are unlikely to support large changes to the status que, voted on the issue. What makes this different from the 100 other times is that for the 1st time, a state legislative body are voted the correct way on this issue. So now, legislators in other states are more likely to have more courage on this issue.

Why did this pass in the NH House and fail everywhere else? My guess is that obviously people tend to be more pro-liberty in NH than other states, but also perhaps... Since there are 400 true citizen legislators in NH (they get a salary of $100 a year, cannot take gifts over $25, represent only 3200 people...) that the legislators are closer to the people in though, action, the ability to reach out to and so on.

[Rudeman]

What are the summers like in NH?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's too bad these things have to be made "okay" and such, but it's definitely a step in the plus column for the good guys. Way to go up there.

Some day Keith, I'd like to get your brief thoughts on that roadblock legislation. I think it was from last year, where three legislators sponsored a bill to eliminate roadblocks. Probably did not go very far. There was legislation in Utah to eliminate roadblocks. It passed the house, but got little to no attention in the senate.

My sense is that senate chambers are even more status quo in general than house chambers. Maybe true for the NH weed issue.

Congratulations and party on at 4:20.

[gwax23]

What a worthless governor. When is her term up?

[tsai3904]

The taxes would be lower.

This bill taxes 1 oz at $30 right? How does that compare to CO and WA?

[mczerone]

What are the summers like in NH?

Activist-y

[pulp8721]

In New Hampshire, this many Republicans voted to legalize marijuana today:

Baldasaro, Alfred
Beaudoin, Steven
Belanger, James
Bickford, David
Burchell, Richard
Burt, John
Chirichiello, Brian
Coffey, James
Comerford, Timothy
Comtois, Guy
Danais, Romeo
Danielson, David
Duarte, Joe
Emerick, J. Tracy
Ferrante, Beverly
Fink, Charles
Gagne, Larry
Gionet, Edmond
Gray, James
Greemore, Robert
Grenier, James
Hikel, John
Hoell, J.R.
Itse, Daniel
Jones, Laura
Kidder, David
Kurk, Neal
Lambert, George
LeBrun, Donald
Lockwood, Priscilla
Marston, Dick
McGuire, Carol
McGuire, Dan
Meaney, Richard
Murotake, David
Murphy, Keith
Murphy, Kelleigh
Nigrello, Robert
O'Brien, William
O'Connor, John
Oligny, Jeffrey
Parison, James
Parsons, Robbie
Peckham, Michele
Pratt, Calvin
Sandblade, Emily
Sapareto, Frank
Schroadter, Adam
Sedensky, John
Shackett, Jeffrey
Sweeney, Shawn
Sylvia, Michael
Sytek, John
Takesian, Charlene
Tamburello, Daniel
Tasker, Kyle
Ulery, Jordan
Vadney, Herbert
Vaillancourt, Steve
Walsh, Thomas
Warden, Mark
Waterhouse, Kevin
Webb, James
Wright, Donald

Marilinda Garcia voted no? What a shame!

[Keith and stuff]

What are the summers like in NH?
Awesome. NH has the most hiked mountain in the Western Hemisphere (Mt. Monadnock), the 2nd most known mountain in the Northeast (Mt. Washington). Even in the largest city there is outdoor rock climbing and a good sized lake for canoeing.

You should come up, the largest pro-liberty camping event in the world happens in NH every summer. It's been called Libertarian Summer Camp in that people use silver and bitcoins to pay for stuff and there are no police (no known police, anyway). Here is a Planet Money radio/text story on Porcfest. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/05/137534361/breakfast-at-libertarian-summer-camp


June 22-29, 2014
Roger's Campground
Lancaster, NH
http://porcfest.com/
The Porcupine Freedom Festival is an annual liberty camping event organized by The Free State Project. FSP This year marks our 11th PorcFest. We hope you will join us for the festivities in Northern New Hampshire at Roger’s Campground for the most exciting liberty event of the year!

http://hamptonchamber.com/images/client_uploads/pages/2/Beach%20Photo%20page%2060.jpg

http://kingswood.agconexusinc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/slideshow16_freddyspond.jpg

http://www.momscleanairforce.org/files/2012/05/NH_summer2.jpg

http://www.waterville.com/summer-play-explore/images/content/l2heros/summer_0013_Tennis.jpg

[surf]

This bill taxes 1 oz at $30 right? How does that compare to CO and WA?

a fraction. wa has 3 taxes of 25% each.

good on you NH. good luck with the rest. time to lobby some senators.

[FSP-Rebel]

http://hamptonchamber.com/images/client_uploads/pages/2/Beach%20Photo%20page%2060.jpg
And that's when Hampton Beach is only mildly crowded. I've been on it when the entire strip of traffic is a parking lot. I gotta get back there~!

[Keith and stuff]

And that's when Hampton Beach is only mildly crowded. I've been on it when the entire strip of traffic is a parking lot. I gotta get back there~!

I like the other beaches better because they are less crowded. But I'm lazy when it comes to driving so I usually just go to a pond or lake near my house (even they have beaches) cuz it's easier. Plus, Hampton charges for parking there and I'm yankee frugal.

Hampton Beach Crowded because of an event. The event is warm day.
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13899312-md.jpg


And speaking of the NH governor...
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t31/1009076_10151813183021816_1800751964_o.jpg

[enoch150]

http://i.imgur.com/kdg1lqb.png

http://i.imgur.com/yRKulGv.png

http://i.imgur.com/JWItXf9.png

http://i.imgur.com/yDmmIg9.png

[Lindsey]

i like that too.

wish i could stand the cold, i would already be in NH.

keep on keepin on

This.

[Lindsey]

Did you know that New Hampshire is warmer than much of CT, IN, IL, MA, NE, OH and PA?

All states that are too cold by my standards.

