Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

whydidilose t1_j6hqam8 wrote

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

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