New Hampshire
New Hampshire Marijuana Legalization Bill Headed To Conference Committee After House Rejects Senate Amendments
House lawmakers in New Hampshire have rejected Senate changes to a marijuana legalization bill, setting the stage for a conference committee to hammer out differences between versions of the legislation passed by either chamber. Many stakeholders think the development could spell the end for the proposal, however, because even a single member of the conference committee could block the path to final passage.
The House on Thursday voted 196–173 to send the legislation to a conference committee following an earlier vote to reject sweeping Senate-made changes to the bill.
Several representatives who back legalization urged colleagues not to sign off on the new Senate provisions just to get the broad reform enacted.
“Instead of rushing to pass a bill that we all know is flawed, let’s reject this amendment and insist on making better policies for our constituents,” Rep. Heath Howard (D) said before the House floor vote. “We will only get one chance to create a well regulated market for adult-use cannabis, and it’s important we get it right.”
“I know the vast majority of my constituents want legalized cannabis,” added Republican Kevin Verville (R). “They want it in New Hampshire and they want it sooner than later. But this is not the right approach for us.”
The House last month passed an earlier version of the bill, HB 1633, which the Senate later made sweeping changes to via major amendments from Sen. Daryl Abbas (R) and Senate President Jeb Bradley (R), among others. Bradley, who himself opposes legalization, repeatedly said that if the legislation had the votes to pass, he intended to tailor it more to his and the governor’s liking.
Some House lawmakers urged colleagues to grit their teeth and sign off on the Senate version of the bill, warning that supporters of legalization are missing an opportunity to skip a conference committee and send the proposal immediately to Gov. Chris Sununu (R).
Rep. Andrew Prout (R), for example, said he was confident the system that would be created by the Senate-amended legislation “will either work, and be better than driving to any of our neighbors” or that “there will be the political will to fix it in a future term.”
All of the states bordering New Hampshire have already legalized marijuana.
Sununu has indicated he’d support the bill with the Senate changes but would oppose the measure as passed by the House. He said this week that if the House passed the bill with the Senate’s changes, he’d sign it.
“I think the Senate version is OK,” Sununu told NH Journal. “They put some other stuff in there that I wasn’t necessarily looking for, but they’re not deal breakers.”
But if House lawmakers “want to make significant changes,” the governor added, “then it’s not going to pass. It’s that easy.”
One factor worrying some advocates is that the Republican candidates likely to replace Sununu when his gubernatorial term expires early next year have signaled that they’d oppose the reform. That means a failure to legalize marijuana this session could delay the policy change indefinitely.
Because the House and Senate have now passed different versions of the legislation, it next proceeds to a conference committee consisting of lawmakers from both chambers.
While finding compromise is panel’s the ostensible goal, reform advocates expect the bicameral committee will be set up to kill the bill, at least on the Senate side. Bradley, the Senate president, will not only pick the members of the committee from that chamber, but he also indicated this week that he might appoint himself to the panel.
Abbas told Marijuana Moment earlier this week that he’s “not optimistic” the bill “would survive a committee of conference.”
— Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,500 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.
—
Sununu, for his part, has said that while he personally opposes legalization, he believes the policy change is “inevitable.”
Polls indicate that upward of 70 percent of New Hampshire voters support legalizing and regulating marijuana.
While HB 1633 was initially introduced by Rep. Erica Layon (R), the Senate changes shifted its core regulatory approach to one discussed late last year by a state commission on legalization chaired by Abbas. Though that body ultimately failed at its charge of crafting legislation to enact the reform, Abbas and others in the Senate incorporated a number of provisions that were raised during discussions last year.
Layon previously said she would speak out on the floor against the Senate changes, but she did not participate at all in Thursday’s debate. The lawmaker did not respond to Marijuana Moment’s multiple requests for comment this week.