[Peace&Freedom]

The important thing is one state legislature went first and at least got the ball rolling, perhaps having given cover by the two referendum states. Others may follow now that they won't be perceived as 'first' in doing so---that's just the way it works in many places to create movement.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Good on NH. Put pressure on the idiots that oppose it.

[Czolgosz]

Legalize. lol

[purplechoe]

They are obviously either Hitler sympathizers or insensitive pricks who want to shove Columbine in peoples faces. Someone should alert the authorities... :)

http://coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/420-historical-buzzkills.jpg

[Keith and stuff]

Here is the floor speech in support of this bill by the Ron Paul Republican that sponsored it.

Advance Copy Of Floor Speech On Marijuana Bill
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 01:29PM
NHINSIDER.COM EXCLUSIVE
http://www.nhinsider.com/rep-steve-vaillancourt/2014/1/15/advance-copy-of-floor-speech-on-marijuana-bill.html


Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, Hills. 15, Manchester Ward 8

Floor Speech In Favor of House Bill 492

January 15, 2014

Thank you Madame Speaker. I rise in opposition to the committee report and in favor of this bill which would do three things—decriminalize the sale and possession of small amounts (an ounce or less) of marijuana and then regulate it in the best interests of our society and then tax it with an estimated result of $25-30 million a year to state coffers.

You will note, Madame Speaker, that I am standing at this particular podium. I do that because it was four years ago that I stood here on an historic day. New Hampshire became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage with their governor that day, not because we were ordered to do so by any court but rather because elected officials chose to do so. That was before public opinion had settled solidly in favor of the issue; most polls today show support In the 60-40 percent range, so we can take pride in what we did.

And I feel compelled to add Madame Speaker, that our governor, until the very last minute, threatened to veto the gay marriage bill and then in a prodigious feat of political prestidigitation, he managed to latch on to the issue as if it had always been his own.

Wow!

When I spoke from this podium four years ago, I alluded to the Biblical admonition, “To everything there is a season”. I had just heard Pete Seeger singing the song Turn, Turn, Turn, and it seemed especially appropriate at the time. To everything there is a season and a purpose for everything under heaven.

I mention that Madame Speaker because as we address the issue of marijuana legalization we can once again make history here today. We can become the first legislative body in the country to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. As you probably know, Colorado and Washington, after 55-45 votes in public referendum in 2012, have moved in this direction, but alas here in New Hampshire, we have no referendum process, so the task falls upon this legislature, the third largest legislative body in the English speaking world, we are told.

The bill before us today is in fact based on legislation currently in effect in Colorado, so we are not reinventing the wheel here. We can benefit from what has already happened and what, I dare say, will happen in more and more states, perhaps even all of them, in the next decade.

Even more so than with gay marriage, Madame Speaker, we have witnessed a sea change in public attitudes on this subject. As I wrote in the minority blurb, we should never legislate based on the poll results of a given moment. However, as elected officials we bear a responsibility to understand the sentiments of those who send us here.

And the data is even more remarkable than when I wrote that minority blurb. Of course, it wasn’t an opinion poll at all, but an actual vote, by double digit margins in which Colorado and Washington voters said yes to legalization and regulation.

A Gallup poll from the fall of 2013 showed runaway support for legalization, by a 58-39 percent margin.

A PPP poll showed support in a similar range, 53-37 percent, but what about New Hampshire, I can hear you asking. Well, UNH last fall came out with a poll not merely showing wide support for legalization, but the pollsters explained the provisions of this specific bill, and the result was an astounding 60 percent in favor and only 36 percent opposed. Wow, that’s nearly a two to one margin in support not just of the concept of legalization but of this specific bill.

But our country is now obsessed with the issue, and we get new polling data on a regular basis.

Since the first of the year, CNN is out with new polling data which confirms the trend . Support is once again in double digits, 55-44 percent, but internal numbers are even more remarkable with that poll.

By nearly a six to one margin, 73 to 12 percent, Americans said that alcohol, a perfectly legal substance for those 21 years of age and older, is more harmful than marijuana Those numbers again—73 to 12 percent

By nearly a three to one margin, 64 to 23 percent, Americans said that cigarettes, a perfectly legal substance for those of a certain age, are more harmful than marijuana. Those numbers again—64 to 23.

By nearly two to one margin, 35-64 percent, Americans no longer believe that marijuana use is immoral. And only 12 percent believe that marijuana users should be jailed.

We come a long way since Gallup found only 12 percent support when it first started polling on the issue back in the late 60s. No wonder elected officials shied away from legalization as if it were a cross in front of a vampire back then. The public wasn’t ready to go there.

To everything there is a season, and this is the season for legalization.

I’ve spent considerable time reviewing these numbers because just lack week, one of my colleagues told me she supports this bill and would like to vote for it but fears public retribution if she does. Well, with support in New Hampshire at 60-36 percent, it doesn’t take an analytical genius to figure out that support for this bill must be broad in every section of the state. Not only are voters telling us they will not throw you out of office if you vote for this bill, they might be saying just the opposite.

As I say, we should never legislate based on polling data, but the times have changed from days when those on the other side of the issue pointed to polling data to oppose such common sense measure as legalization, regulation, and yes, taxation.

How hypocritical that those on the other side now argue that public opinion doesn’t matter. It mattered to them when polls were on their side. It matters now that polls have turned overwhelming against them.

Clearly, Madame Speaker, the people of our nation and our state are way ahead of some elected officials on this issue, certainly ahead of the majority of the Criminal Justice committee which heard this bill, but today the House as a whole has a chance to get in tune with the people.

Criminal Justice is not Ways and Means so the focus of the committee was not on revenues, but I would suspect Madame Speaker, that should we overturn the committee recommendation and pass this bill today, you will send it on to the Ways and Means committee for fiscal analysis.

