Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2
ee oy TESTIMONY OF SANCTUARY ATC IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 364 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Michael McLaughlin I am an attomey and lobbyist and are appearing today on behalf of Sanctuary ATC in opposition to House Bill 364. First it is important to note that Sanctuary feels deeply for the citizens of New Hampshire who are suffering from conditions that allow them to access therapeutic cannabis. Our opposition to the bill is because we feel that if the bill passes it will undermine Sanctuary’s, and the other ATC’s, in their ability to provide services to New Hampshire citizens. In 2013 the legislature enacted the therapeutic cannabis law and solicited candidates for licensing in each of the four geographic territories designated in the legislation. In order to be licensed applicants were subjected to rigorous scrutiny and were required to have the financial wherewithal and ability to safely cultivate cannabis and to open and maintain a safe and secure distribution location. In addition, the product produced is required to be tested for quality and ability to provide the relief sought by patients. Sanctuary ATC was granted its initial license in May 2015. It was granted a license to cultivate therapeutic cannabis in January 2016 and a dispensary license in April of 2016, less than three (3) years ago. The financial implications of this undertaking are enormous. It has cost over a million dollars to accomplish the requirements imposed on a safe and effective cultivation facility and a therapeutic cannabis clinic. The state asked for financial commitments based on the structure set forth in the new law. Commitments were made based on the law. Changing the requirements of the law will have a negative impact on clinics as well as patients. House Bill 364 will radically change the economic reality of therapeutic cannabis in New Hampshire. Allowing qualifying patients to cultivate cannabis for their ‘own use (as well as give it away) and for designated care givers to cultivate cannabis (as well as giving it away) for one (1) designated patient undermines the compact the state and the ATC licensees entered into. Expanding the legality of cultivating cannabis to include qualifying patients and caregivers will make lowering the current prices of therapeutic cannabis very difficult. Having an increased, and largely unregulated supply, of cannabis competing with the highly regulated and tested cannabis provided by the licensed ATC’s will result in those patients who are not capable of cultivating therapeutic cannabis paying higher prices. The state decided to allow its citizens access to therapeutic cannabis under a highly regulated system, house bill 364 is inconsistent with the state’s goal in enacting RSA 126-X. Those in support of House Bill 364 may testify that this is a way to reduce the price of therapeutic cannabis and provide qualifying patients with a reliable source of therapeutic cannabis. The bill allows, but does not require, a qualifying patient or designated caregiver to have their product tested at a local laboratory. Itis unlikely many patients or designated care givers will be able to bear the expense of testing. Allowing the cultivation of cannabis by qualifying patients and designated caregivers undermines the reason the law was passed in the first instance. The law was passed based on the facts that certain strains of therapeutic cannabis help patients with particular conditions. “Home grown” cannabis that is untested cannot make the same claim. ‘The state chose to put a well regulated and financially secure therapeutic cannabis program in place. House Bill 364, if passed, will result in a system that relies on self-reporting and the good intentions of its participants, the opposite of what RSA 126-X has created.