Ensuring "Impact" Means "First Mover": A Market-Based Correction for HB642 Comment: Honorable Delegates, I speak not just for myself, but for the thousands of Virginians who carry the "Impact" of past enforcement—a cohort this bill rightly seeks to uplift. We support the intent of HB642, but intent without market mechanics is just poetry. To ensure the "Impact Licensee" status (§ 4.1-606) isn't a hollow trophy, we respectfully request three technical clarifications to ensure we don't just "get a license," but actually "get a business." 1. Define "Preference" as "First Mover Advantage" (Simultaneous Rollout) The current text mentions "preference in the licensing process" (§ 4.1-606 B 15), but it is vague. In limited-license markets, time is the only asset that matters. If Multi-State Operators (MSOs) launch on Day 1 and Impact Licensees launch on Day 180 (due to funding delays), the market is already gone. The Fix: Explicitly mandate that Impact Licensees must be allowed to open simultaneously with any other license class. Do not let the "Equity" queue lag behind the "General" queue. Give us the Time asset. 2. The "4 of 7" Paradox & The "Stacking" Solution As written, the "4 out of 7" criteria (§ 4.1-606 B 13) accidentally excludes the most harmed individuals—those whose conviction (Criterion 1) destroyed their residency stability (Criterion 3) or education path (Criterion 4). The Fix: Explicitly clarify that Ownership Groups can "stack" their points. If a Justice-Involved applicant partners with a Pell Grant recipient or Veteran, their combined score should unlock the license. This encourages community partnerships and ensures the program has enough qualified applicants to fill the roster on Day 1. 3. The "Incubator" Bridge Access to capital (§ 4.1-1501) is vital, but capital without capacity is risk. The Fix: Mandate the creation of a "Virginia Cannabis Incubator Program" funded by the Reinvestment Fund. This program should not just be a website, but a tactical pipeline helping Impact Licensees with compliance, SOPs, and "Day 1 Readiness." Give us the map, not just the car. We want to compete. We want to pay taxes. We want to hire Virginians. Technical tweaks now prevent market failure later. Thank you.

Comments Document

I am submitting this comment regarding HB391 (Askew) and HB642 (Krizek). While these bills claim to establish a legal retail cannabis framework, they do not go far enough to create a market that is fair, safe, affordable, and accessible for everyday Virginians. In their current form, these bills risk repeating the failures seen in other states: over-regulation, corporate gatekeeping, small business suppression, and continued dominance of the illicit market. Virginia does not need a legalization model that only benefits institutional capital. Virginia needs a system that converts existing demand into regulated, tax-paying commerce, protects public health through testing, and creates a real pipeline for legal entry for small operators, legacy growers, and community-based businesses. If the legal market is too expensive, too slow, and too restrictive, consumers will continue buying from unregulated sources and smoke-shop style illegal storefronts. HHG and The Kush Kommittee are advocating for the principles within The CLEAN Act Revisited (2026), which offers a practical solution that actually defeats illicit sales by keeping legal access affordable and realistic. This includes a tax structure that remains competitive against underground pricing. The CLEAN Act proposes a 5% minimum rate, 8% optimal operating rate, and a recommended cap at 10% because excessive cannabis taxes push consumers right back to illegal purchasing and hurt small business growth. Any tax structure above this tolerance increases illegal dominance and reduces total revenue long-term. We also support strong consumer protections, including consistent product testing standards, accurate labeling, and protections for strain integrity so consumers are not misled and patients have access to real medicinal outcomes. The market must prevent contamination risks and ensure safe, verified products. Additionally, home cultivation limits must be addressed realistically. The CLEAN Act establishes a clear and enforceable distinction between personal cultivation and commercial activity, recognizing 100 plants as a reasonable benchmark before licensing is presumed necessary. This protects patient access, preserves genetic diversity, and prevents unnecessary criminalization of personal growers. Virginia should also establish a true license “ladder” that allows individuals and businesses to scale legally from micro → craft → regional → corporate, without pricing people out or forcing them into underground operations. The legal marketplace should not be a barrier-to-entry economy—it should be a community-integrated economic engine that replaces illegal sales with regulated safety and tax revenue. For these reasons, I urge the committee to heavily revise HB391 and HB642 to reflect a fair, affordable, small-business-friendly legalization model that protects consumers, supports local communities, and makes Virginia a leader—not another state with a legal market that fails in practice.