The $25-30 million tax benefit I spoke of is not from the legislative budget office. It is simply my best guess estimate and that of others I’ve consulted with. Conceivably, if the effort proves as successful as it is so far in Colorado, that $25-30 million number could be conservative. It is based on a 15 percent tax at the wholesale level and a tax of $30 an ounce at the retail level. According to my best estimates, that amounts to about 12-13 percent because best estimates are that an eighth of an ounce of marijuana would sell for $30. As I say, Ways and Means experts will be in a better position to make such judgments.

One thing we know for sure is that along with the $25-30 million or whatever, the state would be saving millions and millions more on the cost of tracking down and incarcerating, at a cost of $35,000 per person per year, people who are using this much less harmful substance than either alcohol or tobacco.

Opponents of this bill attempt to stun us into silence with the mantra, “What kind of signal will passage send to our young people?” I’m glad they posed that question, Madame Speaker, because I’ve thought about it a lot, and I think I have an answer.

I ask you what kind of signal does it send today when our incarnation rate is higher than just about any country in the civilized world?

What kind of message does it send when the overwhelming majority of those so incarcerated are the poor, are African Americans, and other minorities?

What kind of message does it send when people are haphazardly jailed for indulging in something which, unlike alcohol or cigarettes, will most assuredly not kill them?

What kind of a message does it send when we refuse to accept what could be a windfall in tax revenue, which could be used to help the most needy people in our society or to repair our infrastructure—you yourself Madame Speaker and numerous other leaders spoke of that need at the BIA function yesterday afternoon-- or perhaps, just perhaps to lower cureent taxes?

Stop already with the mantra of “What kind of signal will this send?”

Passage of this bill would send a message that we recognize that times change, that we can no longer be encumbered by the mistakes of the past.

This morning, Madame Speaker, I mentioned that as a senior in high school, I studied Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. At the same time I was writing a term paper on 1984, just 20 miles up the road in Burlington, Vermont, UVM students were dressing up in black face for the annual Kake Walk gala, a truly offensive black minstrel show which lasted into the 70s in what is today the most liberal state in the union.

Times change, Madame Speaker. Just as we would no longer say slavery is ok because it used to be; or blacks and whites need not marry because they never could before; or that women must not think of asking for the right to vote and must return to their housework; or that the only accept able place for gay people is back in the closet. Today we shunt the type of slurs which were all too common when I was growing up.

Just as we no longer would look favorably upon Walking for De Kake, today we must, Madame Speaker, abandon our Reefer Madness mentality which has plagued this country for far too long.

That’s the signal we send by passing this bill, Madame Speaker; we have liberated ourselves from our past errors. Bluntly, we are no longer slaves to our misguided past.

That’s the signal we send, Madame Speaker, but to approach that time, we must honestly look at what this does and does not do.

Nothing in this bill would tell our people that smoking marijuana is a good thing any more than we tell people that drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are good things just because they are legal…or for that matter that eating chocolate or other fatty foods are good for your health. It’s legal to eat them, but the case can be made that chocolate and fatty foods are not good for you.

Don’t insult the intelligent of our people by even attempting to claim that just because something is legal, it is good for you.

I myself have a long history of abuse—no, not of abusing alcohol or tobacco or marijuana or even chocolate. You see Madame Speaker, my dirty little secret is that I’m a saltoholic—back in my college days, people were known to gather round just to watch me salt my food; at least one person who schedules county legislative lunches knows me well enough now to know that he doesn’t supply a special salt shaker, I certainly will ask for one; yes, it’s true I use way too much salt, always have and always will. My blood pressure, even with prescribed medications, is through the roof, maybe even more so after a day here in this chamber. I don’t expect to live to a ripe old age because I do not intend to cut back on this legal but very harmful substance known as salt.

As a libertarian, I have always believed that people are responsible for their own decisions. You drink too much, you smoke too much, as my mother did throughout her life, and you suffer the consequences, as my mother did; after a lifetime of drinking and smoking, she died a horrible death of liver and intestinal cancer. I often think today that had marijuana been legal 40 or 50 years ago and had my mother indulged in marijuana as her drug of choice, she would still be alive today.

Marijuana is a far less harmful substance than either alcohol or tobacco; no sentient human being would argue that point today; we have survived the days of Reefer Madness; it is time to fully exorcise the mentality which leads us to continue to make criminals out of those who choose to use this more benign substance, this substance which leads not to violent behavior but to pacifism.

Nothing in this bill would allow anyone to some under the influence of marijuana, although truth be told, most people who light up, unlike those who drink heavily, have no desire to drive.

Nothing in this bill would allow our youth to partake of marijuana, and I really need to elaborate on that point, Madame Speaker.

I am convinced that this bill would make it more difficult for teens to get marijuana. We all know that virtually every young person today knows how to find marijuana if he or she want it—in fact, young people have greater access to marijuana today than an old person like me (not that I’ve ever tried to purchase any of the stuff on our streets).

If we legalize marijuana, we take it out of the hands of the black market. Since it will be legally available over the counter, no one will need to purchase it from dealers on the street. Thus, street dealers will by and large go out of business. Thus, our youth will be less likely to get it. That’s the signal we send to our young people; youth will be less likely to get the stuff if we legalize it, and everyone from the governor on down should realize that simple fact. By not passing this bill, you are condoning ever increasing use of marijuana.

And that’s not just an idle opinion. Yesterday someone in the break room told me I ought to look into what’s happened in Portugal. We think of the Netherlands as the drug capital of Europe, but in fact, it was Portugal which moved to decriminalize as far back as the year 2000. This small country of ten million people, conservative and 88 percent Catholic, has experienced amazingly positive results.

Drug use among teens actually declined after 2000. Portugal in fact has the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in the European union. Of people more than 15 years old, just 10 percent of the Portuguese have indulged as opposed to one study which shows that nearly 40 percent of Americans have used the ILLEGAL substance (the rate was as high as 50 percent in that CNN poll I noted).

