By Granite State Report
In 2025, New Hampshire remains the only state in New England without legal adult-use (recreational) cannabis. Meanwhile, its Governor, Kelly Ayotte, has made clear she will not support legalization — even if the federal government changes its classification of marijuana. That decision, though rooted in concerns about public safety and health, has major implications for state revenue, economic opportunity, and regional competitiveness.
Ayotte’s Position: Firm “No” on Legalization
Governor Ayotte has repeatedly stated that while she’ll abide by any change in federal law, she will not advance legalization at the state level. In August 2025 she said: “My position has been, and continues to be, that we should not legalize marijuana in the future.”
Her concerns include:
Youth mental-health and quality-of-life risks. Road-safety issues, especially the lack of reliable impairment measurement for cannabis vs. alcohol. The belief that New Hampshire should not follow states that have legalized just because of tax revenue or external pressure. As she said during a debate: “The states that have built their budget on this is really a fallacy.”
She also pledged to veto bills that would legalize adult-use cannabis. For example: the House passed a bill in Feb 2025 to permit adult possession (though not sales) and Ayotte signaled she would veto it.
In short: under Ayotte, New Hampshire remains firmly opposed to regulated adult-use cannabis, regardless of federal re-classification.
What’s the Opportunity Cost? Revenue, Jobs & Regional Pressure
Here’s where the crunch comes: while Ayotte emphasizes health and safety, the state is arguably leaving money on the table — and its neighbors aren’t.
Tax revenue from legal cannabis
States with adult-use cannabis have collectively generated over $24.7 billion in tax revenue since 2014, and more than $4.4 billion in 2024 alone. For example: In Massachusetts (population ~7 million) adult-use cannabis tax revenue in 2024 exceeded ~$282 million. The New Hampshire Department of Revenue estimated potential adult-use tax revenue based on neighboring states’ sales data.
Regional disadvantage
New Hampshire is surrounded by states that have legalized or are quickly advancing legalization: Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, etc. Residents may cross state lines to purchase cannabis, meaning New Hampshire loses both the tax revenue and the regulatory control from consumers buying elsewhere. In a 2024 debate, Ayotte was asked: “… both of you oppose legalizing marijuana, but that’s not stopping Granite Staters from purchasing it from surrounding states where it is legal. The polls show the majority of Granite Staters support legalization. Why are you okay with leaving tax revenue on the table…?” Ayotte responded by focusing on quality-of-life concerns and rejecting the revenue rationale.
Legislative dead-ends
In May 2024 the New Hampshire Senate passed an adult-use bill (HB 1633) but the House did not advance it. The House in February 2025 passed a more limited legalization for use (not sales) but Governor Ayotte has indicated she’ll veto any legalization measure.
What Are the Risks of Ayotte’s Position?
By maintaining prohibition, New Hampshire faces several risks:
Fiscal shortfall: If legal adult-use cannabis can generate hundreds of millions in revenue in nearby states, New Hampshire’s failure to act means fewer funds for education, infrastructure, addiction-services, or general budget needs. Economic/entrepreneurial opportunity loss: Legal cannabis markets bring cultivation, retail, supply-chain jobs, ancillary businesses (security, real estate, testing labs) — sectors New Hampshire may not capture. Legal/structural misalignment: If the federal government re-classifies marijuana (making it less restricted), the regulatory pressure will shift. Staying locked in prohibition may limit New Hampshire’s ability to adapt or to shape regulations locally. Cross-border leak-off: Consumers may simply buy in neighboring states — which means other states collect tax revenue, while New Hampshire bears costs of enforcement and oversight but gains little economic benefit. Public will vs. policy mismatch: Polls show substantial public support for legalization; Governor Ayotte’s stance is out of step with that and with trends across the region.
The Logic Behind Ayotte’s Opposition — And What It Gets Right
It’s fair to say that Ayotte’s concerns are not without merit:
The measurement of impairment from cannabis is less developed than alcohol, complicating traffic‐safety enforcement. There are legitimate concerns about youth mental-health impacts, although the data are mixed and the causality is debated. Moving too fast without guardrails could increase unregulated markets or unintended consequences.
Thus, from her perspective, a cautious posture makes sense. But the question becomes whether the cost of caution — in foregone revenue and opportunity — has been properly weighed.
What Could New Hampshire Do—Without Sacrificing Safety
Here are some middle‐ground options worth considering (and Ayotte’s team could adopt them if they choose):
Legalize adult-use with strong safeguards: Ensure robust age limits, regulation, licensing, testing, impairment protocols, and public-health investment, mitigating Ayotte’s safety concerns. Model revenue wisely: Use tax revenue from cannabis to fund mental-health services, education, road safety, substance-use treatment—thus addressing her stated “quality of life” aim. Establish impairment testing protocols: Collaborate with scientific/forensic institutions to advance cannabis impairment detection, aligning legalization with safety. Implement gradual rollout: Begin with home cultivation, possession de-criminalization, then sales; monitor impacts before full commercial rollout. Regional coordination: If Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont are legalizing, New Hampshire can work with them (e.g., compacts) to reduce cross-state tax leak and encourage in-state compliance.
Conclusion
Governor Kelly Ayotte’s firm opposition to adult-use cannabis legalization — even in the face of potential federal re-classification — reflects strong convictions around public health, safety, and quality of life. But it also places New Hampshire in a precarious position: surrounded by legal markets, missing out on revenue, and perhaps out of step with both regional trends and public sentiment.
The critical question: should the state continue to sacrifice millions in potential tax revenue and economic activity purely for caution, or should it move to a regulated market that both addresses Ayotte’s valid concerns and brings the Granite State into alignment with its neighbors?
If New Hampshire truly wants to “Live Free or Die,” perhaps it needs to rethink what freedom means in the 21st century — namely, freedom to regulate intelligently, adapt to changing norms, and capture opportunity instead of letting it drift across the border.