If the committee does undertake its work in earnest, its job will be to reconcile two complex bills that differ significantly on regulatory structure, criminal justice, licensing, personal possession and THC limits, tax rates, medical marijuana and sundry other issues.
As passed by the Senate, the bill would allow 15 franchise stores to open statewide. Purchases would incur a 15 percent “franchise fee”—effectively a tax—that would apply to both adult-use and medical marijuana purchases. Though stores would be privately run, the government would control their look, feel and operations. The Liquor Commission would have the authority, for example, to set final prices on cannabis products.
Marijuana possession wouldn’t become legal until 2026, once the state’s licensed market is up and running.
The proposal would limit each municipality to only a single cannabis retail establishment unless it’s home to more than 50,000 people, though only two cities in the state, Manchester and Nashua, meet that threshold. Local voters would also need to pre-approve the industry in order for businesses to open in that jurisdiction.
Adults could possess up to two ounces of marijuana under the Senate plan. Home cultivation of cannabis for personal use would remain illegal, and the state’s Cannabis Control Commission would have the authority to enforce that provision.
Smoking or vaping marijuana in public would be a violation on the first offense and an misdemeanor for second or subsequent offenses within five years, a charge that could carry jail time. Consuming cannabis in other forms in public—for example, drinking an THC-infused beverage—would carry no punishment, unlike open container rules around alcohol.
The bill would also outlaw consumption of cannabis by any means, including edibles, by any driver or passenger of a vehicle being driven in any way. That would also be an unclassified misdemeanor with the potential for jail time.
The version of the bill passed by the House in April, by contrast, would legalize through a so-called “agency store” model proposed by Layon, in which the state would oversee a system of privately run stores, with strict limits on marketing and advertising. That version also includes a higher personal possession limit of four ounces and a lower, 12 percent fee on purchases. Further, medical marijuana would be been exempt from the state surcharge, and personal possession would become legal immediately.
The House bill, like the Senate version, would not allow home cultivation of cannabis.
The Senate changes led supporters of the reform to disagree on how the House should proceed. Advocates with the state ACLU chapter and the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), who poured hours into lobbying lawmakers on the bill, said the revised proposal represented an imperfect but nevertheless important reform in New Hampshire, urging House lawmakers to accept the Senate changes and move the legislation along.
Other advocates, however, including the New Hampshire Cannabis Association (NHCann) and the bill’s lead sponsor, Layon, argued the House shouldn’t sign off on the amendments, even if that meant derailing the bill.
New Hampshire lawmakers worked extensively on marijuana reform issues last session and attempted to reach a compromise to enact legalization through a multi-tiered system that would include state-controlled shops, dual licensing for existing medical cannabis dispensaries and businesses privately licensed to individuals by state agencies. The legislature ultimately hit an impasse on the complex legislation.
Bicameral lawmakers also convened the state commission tasked with studying legalization and proposing a path forward last year, though the group ultimately failed to arrive at a consensus or propose final legislation.
The Senate defeated a more conventional House-passed legalization bill last year, HB 639, despite bipartisan support.
Last May, the House defeated marijuana legalization language that was included in a Medicaid expansion bill. The Senate also moved to table another piece of legislation that month that would have allowed patients and designated caregivers to cultivate up to three mature plants, three immature plants and 12 seedlings for personal therapeutic use.
After the Senate rejected the reform bills in 2022, the House included legalization language as an amendment to separate criminal justice-related legislation—but that was also struck down in the opposite chamber.
Lawmakers Push To Let VA Doctors Recommend Medical Marijuana And End THC Testing For Federal Job Applicants
Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.
Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Despite strong support from Gov. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire lawmakers rejected a bill that would have required private insurers to cover a state-run mental health program for children.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to send Senate Bill 498 to interim study, delaying action on legislation that would have required private insurers to help fund the state’s Families and Systems Together (FAST) Forward program.
It’s a wraparound care model that provides personalized services such as peer support, crisis planning, and family-focused care for patients aged 5 to 21.