So much for the argument that legalization or decriminalization will lead to an increase in use. Rather, legalization will simply mean that otherwise law abiding citizens are not criminals. We have long known that in the Netherlands, where marijuana is available if not exactly legal, use is less than in the United States. In Portugal, it’s much less and it’s less than it was before the substance was decriminalized. And the number of people seeking treatment went up dramatically after decriminalization. According to Glen Greenwald, attorney, author, and fluent Portuguese speak who conducted research, “It (decriminalization) has enabled Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does.”

According to Portugal’s drug czar Joao Castel-Branco, “The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before criminalization.” Police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level dealers and larger quantizes f drugs.

That’s the message we’ll send to our young people—we’re going to focus our limited law enforcement efforts where they should be—on the truly harmful substances out there.

The biggest canard of all, Madame Speaker, is that marijuana is a gateway drug. In fact, the legal substance of alcohol is the true gateway drug. Yes, people using hard drugs most likely used marijuana at one time or another but that doesn’t prove it is a gateway drug; it simply proves that certain people have an inclination toward addiction. By decriminalizing marijuana, we can redirect our resources to those who are truly addicted. But first we have to wean ourselves from the Reefer Madness mentality, from the canard, that this is a gateway drug.

` As Bob DeMaura, manager of nhinsider.com, emailed me earlier this week, “if you want to find hard drug users, follow the alcohol; if you want to find the marijuana users, follow the twinkies.”

“I can’t believe that it has taken this long to recognize the value in legalizing marijuana,” Mr. DeMaura writes.

Most members here, Madame Speaker, have received numerous well thought out arguments in support of this bill.

I should probably go through it line by line with you; all the regulations you would be concerned about are in there. Sadly, the Criminal Justice committee dealt with very few of these specifics; most members already had their minds made up and weren’t interested in specifics, but trust me, with the amendment in the calendar, this bill is very well crafted. To those who say that we should wait to see what happens in Colorado, I would note that was the same argument the committee heard last winter. Why don’t we wait till we find out what the feds do? We waited and we found out that the feds will not intervene in Colorado—as long as sale to minors is not allowed and other limitations are observed. That’s the way it is with this bill, and I ask you to look at the implementation date—it would not be until July, 2015 that we would have regulations in order to begin the process; so we are not dashing headlong into the unknown. We are proceeding cautiously with passage of this bill.

As I was thinking about this bill, I was reading the new Calvin Coolidge biography by Niall Palmer; he’s the gentleman who spent time here in New Hampshire writing about the importance of our first in the nation primary.

It was during the Coolidge presidency of course that our nation suffered through the failed policy of prohibition. Palmer reveals at one point that interdiction of alcohol coming into the country, with our 18,700 miles of border, was a hopeless task. Only four percent of smuggled goods were every seized. Bootlegging was providing one of the strongest growth industries in the nation by the middle of the decade, yielding $4 billion a year.

It took only a decade to realize that we could not ban alcohol; it has taken much longer, far too much longer for society to realize that we cannot ban marijuana, but that we can reasonably decriminalize, regulate and tax it.

To everything there is a season, Madame Speaker, and the season for this sane approach begins with us today.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's too bad these things have to be made "okay" and such, but it's definitely a step in the plus column for the good guys. Way to go up there.

Some day Keith, I'd like to get your brief thoughts on that roadblock legislation. I think it was from last year, where three legislators sponsored a bill to eliminate roadblocks. Probably did not go very far. There was legislation in Utah to eliminate roadblocks. It passed the house, but got little to no attention in the senate.

My sense is that senate chambers are even more status quo in general than house chambers. Maybe true for the NH weed issue.

Congratulations and party on at 4:20.

You do know there was a bill in NC in 2011 to eliminate roadblocks, right?

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h375

:D

[MichaelDavis]

Your statist governor said she will veto the Marijuana bill. The Free State Project is an utter failure.

[Occam's Banana]

Your statist governor said she will veto the Marijuana bill. The Free State Project is an utter failure.

Two plus two is equal to four. Extraterrestrials have visited Earth.

Okay, now you go again. Do another one.

[Keith and stuff]

It's too bad these things have to be made "okay" and such, but it's definitely a step in the plus column for the good guys. Way to go up there.
Thanks.


Some day Keith, I'd like to get your brief thoughts on that roadblock legislation. I think it was from last year, where three legislators sponsored a bill to eliminate roadblocks. Probably did not go very far. There was legislation in Utah to eliminate roadblocks. It passed the house, but got little to no attention in the senate.
This issue is so bad pretty much everywhere. The real freedom on this issue tends to be in states where state courts banned official DUI checkpoints, like in TX. But even in those states, there are voluntary federal checkpoints and if near a national border, official security check points. Even worse, every state allows unofficial checkpoints, I believe :(

I don't remember a 2011 or 2012 bill in NH but Awesome for UT and the NC guy mentioned a bill in NC. Legislators don't want to stand up to police or look weak on drunk driving... :(

I have a NH bill this year to force the police to tell the people the exact location of a checkpoint 1 week in advance. I doubt it will pass this year but I plan to keep finding sponsors for it until it passes, even if it takes over a decade like it did with the new jury nullification law. There was a proposed bill for this year (though news of it came out last year) to end DUI checkpoints but the sponsor withdrew it because he is so busy (he works over 40 hours a week at his day job).
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/Bill_status.aspx?lsr=2347&sy=2014&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2014&txtbillnumber=HB1435


My sense is that senate chambers are even more status quo in general than house chambers. Maybe true for the NH weed issue.
I agree completely. The Senate seems more influenced by lobbyists and unions. I notice this for sure in NH. They are also influenced more by the governor's opinion, at least in NH.


