Senate Judiciary Committee
Pete Mulvey 271-4063
HB 51, relative to hemp-derived cannabinoids and the definition of cannabis in therapeutic cannabis.
Hearing Date: March 25, 2025
Time Opened: 1:05 p.m. Time Closed: 1:40 p.m.
Members of the Committee Present: Senators Gannon, Abbas, Altschiller and Reardon
Members of the Committee Absent : Senator Carson
Bill Analysis: This bill:
I. Eliminates "seeds" from the definition of "cannabis" concerning therapeutic cannabis.
II. Permits alternative treatment centers to purchase non-intoxicating hemp cannabinoids for use in products.
Sponsors:
Rep. W. Thomas | Rep. Vail | Rep. H. Howard |
________________________________________________________________________________
Who supports the bill: 29 individuals signed in support of HB 51. Contact Pete Mulvey (peter.mulvey@gc.nh.gov) for further details.
Who opposes the bill: 6 individuals signed in opposition to HB ##. Contact Pete Mulvey (peter.mulvey@gc.nh.gov) for further details.
Who is neutral on the bill: N/A
Summary of testimony:
HB 51
Representative Wendy Thomas
Hillsborough – District 12
- HB 51 enables Alternative Treatment Centers (ATCs) to buy non-intoxicating cannabinoids from federally certified providers for use in New Hampshire.
- HB 51 would not apply to hemp derived THC, but rather CBD and other non-intoxicating cannabinoids.
- Hemp is federally legal, and there were many federally legal hemp providers.
- HB 51 would enable ATCs to produce their products at a lower cost, in-state, with greater ease.
- Many patients sought products which were higher in CBD and other non-intoxicating cannabinoids to treat their ailments.
- HB 51 ensured accessibility to treatment and the ability to regulate other hemp derived compounds, allowing ATCs to incorporate a wider variety of products, which importantly provided relief without any psychoactive effects.
- HB 51 also ensured that any cannabinoids or concentrates which were infused products be subject to testing, which would benefit consistency and safety.
- Sen. Altschiller asked if the products in question were already regulated.
- Rep. Thomas said that was correct.
- Sen. Altschiller asked if the products were defined in RSA 346 for strictly therapeutic purposes.
- Rep. Thomas said that was correct and emphasized that the cannabinoids would be exclusive to the ATCs.
Pat Sullivan
New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police
- The New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police held concerns regarding the transportation of cannabinoids across state lines.
- The Association believed HB 51 was an implicit effort to expand legalization.
- Sen. Gannon asked how there could be a legal question when the product was already federally legal
- Mr. Sullivan pointed out language referencing the manufacture of concentrates as dubious.
Jerry Knirk, M.D
Chair - Therapeutic Medical Cannabis Oversight Board
- HB 51 passed the House Health and Human Services Committee unanimously.
- Cannabis encompassed over 70 Cannabinoids. THC was the intoxicating compound. CBD was not intoxicating and held therapeutic properties.
- Treatment was the goal of therapeutic cannabis, not intoxication.
- The 2018 federal farm bill legalized hemp, and cannabis with a THC concentration below 0.3%.
- ATCs would be allowed to purchase and use CBD obtained from commercially produced hemp, which would ultimately lower costs for patients.
- The only cannabis which crossed state lines was industrial grade hemp legalized by the farm bill.
- Anything produced from the industrial hemp would be sold exclusively in New Hampshire, would not cross state lines, and would not be federally illegal.
- Mr. Knirk asked the committee to vote OTP on the bill.
- Sen. Altschiller asked Mr. Knirk to reiterate the compliance of transportation.
- Mr. Knirk said industrial hemp was legal and could cross state lines. While the hemp contributed to an infused product, that was end stage and would remain in New Hampshire.
- Sen. Reardon asked why permission was needed to import something federally legal.
- Mr. Knirk clarified that current law stated that all elements must be produced in state.
Matt Simon
GraniteLeaf Cannabis
- GraniteLeaf Cannabis operated dispensaries in Chichester and Merrimack as an ATC.
- ATCs typically sold CBD products or CBD ratio products.
- The demand for CBD products has grown following the suggestions of consumers and medical providers.
- It is difficult to produce CBD and other cannabinoids other than THC and is very costly. Given industrial hemp’s unambiguous legality, HB 51 would enable the purchase and testing of out-of-state industrial hemp.