Ayotte, in a statement, said she is disappointed to see “elected representatives choose subsidizing insurance companies over kids’ mental health care.”
“I’m not giving up on this, and I’ll continue working to ensure our children — and their families — get the care and support they need,” she said.
The decision leaves the state and taxpayers on the hook to cover roughly $2 million annually for commercially insured children who rely on the program but do not qualify for Medicaid.
After the House voted down the bill, John Hunt, the chair of the House commerce committee, said Republicans agree with Ayotte that children’s mental health coverage is a serious issue, but said the bill is not the right solution and should not be addressed through a “hasty, last-second Hail Mary.”
“We look forward to studying this issue and devising a sensible and measured approach that satisfies all parties and prioritizes patient care and quality,” he wrote in a statement. “I warmly invite Governor Ayotte to join us this fall as we work on the issue. Together, Republicans, Democrats and the corner office have the opportunity to come together and deliver a reasonable solution for the people of New Hampshire.”
The bill was sent to an interim study in a 188-164 vote.
Insurers push back
The FAST Forward program coordinates services tailored to each child’s needs, helping families access mental health care, crisis support, care coordination, and other resources aimed at improving long-term outcomes.
The program’s effectiveness comes from its wraparound approach, which bundles services together.
But private insurers typically cover only some services rather than the full scope of services provided.
Ayotte has directed much of her criticism at Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which insures the largest share of children enrolled in the FAST Forward program.
Jim Turner, a spokesperson for the insurance company, called Ayotte’s criticisms of the insurance industry on this issue “inaccurate and misleading.”
“Over the past two years, Anthem has taken significant steps to increase access to mental healthcare for children and adults and to reduce barriers to that access – including being the first insurer to eliminate copayments and other forms of cost share for all children and teens for these services,” he wrote in a statement.
For families who do not qualify for a Medicaid waiver, the state spends roughly $2 million annually in taxpayer dollars to cover the program for commercially-insured children.
While opponents of the bill characterized it as a tax on insurance companies, state Rep. Julie Miles pushed back on that framing.
She said the bill is about affordability, healthcare access, and holding large insurance companies responsible for the coverage paid for by their customers.
“If insurance companies collect the premiums, they should help provide the care,” she said.
State’s burden
In recent weeks, there have been negotiations between the insurance companies, particularly Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, to address the issue, but no solution has been reached.
“Despite the recent unwarranted attacks, we will continue working in good faith with the state and care providers on this issue.
Mental health advocates view the FAST Forward program as a way to prevent children from deteriorating to the point of requiring costly inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.
Recent data from the state Department of Health and Human Services show that, over a 12-month period, New Hampshire’s general fund paid for wraparound services for about 89 commercially insured children, with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield covering the largest share of children enrolled in the FAST Forward program at 25.
Morissa Henn, deputy commissioner at DHHS, said New Hampshire has spent five years studying the issue and that taxpayers need not continue covering services that should be paid for by private insurers.
“The need is urgent and the status quo is not sustainable,” she said. “Families with commercial insurance coverage cannot keep waiting, and taxpayers cannot continue absorbing the cost of clinically necessary services for our children that should be covered by private insurance.”
While the annual cost for a child in FAST Forward ranges from roughly $45,000 to $65,000, an inpatient psychiatric stay, such as at Hampstead Hospital, can cost about $1,500 per night.
Hunt said on the House floor that, although the program is effective, some of its services extend beyond traditional mental health care, including respite care for caregivers and assigning a case worker.
Hunt said he believes the program would be more appropriately funded through Medicaid.
“Personally, I think the FAST Forward program should be funded by Medicaid,” he said. “If it’s good enough for kids who are on Medicaid, it should be good enough for kids who have health insurance.”
New Hampshire
5 Arrested On Charges Or Warrants At New Concord Coalition To End Homelessness Apartment Building
Around 12:45 a.m. on Thursday, members of the Concord Police Department, while being assisted by U.S. Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, raided the building at 6 S. South State St. Two search warrants were executed during the raid after a tip pertaining to drug sales in the city was made to the Concord Regional Crimeline.
