Connect with us

Virginia

Virginia General Assembly advances cannabis retail framework – WTOP News

Published

on

Virginia General Assembly advances cannabis retail framework – WTOP News


After years of clearing the General Assembly only to meet a veto, legislation to create a legal, adult-use cannabis market…

This article was reprinted with permission from Virginia Mercury. 

After years of clearing the General Assembly only to meet a veto, legislation to create a legal, adult-use cannabis market in Virginia passed both chambers Tuesday — this time with a governor ready to sign it and retail sales poised to begin as early as November.

The votes mark the clearest signal yet that Virginia is poised to move from legal possession without legal sales to a fully regulated marketplace, a transition that has eluded the commonwealth since 2021, when lawmakers first legalized simple possession.

Advertisement

Tuesday morning, the House passed House Bill 642, sponsored by Del. Paul Krizek, D-Fairfax, by a 65-32 vote. Hours later, the Senate approved Senate Bill 542, introduced by Sen. Lashrecse Aird, D-Petersburg, by a narrow 21-19 margin after an initial failed vote.

Similar proposals have cleared the General Assembly in recent years — often with bipartisan backing — but were repeatedly vetoed by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin. This year, the political calculus has shifted. Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger has vowed to sign legislation establishing a regulated retail market.

Under Krizek’s bill, the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would administer the retail system, with no retail sales allowed prior to Nov. 1, 2026.

“It’s about fixing a status quo that is not working,” he said, noting that while adult possession of cannabis is legal, retail sales remain unregulated.

Right now, he said, the absence of a legal marketplace means “no testing, no standards and no oversight whatsoever.”

Advertisement

The bill, he added, would replace what he described as a $5 billion illegal market with a regulated system designed to protect public health. He pointed to requirements for testing, labeling and packaging, as well as enforcement mechanisms and penalties intended to keep products away from minors.

Krizek said the legislation takes a phased approach to give the Cannabis Control Authority time to implement the framework responsibly. It also preserves local control, granting localities full zoning authority over where and how retail stores operate.

He added that the proposal creates opportunities for small businesses and communities disproportionately harmed by past enforcement and called it “a measured, responsible step forward.”

Legal to possess, illegal to sell

Virginia first decriminalized marijuana in 2020 before lawmakers legalized simple possession.

But they failed to finalize a retail framework before Republicans regained the governor’s mansion, leaving cannabis in legal limbo — legal to possess, illegal to sell.

Advertisement

Over the past year, a joint legislative commission has worked to craft a new roadmap, hearing testimony from regulators, industry experts and advocates about safety, access and equity concerns.

Over the past year, the joint legislative commission held a series of hearings and work sessions to refine the framework, beginning with presentations in August on potential rollout models, followed by October discussions weighing safety, access and equity concerns.

By November, members were reviewing a draft retail blueprint, and in December they unveiled revisions aimed at setting the stage for a 2026 launch.

The Senate version, sponsored by Aird, largely mirrors the House proposal but sets a later retail start date of Jan. 1, 2027.

The measure initially failed Tuesday afternoon after Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, recused himself because he is about to assume a role at the Cannabis Control Authority. Moments later, Ebbin asked for reconsideration, stating he has “no financial interest” in an adult-use cannabis marketplace. On the second vote, the bill passed 21-19.

Advertisement

The substitute measure adopted this week, Aird said, incorporates many elements lawmakers have seen before but also introduces new approaches — starting with governance.

“This new legislation takes on the approach where the Cannabis Control Authority will manage the license and regulatory portions while the marketplace is immediately being stood up,” Aird said.

Taxes, caps and rollout timeline

The measure establishes a state tax rate of 12.875% on retail cannabis sales, along with an additional 3% local option tax. Permit applications would begin in July 2026, and seed-to-sale tracking would start Sept. 1, 2026, ahead of a Jan. 1, 2027 retail launch.

“The transaction limit for retail purchases will remain at 2.5 ounces, which has always been throughout this process,” Aird said.

The legislation outlines standards for a lottery process for impact licensees and creates a tiered cultivation licensing structure based on canopy size, ranging from tiers one through five, with the largest capped at 35,000 square feet.

Advertisement

A maximum of 350 retail licenses would be issued statewide. Cultivation facilities would be capped at 450 through 2028. At-home cultivation would continue to be permitted, allowing up to four plants per household, provided each plant is tagged with the grower’s name and identification.

Local governments would no longer be able to ban cannabis retail through referenda.

The bill also sets THC limits for non-pharmaceutical products at 10 milligrams per serving and 100 milligrams per package. Aird said it includes robust criminal provisions aimed at cracking down on illicit sales and the illegal marketplace.

“There are a lot of details in this legislation,” she said.

If signed by Spanberger, the measures would mark the final step in a yearslong effort to bring structure and oversight to a market that has operated without a legal retail framework.

Advertisement

Aird emphasized Tuesday that many lawmakers contributed to shaping the legislation — a proposal she said reflects extensive collaboration across chambers.

“There are many in this chamber that have helped shape this legislation,” she said.