- Testing nationwide was lackluster; HB 51 presented a step forward.
- Sen. Gannon asked if we could bring in and test out-of-state products currently
- Mr. Simon said currently all cannabinoids had to be produced and grown locally.
Alicia Bennet
Education Outreach Coordinator, GraniteLeaf Cannabis
- Ms. Bennet has been a qualified patient since 2018.
- HB 51 would greatly benefit patients in New Hampshire.
- Cannabinoids provided several benefits for a variety of conditions.
- Some cannabinoids relieve anxiety, nerve inflammation, and insomnia.
- HB 51 expanded accessibility for patients in New Hampshire.
Sue Homola
Smart Approaches to Marijuana New Hampshire
- Ms. Homola opposed the bill.
- The 2018 Agriculture Improvement Act, or ‘Farm Bill’, authorized the production of industrial hemp and directed that hemp, and hemp seeds be removed from the Drug Enforcement Agencies’ (DEA) controlled substances list.
- In 2022, the DEA issued a letter which excluded seeds containing less than .3% THC from the definition of marijuana and defined it as industrial hemp.
- Industrial hemp and other products intended for consumption were not the same product.
- Ms. Homola suggested the ‘source rule’ was still an issue for cannabis.
- The source rule is a legal theory to delineate the legality of cannabis. Effectively, if the product in question, even a seed, is < 0.3% THC, yet was sourced from Marijuana, and not industrial hemp, then the product is completely illegal.
- Many states had a USDA approved plan to regulate the processing of hemp and products intended for human consumption. The USDA plans ensure compliance with the source rule according to Ms. Homola.
- New Hampshire did not have a USDA approved plan for Hemp production, rather, the state only had USDA approved hemp production license.
- Federal law only referred to hemp or marijuana as products and employed cannabis as a broader classification. New Hampshire statutes employed the terms differently. Ms. Homola believed that dissimilar terminology was confusing.
- Ms. Homola maintained that states did not have license to exempt cannabis seeds for human consumption despite changes to industrial hemp’s definition and the DEAs seed letter.
- Sen. Gannon asked Ms. Homola to clarify why the proposal was illegal.
- Ms. Homola clarified that she wasn’t stating HB 51 was illegal but rather was not as simple as it seemed.
- If a product is intended for human consumption, the federal guidelines regarding definitions of industrial hemp and the legality of certain seeds were dubious according to Ms. Homola.
Dr. Joe Hannon
- Dr. Hannon supported HB 51.
- HB 51 ensured clarity, consistency, and safety in the therapeutic cannabis space.
- While hemp and CBD products were federally legal, their unmitigated sale in smoke shops and gas stations were a public health issue, which required oversight, testing, and regulation.
- HB 51 ensured that any cannabinoid in the state would be subject to regulatory structure, and testing.
- HB 51 clarified definitions within the Therapeutic Medical Cannabis Program to ensure compliance with federal law.
- Sen. Abbas referenced lines 20-23, and asked why an ATC would have synthetic THC
- Dr. Hannon asked Sen. Abbas to clarify the question.
- Sen. Abbas said the section permitted products derived from cannabis with <0.3% synthetic THC and asked why products with synthetic THC would be sold, even if they contain a negligible quantity.
- Dr. Hannon suggested that synthetic THC was not permitted under HB 51.
- Sen. Abbas read line 21, and asked why an ATC would sell a product containing or made with a component containing any quantity of synthetic THC.
- Dr. Hannon read the provision and maintained that ATCs cannot sell products defined as synthetic THC and elaborated that the provision is meant to enable ATCs to obtain, regulate, and test what they already obtain with greater ease and safety.
- Sen. Abbas asked Dr. Hannon if his interpretation was that if a substance had .1% of synthetic THC, an ATC could not sell it.
- Dr. Hannon believed the provision in question enabled the use of hemp derived cannabinoids which could contain a small quantity of synthetic THC, and did not believe the provision enabled synthetics of any amount from non-hemp derived products.
- Sen. Altschiller asked Dr. Hannon if the provision between lines 20-21 already existed in RSA 439 was just being reiterated.
- Dr. Hannon confirmed that was correct.
PM
Date Hearing Report completed: April 1, 2025