After about 15 minutes, several people were in custody.
“We’re still working on the upstairs apartment, clearing that,” an officer said. “Downstairs has been cleared.”
Two others were then arrested, and the police cleared the scene.
During the incident, which lasted around 20 minutes, five people were detained: Denise Davenport, 57, of Concord, on an electronic bench warrant as well as two felony counts of acts prohibited-sale of controlled drugs; Michael Davis, 54, of Concord, on a warrant out of Merrimack County Superior Court; Crystal Marquis, 46, of Concord, on a resisting arrest or detention charge; Brittany Price, 29, of Concord, on a Merrimack County Sheriff’s Department warrant on a theft by unauthorized taking charge as well as warrants from the Hooksett police, Brentwood District Court, and two Franklin District Court warrants; and Wilkie Gabriel Reyes Reynoso, 27, of Nashua, on three felony counts of acts prohibited-possession of controlled drugs.
Davenport, Davis, Price, and Reynoso were taken to the county jail and expected to be arraigned in Concord District Court later that day. Marquis was released on a summons and is due in Concord District Court on June 15 for arraignment.
Police did not comment on what was found in the apartments.
Editor’s note: This post was derived from information supplied by the Concord Police Department and does not indicate a conviction. This link explains how to request the removal of a name from New Hampshire Patch police reports.
Davenport, according to reports on Patch, has been arrested several times, on driving charges, deal-possess prescription drugs, warrants,
Price has been arrested several times in New Hampshire on drug, theft, assault, domestic violence, criminal mischief, receiving stolen property, and other charges.
In 2019, she was charged with acts prohibited in Webster, felony theft in Epping, two felony counts of acts prohibited in Concord, and felony theft and penalty for offense committed while on bail in Concord. The Epping theft charge was nolle prossed in November 2019. The Concord acts prohibited charges were dismissed without prejudice. Price pleaded guilty to the Webster drug charge in November 2019 and received a 12-month jail sentence and a $434 fine, both suspended for three years. Price also pleaded guilty to the Concord theft charge and received a two-to-four-year prison sentence, with a mandatory minimum of two years, all suspended for five years.
Price was charged with habitual offender and felony theft in Epsom in March 2025. That case is still active. A warrant was issued for her arrest in November 2025 due to failing to appear at an arraignment. She has a dispositional conference hearing booked for July 2.
Marquis has also been arrested several times, including assault, domestic violence, receiving stolen property, criminal mischief, and heroin possession charges, and camping restriction, and generic city ordinance violations. In July 2004, according to a superior court docket, she was convicted of receiving stolen property out of Ashland.
The past criminal history of Davis and Reynoso was not readily available at the time of publication.
The building, according to previous press reports on Patch and other outlets, cost about $1.4 million to convert into apartments, with local, state, and federal taxpayer funds and block grants funding the creation of eight apartment units.
Anyone who has information relative to this incident or any other incident and wishes to remain anonymous is asked to call the Concord Regional Crimeline at 603-226-3100, or submit information online through the Crimeline website at: concordregionalcrimeline.com, or text message TIP234 and your message to CRIMES (274637). Crimeline awards cash to anyone whose information leads to the arrest and indictment of criminals. All tips remain anonymous.
Do you have a news tip? Email it to tony.schinella@patch.com. View videos on Tony Schinella’s YouTube or Rumble channels. Patch in New Hampshire is now in 217 communities — and expanding every day. Also, follow Patch on Google Discover.
New Hampshire
EPA, environmental advocates face off over PFAS in Manchester’s wastewater treatment plant
Lawyers for the Conservation Law Foundation argued before a federal environmental appeals board Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency had not done its due diligence when creating a new permit for Manchester’s wastewater treatment facility.