Source link

Advertisement

Virginia

Virginia cannabis budget language triggers legal confusion, political fallout

Published

on

Virginia cannabis budget language triggers legal confusion, political fallout


(VIRGINIA MERCURY) – Virginia’s decision to revive legal cannabis sales through the state budget instead of standalone legislation has triggered several days of confusion over the commonwealth’s marijuana laws, with lawmakers, local prosecutors, Virginia State Police and legislative officials offering differing interpretations of when key provisions take effect.

Much of the confusion focused on two issues: whether Virginia’s long-delayed retail cannabis market had accidentally been moved up by a year and whether existing criminal penalties for marijuana possession and distribution involving people younger than 21 were still enforceable.

For much of the week, the lawmakers who wrote the budget language, along with state officials, sought to settle the matter. They said licensed retail sales will not begin until July 1, 2027, and that Virginia’s current criminal laws remain in effect until then.

Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. Jeff Katz also publicly reaffirmed the agency’s enforcement position after questions arose from an internal email circulated earlier this week.

Advertisement

“VSP acknowledges that there have been rumors and questions pertaining to the agency’s posture on cannabis enforcement,” Katz said in a statement on X, formerly Twitter. “I would like to make it clear that the Virginia State Police will continue to enforce existing laws, in line with the Code of Virginia.”

Read more on virginiamercury.com

Copyright 2026 Virginia Mercury. All rights reserved.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Virginia

4 indicted in Virginia double homicide; second victim ID’d as grandmother of 6

Published

on

4 indicted in Virginia double homicide; second victim ID’d as grandmother of 6


CAROLINE COUNTY, Va. — A Caroline County grand jury has indicted four people on first-degree murder charges in connection with a double homicide after DNA evidence identified the second victim as Helen Marie Pullen Banks, a grandmother of six.

The same four suspects charged in the murder of 18-year-old Jayden McComber have now been indicted in the death of Banks, who was living in the Richmond area at the time she went missing. Investigators linked the two homicides early in the investigation through forensic evidence.

Caroline County Sheriff Scott Moser said investigators “have been working around the clock” for a break in the case “not only for the community, but for the victims as well.”

The medical examiner’s office in Richmond used DNA to identify the 56-year-old Banks after her remains were found in poor condition. Investigators confirmed her identity on July 7.

Advertisement

Banks, originally from Culpeper, had been living in the Richmond area where she was in rehab at the time she went missing, according to her family. She had a connection to at least one of the four suspects, according to Moser.

The four suspects — Devonti Gregory Pettaway, 20, of Chesterfield; Kennady Jade Lambert, 18, of Hopewell; Rashad Antonio Mayfield, 23, of Glen Allen; and Jaden Lamont Phillips, 19, of Richmond — now face charges of first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with Banks’ death. The charges represent an upgrade from the second-degree murder charges the four originally faced in McComber’s death.

WATCH: Brother of suspect charged in murder of Hopewell teen Jayden McComber speaks out

Brother of suspect charged in murder of Hopewell teen Jayden McComber speaks out

Advertisement

Chief Deputy Travis Nutter outlined what investigators believe is the motive in McComber’s murder.

“We believe robbery to be the motive of the incident that happened with Jayden that ultimately led to his murder,” Nutter said.

As for the motive in Banks’ death, Nutter said investigators have not yet established one.

“There is no evidence to show that there was any sort of argument or disagreement between Ms. Banks or the four charged,” Nutter said.

Advertisement

Banks was a mother of five and grandmother of six. Moser said she had no known ties to Caroline County, and that her body, like McComber’s, appeared to have been brought there from another jurisdiction.

WATCH: Neighbor reacts as suspects arrested after 2 bodies found in Caroline County

Neighbor reacts as suspects arrested after 2 bodies found in Caroline County

Advertisement

McComber’s body was found in late March in a marshy area of Byrds Mill Pond near Sparta, near the Caroline and King and Queen County line. Banks’ remains were discovered about five miles away off Bagby Road. Investigators linked the two cases early on, in part because McComber’s AirTag had pinged about a mile and a half from where Banks’ remains were found.

Moser said the case has shaken the Sparta community but stressed that investigators moved quickly and that residents should feel reassured.

“Without a doubt this is a tremendous blow to the community,” Moser said. “When you come to this county and you do these types of crimes, we’re going to do everything we can to catch you… [We] are not used to these types of crimes being committed in Caroline.”

Moser credited a broad coalition of agencies for bringing the case to this point, including Commonwealth’s Attorney Ben Heidt, the medical examiner’s office, the U.S. Marshals Service and the broader community.

“Everyone has pulled together in a time of crisis; that’s what we do well here in Caroline,” Moser said. “We’ve had a lot of support from the community, a lot of information that’s been helpful in this investigation and that’s what community is all about.”

Advertisement
    • Eat It, Virginia! with Scott and Robey

    This story was initially reported by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy. To learn more about how we use AI in our newsroom, click here.

    Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Virginia

Virginia’s voided special election cost $11.6 million

Published

on

Virginia’s voided special election cost .6 million


We now know how much it cost Virginia to hold an election that didn’t count: $11.6 million.

