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.