Thursday’s oral arguments were the culmination of a months-long battle between environmental advocates, federal regulators, and city officials over what, if anything, should be done to protect the Merrimack River and people who live nearby from harmful chemicals coming out of the plant.
PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” are widely present in the environment and in the waste stream. Wastewater treatment processes don’t add PFAS to water, but they collect and transform those chemicals, putting them back out into the environment. A 2019 study found PFAS concentrations above federal drinking water standards being discharged from Manchester’s wastewater plant, and other studies found PFAS chemicals in fish from the Merrimack river.
The permit approved by the EPA requires the city of Manchester to monitor for PFAS chemicals in the wastewater entering their treatment plant, but it doesn’t put a limit on the levels of PFAS that can be in the water leaving the plant.
Lawyers with the Conservation Law Foundation argue the Environmental Protection Agency did not fulfill their duty to analyze whether the PFAS chemicals coming out of Manchester’s wastewater treatment plant could potentially harm the Merrimack River.
Jillian Aicher, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, said that kind of analysis would be the first step to creating requirements to reduce the discharge of those chemicals.
“This appeal has very important implications for community members in Manchester, who are exposed to uncontrolled PFAS coming from their wastewater treatment plant with no reduction measures. And importantly here, no consideration by EPA of reduction measures,” she said.
Lawyers for the EPA argued the agency did consider the potential of effluent from the treatment facility to harm water quality. Federal regulators reviewed and agreed with an analysis done by New Hampshire state officials, they said.
In 2021, the EPA adopted a PFAS roadmap that includes restricting how much PFAS industrial facilities can discharge, and using the permitting process for wastewater facilities to reduce those chemicals in waterways.
Across the country, states have begun working to research and regulate PFAS in the waste stream. But the PFAS analysis that the Conservation Law Foundation is asking regulators to conduct for the Manchester plant is not common, said Tom Irwin, a vice president at the foundation.
He said Manchester would be an important place to start. The wastewater treatment facility, which is near some residential areas, burns its sewage sludge.
“People are being exposed to PFAS in the air, PFAS are being discharged into the water,” he said. “If the regulators take this on the way they should, this will provide a pathway for others.”
Environmental justice
The Conservation Law Foundation also argued the EPA abandoned environmental justice considerations during the permitting process without a thorough explanation.
Irwin told the Environmental Appeals Board that the agency’s reliance on executive orders that revoked Biden-era environmental justice policy was not enough, and that the policy change required more explanation.
“There is a growing body of case law that reaffirms that agencies can’t just change policy without analyzing why they’re doing so,” Irwin said in an interview with NHPR. “There’s no document from the Trump administration explaining why suddenly we don’t have to take into consideration communities that are overburdened by pollution and other health impacts.”
Lawyers for the EPA said the agency is allowed to use their discretion on environmental justice issues, and argued they did provide reasons for not considering environmental justice while they were drafting the permit.
Adam Dunville, a lawyer for the city of Manchester, also participated in the oral arguments in support of the EPA’s position. Officials with the city’s wastewater treatment plant staff did not respond to requests for comment.
-
Lifestyle4 minutes agoBulgarian banger ‘Bangaranga’ bags country its 1st Eurovision win
-
Technology16 minutes agoSony tries to explain that its AI Camera Assistant doesn’t suck
-
World22 minutes agoWHO declares Ebola outbreak in Central Africa a public health emergency after 80 suspected deaths
-
Politics28 minutes agoTrump celebrates after UN climate committee moves away from its most extreme global warming scenario
-
Health34 minutes agoAncient Chinese movement shows promise for reducing blood pressure at home, study says
-
Sports40 minutes agoNapoleon Solo wins 151st Preakness Stakes
-
Technology46 minutes agoLicense plate cameras at Home Depot and Lowe’s spark privacy fears
-
Business52 minutes ago
Commentary: Trump’s ‘weird war’ on wind power will jeopardize our energy future and cost Americans billions