Congratulations and party on at 4:20.
I think I will be drinking a NH Governor Maggie Hassan beer from a local brewery in NH. Yes, I know, she is quite the hypocrite :toady:
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1506006_788846423325_365718022_n.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

///

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You do know there was a bill in NC in 2011 to eliminate roadblocks, right?

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h375

:D

Ah, that was YOU who sponsored this! Well, glad to hear it.

You know, I kicked myself for missing this because I keep track of these things and missed it in my own state. 2011 was a bad year. I was unemployed and really out of it.

Don't know how you feel, but I even go back and forth on interest in all of this. Sometimes it seems worth it and sometimes you want to have a stroke from rage. If you don't keep after it however, then someone is making decisions for you. Still--you have to be in their face because force is really the only thing they understand.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Thanks.


This issue is so bad pretty much everywhere. The real freedom on this issue tends to be in states where state courts banned official DUI checkpoints, like in TX. But even in those states, there are voluntary federal checkpoints and if near a national border, official security check points. Even worse, every state allows unofficial checkpoints, I believe :(

I don't remember a 2011 or 2012 bill in NH but Awesome for UT and the NC guy mentioned a bill in NC. Legislators don't want to stand up to police or look weak on drunk driving... :(

I have a NH bill this year to force the police to tell the people the exact location of a checkpoint 1 week in advance. I doubt it will pass this year but I plan to keep finding sponsors for it until it passes, even if it takes over a decade like it did with the new jury nullification law. There was a proposed bill for this year (though news of it came out last year) to end DUI checkpoints but the sponsor withdrew it because he is so busy (he works over 40 hours a week at his day job).
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/Bill_status.aspx?lsr=2347&sy=2014&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2014&txtbillnumber=HB1435


I agree completely. The Senate seems more influenced by lobbyists and unions. I notice this for sure in NH. They are also influenced more by the governor's opinion, at least in NH.


I think I will be drinking a NH Governor Maggie Hassan beer from a local brewery in NH. Yes, I know, she is quite the hypocrite :toady:
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1506006_788846423325_365718022_n.jpg


Glad to hear you're keeping after the bill for notification on roadblocks. Tennessee has this, but I think there was a case where a motorist contested a roadblock because it was not advertised at all. Of course, the cowardly just ruled against the driver.

I once found three articles where three different traffic roadblocks were done in Texas for safety and/or presenting license. It's really meaningless to say DWI roadblocks can't be done, but then perform other types of roadblocks. Those other roadblocks would--in essence--be for DWI too. They twist and pervert things so much. What is supposed to "legally" happen and what actually happens in the street are often very different.

The Utah bill would have left intact so-called emergency roadblocks. These are just as bad as any other type, and also don't work for anything.

You're a better man than I. I've been busy lately, but also get disgusted with this stuff. I don't know how people like you hang in there. The dog shootings pretty much tell me that working inside the system is a waste of time. There's no way somebody can kill your dog and that can stand. There is just no way. I can't even look at the Nebraska video. Force is the only thing these pieces of filth understand. Well, that's me. Anyway...

[Keith and stuff]

In his latest blog post, 2 time Ron Paul endorsing and sponsor of the bill, Republican Rep. of Manchester breaks down the results on the NH House vote on legalizing marijuana in NH.

Of note, Manchester, where both the head and Vice Chair of the GOP are Ron/Rand Paul supporting libertarian Republicans did awesome. The Reps for 4 to 1 in favor of legalizing marijuana. Sadly, only 45% of GOP Reps did state wide. Thankfully, Manchester is the most populated city in NH. It seems the bill vote was more urban vs. rural than GOP vs. Democratic.

A Look Inside The Marijuana Vote--Manchester Reps 4:1 For Legalization
Thursday, January 16, 2014 at 03:31PM
http://www.nhinsider.com/rep-steve-vaillancourt/2014/1/16/a-look-inside-the-marijuana-vote-manchester-reps-41-for-lega.html


On the 170-162 passage (51.2 percent), Democrats were 106-83 (56.1 percent) in favor. Republicans were 64-79 against (44.8 percent).

That’s actually bad news for both Republican leader Gene Chandler and Governor Maggie Hassan. After Chandler and his team worked to kill the bill, they lost nearly 45 percent of Republicans. After Hassan went so far as to threaten a veto, she lost 56 percent of House Democrats.

The margin should come as no surprise. As a Republican, I’m ashamed to say that, as with gay marriage, my party is behind the curve on this issue; all nationwide polls shows that, but we’re getting there.

If not for the Republican Liberty (HTA) caucus [He meant the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance which is neither partisan or House based, I believe], which supported the bill, and the conservative (but sane) House Republican Alliance, the split would have been even more lopsided.

Unlike the police scanning bill in which Democrat leaders stood against their members, Democrats were all over the map on marijuana. I can only assume that a few votes were influenced by the governor, but apparently not many.

The two counties most in favor of the bill are both heavily Democratic (Strafford 21-10 and Cheshire 13-6) but another highly Democratic county was the most against the bill (Grafton 8-15). Most against percentage wise were Sullivan and Carroll (both 4-9).

Manchester comes in with the most surprising numbers, 20 for the bill, only five against with seven absent. That’s a four to one margin on a bill which passed by on eight votes.

The only five Manchester Reps voting against the bill were Democrats Backus, Goley, Dan Sullivan, and Ramsey and Republican Souza.

Chandler and three other members of his leadership team (Renzullo, Packard, and Sanborn) actually missed the vote. Go figure. Only Hess and Jasper were there to vote against the bill.

Two of the three HRA leaders, Al Baldassaro and Carol McGuire were for the bill while Pam Tucker was against it.

With such close margins, every vote obviously counted so I was thrilled when Al Baldassaro told me that he had planned to vote against the bill until he heard my speech. That’s about the best compliment one can receive. Thanks, Al.