Of that, the state will pick up $4.99 million, leaving localities to pay the balance of $6.6 million for the April 21 special election on redistricting that the Virginia Supreme Court later ruled was placed on the ballot unconstitutionally.

The numbers come from the Department of Elections, after Cardinal News filed a Virginia Freedom of Information Act request to find out the cost of the election.

Advertisement

I contacted localities small, medium and large and none said they’d have a particular problem paying their share. All said they’d already budgeted for primary elections that they expected in June. With the push to redraw Virginia’s congressional lines, those June primaries were bumped to August, putting them in a new fiscal year, so the money set aside for the June primaries was used to cover the special election on a proposed constitutional amendment to allow redistricting.

Election costs

Total cost of April 21 special election: $11,636,147

What state will pay for: $4,999,738

What localities must cover: $6,636,147

Source: Virginia Department of Elections

Advertisement

The issue some localities face now is that the Aug. 4 primary becomes an unexpected expense, although all said they’d figure out a way to pay for it. “We always budget for extra elections, so I think we will have money to cover this,” said Buckingham County administrator Karl Carter by email. It cost $44,373 to run the special election in his county. Of that, the state will pay $9,019, leaving the county to cover $35,353. (Each locality submits its expenses and the state calculates a reimbursement rate based on that.)

Other local government officials had similar things to say. The cost of running elections — paying for poll workers is one of the main expenses — depends largely on how big a locality is. Elections cost more in bigger localities, but they also have bigger budgets.

In Virginia Beach, the election cost $750,533. The state will pay $265,509, leaving the city to cover $465,023. City spokesperson Ali Weatherton-Shook said the city would save enough money through unfilled vacancies to cover unexpected election expenses.

In Chesterfield County, the election cost $619,970. The state will pay $223,356, leaving the county to cover $396,613. “Chesterfield tries to plan ahead for these growing demands,” said county spokesperson Stephen Bays. “In the county’s FY2027 budget, we added $630,000 to the Registrar’s budget to help fill the gap to cover the increasing costs of elections.”  

The most expensive locality was, not surprisingly, the state’s biggest: Fairfax County. It cost $1,545,781 to hold the election there. The state will pay $655,424, leaving the county to cover $910,356. “We allocated additional funds out of carryover to address not only the special election on the amendment but a number of special elections due to both elected officials winning other seats and elected officials that went into the administration,” said county supervisor Pat Herrity, a Republican.

Advertisement

The closest I came to finding a locality that felt pinched by the election cost was Dickenson County. “Unfortunately, moving the primary to August added a third election to our FY-27 budget, which was already very tight,” said Dickenson County administrator Larry Barton by email. (The other two are the fall general election and presumed primaries next June for the 2027 local and legislative elections.) It cost $39,748 to run the special election in Dickenson. Of that, the state will cover $7,802, leaving Dickenson to pay $31,946.

While officials in other localities, though, said they’d have no problem paying the expense, they also pointed out the obvious: Money is finite. “Any time you spend money it competes with critical services and/or increases the tax burden on our residents,” said Herrity, the Fairfax County supervisor.

And some said they’d welcome additional state funding. “Like many localities, Chesterfield would welcome additional state funding for special elections,” said Bays, the county spokesperson. “When state funding falls short, local dollars must fill the gap, leaving fewer resources for other priorities.”

The new state budget that the General Assembly just approved does include an additional $680,000 to help with the cost of three proposed constitutional amendments that will be on the November ballot, in addition to congressional elections and, in some places, local elections.

Since I’m writing this as an opinion column, I will go ahead and inject my opinion here: The Virginia Supreme Court could have avoided this. The court declined to rule on legal challenges to the special election before the vote, citing a 1912 court ruling involving a similar challenge to an upcoming constitutional amendment. In that case, the court held that it should only rule after the vote, on the grounds that passing a constitutional amendment is akin to passing a law — and just as a court won’t intervene until after the governor signs a bill, it shouldn’t intervene until after voters approve a constitutional amendment.

Advertisement

I’m not a legal scholar, but that seems sound reasoning except for one thing: When the Supreme Court let the disputed 1912 amendment vote go forward, it was part of an election that was going to happen anyway, the 1912 presidential election — so there was no additional expense incurred. In this case, the only reason the special election was happening — and so there was expense involved. The court’s adherence to that 1912 precedent cost Virginia $11,636,147.

Of course, some might also say that Virginia Democrats cost the taxpayers that amount by skirting the rules involved in placing an amendment on the ballot, although there was legal dispute over those rules. You’ll recall that the constitutional question turned on when an election legally begins. The constitution says that the legislature must pass an amendment twice, with an election in between. Democrats contended that passing the amendment the first time in a special session in late October satisfied that requirement, because it was ahead of the November general election. The court later ruled that, legally speaking, the election really began when early voting started in September, so Democrats had misread the legal calendar. Democrats could say that Republicans are ultimately to blame, because it was President Donald Trump and Texas Republicans who started the push to redraw congressional lines to “find” more Republican districts so Democratic-controlled states such as Virginia had no choice but to respond in kind to balance things out.

Whoever you choose to blame, we can now put a dollar figure to that attempt — 11.6 million of them.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending