The Virginia Senate Committee met on Thursday to start hammering the differences between two bills that would allow commercial marijuana sales within the state. They heard public testimony, and also looked at issues like social equity, licensing, and regulatory enforcement.
Both measures, SB 423 by Sen. Adam Ebbin and SB 448 by Sen. Aaron Rouse are designed to establish the framework for retail cannabis sales. However, they have slightly different priorities.
Ebbin’s bill, for instance, prioritizes the opening of the legal market as quickly as possible, by allowing existing medical marijuana operators in the state to sell recreational products almost instantly. Rouse’s bill, on the other hand, would require more time to implement legal sales. However, supporters claim that it would be fairer for businesses by not giving one group an advantage.
Rouse, the author of Rouse’s legislation, said that “in this bill no applicant is preferable to another.” SB 448 is the best option to ensure that multi-state operators do not monopolize the market, and to give all licensees an equal opportunity to participate.
Scott Surovell, the Democratic Senator who chairs the Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee Cannabis Subcommittee began the meeting asking the members to select one of two measures as the framework for their proposal. He said that while specific provisions of either bill can be changed later, “we must choose which bill we will move forward with.”
Surovell cautioned, too, that the subcommittee will not be able to consider every aspect of the proposal at the initial hearing on Thursday. He noted that other House panels are better suited for certain issues.
Number one, we won’t be talking about tax rates. He said that he would not be talking about revenue. The Finance Committee will be responsible for discussing revenue.
He said that the subcommittee’s mission was to discuss everything else.
After a short public comment period, lawmakers chose to move forward with Rouse’s SB 448, incorporating Ebbins’ measure into the legislation.
A Senate staffer stated that the substitute Rouse submitted to his bill was similar to the original in substance, but had been edited to make it shorter. It’s still an ambitious proposal, even though it only has 175 pages.
Surovell stated that the panel’s purpose was to listen to testimony and “hopefully” send something to the entire committee, which will meet on Friday. He told his colleagues that if the measure is received well, the Senate Courts and Justice Committee may consider it as early as next week. He added that it would have to be sent to the Senate Finance Committee before February 5 in order to remain on the table for this session.
Chelsea Higgs Wise of Marijuana Justice, who has consistently called on lawmakers to prioritise equity in the legal sale plan, praised the subcommittee for its decision to move forward with Rouse’s proposed bill.
After the hearing, she told Marijuana Moment: “I’m excited that we no longer prioritize the carving out for early sales of medical operators.” “We will continue to work to include those directly affected within the special licensing, which also includes upfront capital.”
Some medical marijuana operators, on the other hand, dismissed the notion that Ebbin’s Bill could have given them an advantage.
It’s not an early start. It’s the necessary for launching an effective program,” said Jushi Holdings’ representative, a multistate operator who currently operates in Virginia and seven other states.
Ebbin introduced his measure two weeks ago. It would have establish a microbusiness license program instead of a social equity system.
The program will offer small business licensing exclusively to individuals who qualify, such as veterans or residents of the state from areas historically impacted by marijuana enforcement. It will also provide technical assistance to applicants and other benefits. Medical marijuana operators will have to pay a licensing fee of $1 million to enter the market early. They will also be required to offer business incubator services to six microbusinesses.
The panel, after deciding which bill will be used to reform the Senate, turned its attention on Thursday to the more specific aspects of equity. Wise encouraged lawmakers, for instance, to add a “impact license,” which would give priority to people who have been directly affected by the drug-war.
She pointed out that, under the current proposal applicants only need to have lived in or attended school in areas neglected, low income or overpoliced. No priority is given to those directly affected by prohibition.
At Thursday’s Hearing only minor changes were made in Rouse’s alternative bill. For example, it was specified that veterans who wanted priority licensing could not have received a dishonorable discharge. The majority of the three-hour discussion was devoted to public comments on the proposal.
was raised about the size of THC in edible products. It also concerned the number and type of licenses that a single person can control.
The panel, through another amendment, nixed the provision that would have prohibited lawmakers from the General Assembly to apply for cannabis licenses during a five-year period. Surovell stated that “that is not precedent we are going to establish.” A member of the committee also noted that Virginia does not prohibit legislators from participating in legal, regulated market.
The United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) representative said that she wants to see mandatory agreements for labor in the bill in order to protect workers in cannabis industry.
She said, “We are concerned that this bill does not provide adequate protection for workers, especially with regard to labor peace agreements.” This was in previous versions of the bill. This bill has been used successfully in other states in the industry.
Several speakers raised the issue of opt-out language, which would allow local governments with voter approval to ban marijuana establishments. Some speakers said that opting in would respect local autonomy better, while others suggested changing the wording of the ballot question.
As Rouse’s revised SB448 continues its journey through the Senate, further significant changes are expected. A companion House of Delegates bill to Ebbin’s Senate measure, HB 698 from Rep. Paul Krizek, (D), remains in play.
Virginia has already made it legal for adults to use, possess, and grow cannabis in a limited way. This is the result of a proposal that was approved by legislators in 2021 . After Republicans won control of both the state House of Representatives and the governor’s office during the 2021 elections they blocked the necessary reenactment for a retail sales regulatory framework. The unlicensed market has grown in the interim.
Some cannabis advocates are hopeful, though, that the state will enact cannabis sale provisions this year, following Democrats’ wins in November last year to win control of both chambers. This path will require building consensus between Democrats in the Virginia legislature, while passing a bill which can withstand a potential veto by Virginia Governor. Glenn Youngkin, R.–or rallying enough legislators in a state that is polarized to override a possible veto.
The process of reconciliation has begun with the Thursday meeting.
Youngkin will be skeptical of the bill’s specifics, having said earlier in the month that he has “no interest” in legalizing the sales under the Democrat led bills.
He told reporters after his State of the Commonwealth Address that he had “no interest” in pushing forward marijuana legislation.
House Majority leader Charniele Herring said that “a regulated marketplace is important for public safety.”
She said, “The Governor should be careful.” “If a bill reaches his desk and he vetoes, I don’t know what the message will be to the public regarding their safety.”
Youngkin’s lack of interest in marijuana reform shouldn’t come as a shock. The fact that he said he would not try to overturn his Democratic predecessor’s noncommercial legalization act of 2021 was welcomed by advocates.
When he first became elected, Youngkin stated that he “was not against” commercial sales. He said that certain Democratic “non starters” were provisions that set labor union requirements for marijuana business–and that he wanted address concerns from the law enforcement. But he indicated that he believed there was a measure he could support.
This expectation was tempered at the start of the year.
Last session, a cannabis sales bill did advance through the Democratic-controlled Senate, but it stalled out in committee in the House, which at the time had a GOP majority.
Marijuana sales in multiple states will break records by the end of 2023
The article Virginia Senate lawmakers choose between competing marijuana bills, weighing speed of sales launch against equity first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