Former HRA leader and former Speaker Bill O’Brien voted for the bill.

It’s tough to tell how the vote would have gone had everyone been there. 35 Republicans and 27 Democrats were absent, and I usually find that on a close vote, absences tend to cancel each other out, but we’ll never know. Republican leaders for example could have been offset had more Manchester Reps been there. Who would have known that Manchester is such a hot bed for legalization!

I have sought out no media on this, but I have a policy of responding to specific media requests. I did an interview with CBS Radio as well as U.S. News, and Josh McElveen has asked me to stop by Channel 9 studios tomorrow for taping of this week’s Close-Up.

Here’s my line—some might call it spin but I’m so dedicated to truth telling that spin isn’t really a good word. In fact, I explained the U.S. News that I realize there is very little chance the governor will change her mind, but then, there is very little chance it’ll get out of the Senate. In fact, reporter McElveen tells me that I’ll be debating the one senator whom I thought would be most in favor of the bill, so-called libertarian Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford, who according to Josh, does not like the tax aspects of the bill. Give me a break Andy, marijuana receives parity with this bill; we tax cigarettes, so out of fairness we should tax legalized marijuana.

But I digress.

Here’s my line. Marijuana as it now stands in New Hampshire is like this year’s New England Patriots team. We’re moving the ball down the field with a ground game and will reach the end zone eventually, but it’ll take time.

U.S. News asked me when I thought such a bill would pass here.

I noted how John McLaughlin recently opined that marijuana would be legal in all 50 states in 10 years (I’m not that optimistic nationwide). With continued and increasing public support, I think we’ll get there in five years or so. The day will come when people like Maggie Hassan stop espousing Reefer Madness attitudes; that day will be when they realize such outmoded opinions hurts rather than help them at the ballot box.

It may be sooner than we think, but I’ll go with five years.

U.S. News also apparently has picked up on how gay marriage passed with John Lynch signing it only after threating to veto it until the very last moment. No, I don’t think Maggie Hassan has the flexibility of John Lynch to see reality and change her mind although word in the State House today is that her office is being inundated with calls.

Here’s another parallel to gay marriage. Like the marijuana bill, that bill actually failed on the first vote in the House (by a one voted margin as I recall); it only passed after reconsideration. That bill also received an inexpedient to legislate motion from the Democratic Senate, but passed on the floor when Democrats pressured a couple of senators—Deb Reynolds from the Plymouth-Meredith area as I recall.

As usual if you find my memory flawed, you’re welcome to log in and correct the record here. If you simply want to level an ad hominem attack, do it on your own dime.

Speaking of dimes, did anybody realize that in this office shared by all Representatives, the phone doesn’t allow one to dial of state. To respond to CBS, I had to go up to Majority leader Steve Shurtleff’s office; when I tried that again to call U.S. News today, I received the evil eye from various people walking by.

Hey, Madame Speaker, perhaps it’s time to start treating all Reps (even back benchers like e) alike and provide access to an outside line. Or should that be limited to Team Chandler and Team Shurtleff?

In reviewing various media reports on the story, I’d have to give the award for best coverage….the envelope please…oh, it’s a repeat winner. Kevin Landrigan of the Nashua Telegraph wins again. Good job Kevin.

The strangest reporting—I’m not sure where I saw it but someone confused my use of the word “exorcise” with exercise. Was it a typo or had this reporter not heard of William Peter Blatty and Linda Blair? ("The Exorcist" is one of my favorite movies of all time? Friends of mine used to attempt to outdo each other in yelling the words Reagan shouted--yes even the dirty ones--like you know what your mother does in hell; that might make a good trivia question for next week). But truly...I digress.

[Keith and stuff]

Interesting incite into how folks in the NH House voted on HB 492. Normally, I don't share whole articles because I encourage people to go to the source. But this time, I decided to post the whole article. If that is a problem, any mod is welcome to do whatever they want...

January 18. 2014 11:27PM
Lawmakers' votes on legalizing pot unpredictable, personal
By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140119/NEWS06/140119279


Last week's historic vote by the New Hampshire House to legalize marijuana didn't fall into easy categories of party, geography or generation.

Some liberal Democrats voted against the measure, while conservative Republicans voted for it. Some of the youngest lawmakers voted "nay" while senior citizens said "yea."

Wednesday's 170-162 vote (click here for the roll call) was the first time any legislative chamber in the country has voted to legalize "personal use" of marijuana by adults 21 and older and establish a legal market for selling it, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, which supports such laws.

Colorado and Washington both legalized marijuana for recreational use through ballot initiatives.

House Bill 492 now goes to the House Ways and Means Committee, where it faces tough scrutiny before coming back for a final vote in the full House. And even supporters say the measure appears unlikely to get past the Senate or Gov. Maggie Hassan's promised veto.

Still, the reasons many House members gave for their votes last week seem to illustrate an evolving public policy debate.

Larry Gagne, R-Manchester, a retired U.S. Postal Service employee, started his career as a Manchester beat cop in the early 1970s. Back then, he said, possession of even a single marijuana seed was deemed manufacturing and subject to felony charges.

Gagne, a 69-year-old Navy veteran of the Vietnam War and lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of New Hampshire, said he always voted against relaxing marijuana laws in the past.

But this time, he said, "I did my own research." He studied what happened during Prohibition. "What it did was it made evil people rich."

Likewise, he said, "we've made billionaires out of cartels right now."

Gagne voted for HB 492.

He knows most in the law enforcement community oppose it. But he said, "I would like to take the bad guy out of the equation.

"If New Hampshire can have liquor stores by the side of the highways selling liquor to ... adults, then I see no problem with them regulating marijuana sales just as they do liquor sales and tobacco sales."


