https://www.marijuanamoment.net/three-in-four-new-hampshire-residents-support-legalizing-marijuana-with-bipartisan-majorities-backing-state-run-model/

74% of the population supports legal recreational weed. Three out of the four new senators who support legal weed are Republicans. It seems to me that it is the anti side that is swimming upstream.

Sununu has signed previous legallization bills in the past. (Such as for medical cannabis.) He may well change his mind this time, if it passes the Senate, in order to boost his Presidential run prospects.

Many Republicans are pro-cannabis legalization though, and some Democrats are anti-legalization. There's bi-partisan support for legalization.

The House has passed numerous bills legalizing recreational weed. However, until recently, drug war enthusiasts in the Senate have killed the bills.

For example, here are the Senators who voted against the last bill to legalize weed in the Senate, NH SB299 on 2022-05-12:

Sen. Avard, Kevin A. [R]
Sen. Birdsell, Regina [R]
Sen. Bradley, Jeb [R]
Sen. Carson, Sharon [R]
Sen. Cavanaugh, Kevin J. [D] --> Sen. Keith Murphy, R-Manchester
Sen. D'Allesandro, Lou C. [D]
Sen. Daniels, Gary L. [R] --> Sen. Shannon Chandley, D-Amherst
Sen. Gannon, William "Bill" M. [R]
Sen. Giuda, Robert "Bob" [R] --> Sen. Tim Lang, R-Sanbornton
Sen. Gray, James [R]
Sen. Hennessey, Erin Tapper [R]
Sen. Morse, Charles "Chuck" W. [R] --> Sen. Daryl Abbas, R-Salem
Sen. Ricciardi, Denise [R]
Sen. Soucy, Donna M. [D]
Sen. Ward, Ruth B. [R]
Sen. Whitley, Becky [D]

In the last election, four of the Senators who voted against legalization were replaced by pro-legalization Senators. So, the pro side now has enough votes to pass the Senate.

However, there are still not enough votes (2/3 majority) to override the veto of Governor Sununu. Sununu has indicated that he will not sign off on new legalization bills. That said, he's gearing up to make a run for President, and may not want to take an unpopular position on legal weed (74% of NH voters support legalization).

If you support legal weed, consider contacting your senator and the governor's office, and let your support for legal weed be known.

He didn't say he was their friend, he pointed out that a number of prominent libertarians are black.

That said, libertarians do skew white and male:

https://www.cato.org/blog/libertarians-are-more-racially-diverse-people-realize

> as much as I oppose people moving to NH and trying to change it to their own desires

Free staters who move to New Hampshire have the same right to vote for our preferred policies and candidates, same as you. Do you expect NH's culture to remain preserved in amber for eternity?

> whether we want it or not.

Yes, it's annoying to be coerced to do something you don't want to do. That's the nature of government though, and the reason why libertarians want a homeland where there is as little coercion as possible. Free Staters are only doing what both liberals and conservatives do: voting for the laws and elected representatives we want to govern us. If our people / ideas are appealing enough to NH voters to win elections, then our representatives have just as much right to govern as liberals and conservatives.

"Idaho has the largest concentration of white supremacists of any state. It’s full of religious nutjobs."

Ah, progressives! So tolerant. So kind.

If Asheville bothers you, Puerto Rico would drive you crazy.

Dildo murals for all!

No, in theory, towns aren't allowed to have laws more restrictive than the US or State constitution. That's why no state or city can pass sundown ordinances in modern times. Agree that the town should change the law (or lose the court case).

I didn't say they were equivalently evil acts. I used the "sundown laws" as an example to establish the principle that there exist a ) immoral laws that should not be obeyed b) laws that can't be easily changed by the victim of the law.

While suppressing the baker's free speech rights is not an equivalent offense, it's a violation of his free speech rights (and therefore immoral) and trying to change the law is likely to be a futile effort (which I think the people making the suggestion know).

If he's forced to change the mural, he should repaint the donuts as giant assholes, prominently labeled with the names of the officials who voted against his variance permit.

Lot's of laws existed for decades before they were struck down as unconstitutional. What really matters is whether there is a culture of liberty, where people respect the free speech of others. I want to live in a state with a culture of liberty.

As long as we're making suggestions, may I suggest that you move to one of surrounding authoritarian states? That way, you can force bakers to paint their walls drab colors to your heart's content.

"what if a XXX shop decided to paint their building with the dildos they sell?"

I'm in favor of everyone's free speech rights, even if I don't like what they have to say. Let a thousand dildo murals bloom!

Yes, I want people to be able to show films that criticize government officials, regardless of their funding source. This is also the position of the ACLU:

" The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again."

I also favor letting bakers paint donut murals on their walls.

I'm pointing out that some small town laws are a) immoral and shouldn't be obeyed/enforced b) often can't easily be changed by the people being victimized by them.

In my view, laws exist to protect our right to life, liberty, and property. So, when the law itself violates those rights, then there is no moral or ethical obligation to obey or enforce it. For example, many towns used to have "sundown laws" that made it illegal for non-whites to remain in town after sunset. Do you think a sheriff charged with enforcing "sundown laws" had an ethical obligation to enforce them?

In this case, billboard regulations violate the property owners right to do with their property as they please, and violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech (" Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...")

Of course, the Constitution is just a piece of paper; what matters is whether there are enough people who value civil liberties that they're willing to protect other people's civil rights. I'm arguing that the townsfolk should defend this baker's free speech rights instead of slavishly obeying the local ordinance (just as I would advocate that folks living with "sundown town" laws on the books have no duty to enforce or obey them.)

Lot's of small towns are dominated by obdurate, petty tyrants that can't be easily influenced or ousted due to local "good 'ol boys" networks. That's why the national government sometimes had to step in and say "No, really, you can't just lynch black people."

It's indicative of the culture, which is an important factor in many people's moving decisions.

Is the NH Supreme Court substantially more pro-free speech?

Lot's of stupid, unconstitutional laws on the books. That they exist doesn't mean they should be enforced.