Tara Sad, 60, a Democrat from Walpole, said she has "always" voted to decriminalize (reduce current penalties) or legalize marijuana. But she voted against HB 492.


The problem was how the bill was drafted, she said, making the Department of Revenue Administration - not Health and Human Services or even Agriculture - responsible for regulating the drug. "What do they know about doing something like that?" she said.

"I was sick not to be able to vote for it, but I just couldn't ... vote for a bill that bad."

Sad also said she would rather wait a year and see what happens in Colorado. "It's going to be a good testing ground, and why should we reinvent the wheel that's already turning?"

Priscilla Lockwood, R-Canterbury, a 77-year-old retired high school teacher, voted for the bill.

"We're putting all these people in jail that we don't need to, so that was one issue," she said. "The other is that it's been around a long time and I haven't seen a lot of terrible harm from it."

She also considered the history of alcohol sales, from Prohibition to taxation. "All those things altogether seemed to make some sense to me. I'm a math teacher and I think logically."

Donna Schlachman, D-Exeter, who said she worked "tirelessly" to pass the medical marijuana law last year, voted no. "I feel very strongly that we need to let that law go into effect and see how we're doing," she said.

Schlachman, 64, a retired occupational therapist, worries that full legalization could hurt the new medical marijuana program if there were ill effects. "That would be my concern, that we'd have a knee-jerk reaction in the other direction and say we don't want to let any of it be legal," she said.

"My vote was really based on my deep concern that we have it available to patients and doctors," she said. "And beyond that, I think it's too soon. We need to see what happens in other states."

Carol McGuire, R-Epsom, is an MIT graduate who lists her occupation as "capitalist" in a directory of elected officials. She voted for the marijuana bill.

"I believe the drug war has failed, and therefore, I'm in favor of deregulating many of our drugs," she said.

McGuire, 60, said the House Republican Alliance took no position on HB 492 because members did not agree. And when it came to the vote, she said, "on one side you had the law-and-order Republicans and the nanny-state Democrats, and on the other side you had the libertarian Republicans and the social freedom Democrats.''

"And a few people who you weren't quite sure which group they fell in, they voted whichever way they felt like."

Charles Weed, D-Keene, a 70-year-old retired college professor who has previously sponsored decriminalization bills, voted "nay" in the final roll call on House Bill 492. But he said his opposition was to the process, not necessarily the proposal.

Weed voted against killing the bill the first time it came up for a vote Wednesday and then voted to reconsider it. But when the House voted to adopt an amendment that few members had read, he said, "the discussion had moved somewhere between chaos and anarchy."

"It seemed what we were doing was chaotic and illogical and it defies my sense of the responsibility of government," he said. "So from that point forward, I voted against it."

Weed also talked with Susan Almy, D-Lebanon, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, and her misgivings about the measure's reliance on DRA to regulate marijuana sales were "pretty convincing," he said.

"I want to end prohibition. I want the state to get out of this crazy illegality business and incarceration approach," Weed said. "But I believe it is the obligation of government to do a much better job when it's starting to make major changes to the culture and society...."

Almy, 67, who voted against HB 492, said it would require new state regulations to supervise and license growers, retail stores and testing laboratories. "It says DRA is going to do it, which in itself is absurd," she said.

Almy, a retired socio-economist, said there's also the question of how the state would "tax something that cannot go through the banks or the credit card companies."

"I think if a committee sat down and worked on it for a year or so that it would not be impossible," she said. "But I worry that it would cost us quite a lot of money up front for the year or two it would take to get it going."

Frank Sapareto, R-Derry, voted for the bill. "Our Constitution says that a punishment must fit the crime, must be proportionate."

And he said when it comes to marijuana, "The penalty is what's creating the harm."

Sapareto revealed that his 17-year-old son recently was arrested "for selling a pot brownie at school." His son was expelled and, instead of graduation and college, now faces trial on a felony drug sale charge, he said.

"He's a good kid and they're going to ruin his life for this," he said. "I don't think the smoke, if he smoked his entire life, could hurt him as much as what they're doing to him."

He said he's heard similar "horror stories" from other families. "I'm ashamed to say that we are guilty of harming and ruining people's lives far beyond the effects of the drug," he said.

"This is why we've got to fix it."

Sapareto expects the Senate will kill the bill - this time. But he also predicts "it's going to be law in four years."

Suzanne Smith, D-Hebron, voted for decriminalization in the past and said she supports legalizing pot and taxing it "in theory." But she voted against HB 492.

"I would like to see something in the legislation that speaks to money toward drug and alcohol abuse," she said. "To counteract the possible social repercussions of what's going to happen when marijuana is decriminalized."

Smith, a homeopath and nutritionist, also thinks New Hampshire should wait to see how the new Colorado law - and its own medical marijuana law - works before taking this step.

"It's too easy in this state where we are always short of money to look for the magic bullet," she said. "Just as I vote against casinos because I'm not sure if the ... risks and the benefits balance out, I don't think we're ready yet."

[Keith and stuff]

The 3rd or 4th most read New Hampshire newspaper editorialized in favor of legalize marijuana. I'm pretty surprised by this because this is an establishment Republican newspaper. Out of respect for the editorial, I'm only posting half of it here. Click on the link to read the rest.

Legalizing pot: The time draws near
Sunday, February 9, 2014
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20140209%2FGJOPINION_01%2F140209281 %2F-1%2FFOSNEWS


This past week The Associated Press reported that former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy was in New Hampshire to lobby against a bill which would legalize the recreation use of marijuana.

To quote the AP: Kennedy and his group — Smart Approaches to Marijuana — say legalizing marijuana would create another class of addicts and likened it to tobacco and alcohol addictions.

Interestingly, Kennedy is making one of the many arguments which we believe will — and should — lead to the legalization of marijuana here in New Hampshire and elsewhere — beyond simply the states of Washington and Colorado.

It took decades for our nation to understand that alcoholism was a disease and an addiction which needed to be drawn out of the shadows, confronted and treated. As a result, the road to recovery for many has been opened and much of the stigma erased.

Those who complete 12-step programs and other treatment regimens are now allowed some pride of accomplishment.

This acceptance and understanding of what addicts go through has been long needed by those suffering with drug addiction and those affected, including family members.

The argument that legalization will spawn higher numbers of addicts ignores those already addicted and living in the shadows.

But this is only one of the many reasons our nation's laws — on a state-by-state basis — are moving toward legalization.

When President Richard Nixon first declared his War on Drugs, federal agencies were quick to list marijuana as a Class A drug, along with heroin. This erroneous association fueled a witch hunt that needlessly ruined many a young life with felony convictions and jail time, while ignoring their cries for help.

Thankfully, we as a nation have come to understand that the War on Drugs overreached.

Today, the public consensus is to move forward, not bemoan past mistakes.

For some this is due to a recognition marijuana is more akin to alcohol. As such, those addicted should be helped not shunned or punished. And those who choose to use marijuana recreationally should be allowed to do so, as they are with a beer or martini.

Our nation has been able to wage a more effective war on smoking and alcohol by removing the stigma. And because both are sold and regulated, we have been better able to measure their use and our success in fighting abuse and addiction.

Of course there are many arguments to be made against legalization. We would argue that many of these are leftovers from the government's early Reefer Madness campaign and the myths it promoted.

In addition, much has happened since those days which have turned the opinions of even the most die-hard opponents. We urge readers to visit the website of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.com) and a poll at police.com which found 45 percent of responding police officers receptive to legalization.


https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1509106_666691373374112_1327639778_n.jpg

[Keith and stuff]

The college newspaper for by far the largest college in NH just released an article about how NH should legalize marijuana. Since this is a government paper, the full article is printed.

A Third Perspective: It’s time to legalize marijuana in New Hampshire
By Ethan Gauvin
TNH Columnist
Published: Friday, February 14, 2014
Updated: Friday, February 14, 2014 00:02
http://www.tnhonline.com/opinion/a-third-perspective-it-s-time-to-legalize-marijuana-in-new-hampshire


On Jan. 1, 2014, thousands of Coloradans eagerly lined up to make their first legal purchase of recreational marijuana. Amendment 64, a ballot measure that passed in 2012 with 55 percent of Colorado voters in favor, legalized the recreational use of marijuana and permits adults aged 21 years or older to purchase up to an ounce of it. The law also places the onus of regulating the manufacture, distribution and sale of marijuana on the state government. This unprecedented experiment in governmental regulation of weed is still in its infancy, but all signs are indicating that what’s good for pot enthusiasts is good for government—and more than likely good for society.

In the first week of the law’s implementation, Colorado marijuana dispensaries witnessed staggering sales. The 37 dispensaries that were able to meet the state’s requirements by Jan. 1 made a total of $1 million on the first day and roughly $5 million over the course of the week. Regulators have projected an eye-popping $600 million in marijuana sales for Colorado dispensaries in 2014, $70 million of which the state expects to receive in tax revenue.

A provision in the Colorado ballot measure ensures that the first $40 million collected in taxes will be spent directly on the state’s public education system while the remainder will be used regulate marijuana distribution, refocus drug enforcement efforts and revitalize flagging drug awareness programs.

That millions of dollars are now being poured (legally) into Colorado’s economy and public schools is well known, but where this money is no longer going deserves greater attention. Illicit drug dealers, suppliers and gangs within and outside of Colorado will see their sales plummet by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2014.

Selling weed is the lifeblood of the vast majority of gangs in America; Colorado’s decision to cut off illegitimate cash flows will have a beneficial social impact across the country. Gangs will have less money to spend on weapons and, more poignantly, less to offer potential recruits: teenagers at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder who join on the promise of making easy cash.

Consequently, authorities will no longer need to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate as many gang members as they do today, which will save precious resources and preserve a felony-free future for countless young Americans. Extrapolating even further, fewer funds will reach the insidious cartels in Central and South America, and this will eventually cripple their ability to wage violent wars over supply routes to the U.S. and sap their motivation for doing so.

Colorado is to be the first of many states (Washington is next) that will soon enjoy the profound economic and social benefits that come with legal marijuana. New Hampshire has taken note; the House of Representatives passed a marijuana legalization bill in January that was modeled on the Colorado legislation. However, the bill is unlikely to make it through the state senate and, if by some miracle it passes, Governor Maggie Hassan has publicly expressed her intention to veto the law.

This raises the question: why? Weed is no more stigmatized in New Hampshire than in Colorado or Washington (in fact some studies have indicated that New Hampshire has greater per capita use of marijuana than Colorado), and New Hampshire could certainly benefit from additional tax revenue.

Opponents of marijuana legalization have long argued that the drug (dare I say plant) creates a dependency in the user, and that pot is the proverbial “gateway drug.” This argument, more appropriately titled a myth, has never been grounded in science and is simply not tenable. Proponents of this belief point to the fact that marijuana users are statistically more likely to have tried cocaine than non-marijuana users, but this is entirely misleading. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has publicly stated: “Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. … There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.”

Governor Hassan should evaluate the science, or lack thereof, behind the claims of marijuana prohibitionists. If any semblance of a gateway effect exists, it arises out of marijuana’s illegality, which forces casual smokers to purchase from dealers that in many cases have access to harder drugs. To place marijuana in the same realm as cocaine, heroine and methamphetamine is ridiculous; it’s time to end this myopic strategy. New Hampshire has every reason—economic, social and otherwise—to join Colorado and embrace the growing national trend. Just as with alcohol, we will look back with head-scratching bemusement and wonder why governments outlawed marijuana in the first place.