My name is Micha Duda, owner of Jolly Pond Farm. I testified yesterday at the House General Laws subcommittee in support of HB 642. I am a July 2019 registered hemp grower and a Displaced Business Owner. I successfully operated a retail hemp storefront in Lynchburg until the regulatory changes of SB 903 (2023) forced me to close. I am requesting a technical amendment to § 4.1-803 in HB 642 to allow Microbusinesses to operate off-site retail. For rural farms all over Virginia, and specifically in Pittsylvania County, the current "on-farm" mandate is an impossible barrier due to a lack of commercial infrastructure and security concerns for our private residences. Proposed Technical Amendment: § 4.1-803. Microbusiness license. A. The Board may issue microbusiness licenses, which shall authorize the licensee to conduct any activities authorized for marijuana cultivation facilities pursuant to § 4.1-800, marijuana processing facilities pursuant to § 4.1-801, and retail marijuana stores pursuant to § 4.1-802, as determined by the Board; however, (i) a microbusiness licensee shall process and sell, at one licensed retail premises, only marijuana or marijuana products cultivated or processed by a microbusiness licensee; (ii) a microbusiness license shall authorize the licensee to cultivate and process marijuana at one licensed cultivation and processing premises, indoors or outdoors with an indoor canopy that does not exceed 5,000 square feet and an outdoor canopy that does not exceed 10,000 square feet, or such other comparable limits as the Board may establish by regulation; and (iii) a microbusiness licensee shall not hold or control any other license. and may operate only one licensed premises. This change ensures that rural farmers can maintain a secure, private cultivation site while operating a storefront in a viable commercial district where they can actually succeed. Sincerely, Micha Duda Jolly Pond Farm 2019 Registered Hemp Grower

Comments Document

I am submitting this comment as a Virginia resident and on behalf of Natures Allstars Co. HB642 is necessary because Virginians are already consuming cannabis, and the absence of a regulated retail framework leaves consumers exposed to unsafe, untested products in the unregulated market. As multiple speakers noted today, people who believe they are “only using cannabis” are still ending up with fentanyl or other substances in their system due to lack of product verification and traceability. A regulated market is not about encouraging use — it is about harm reduction, consumer safety, and accountability. When adults choose to purchase cannabis, they should be able to do so knowing where it was grown, how it was tested, and that it is free from contamination. I have developed a documentation-first cultivation and verification framework that focuses on: • Seed-to-sale traceability • Cultivation and handling standards • Clear labeling and provenance • Education before enforcement This type of framework complements HB642 by addressing the exact concern raised today: people deserve access to safe, verified cannabis, not street products of unknown origin. I urge the committee to support HB642 while ensuring the final structure does not over-regulate in a way that prices out small operators, craft cultivators, and everyday Virginians, as we have seen happen in other states. A balanced approach can reduce harm, protect consumers, and prevent the illicit market from continuing to thrive. Virginia has the opportunity to do this right the first time. Thank you for your consideration. Attached is a high-level Phase 1–3 framework summary submitted for public record. It outlines an education-first, safety-driven cannabis model focused on documentation, workforce readiness, and regulated market entry, without disclosing proprietary operational details.

Comments Document

see attachment.

I am Valerie Slater representing Tthe VSC NAACP and RISE for Youth and both support this bill.

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

Good afternoon. My name is Paul McLean, and I am the Founder of the Virginia Minority Cannabis Coalition. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am here to convey several key points that we believe are essential to the responsible development of Virginia’s cannabis industry. First, establishing a safe, transparent, and well-regulated cannabis market for Virginia’s consumers must begin with closing the regulatory loopholes that have allowed illegal hemp operators to infiltrate and destabilize the Commonwealth’s cannabis ecosystem. These gaps have resulted in Virginians unknowingly purchasing and supporting unlawful operations, undermining consumer safety and legitimate businesses alike. Second, every Virginian fortunate enough to secure a cannabis license will face significant operational and financial challenges. For that reason, the Cannabis Control Authority and members of the General Assembly should actively encourage prospective licensees to strengthen their business knowledge and preparedness now—before the licensing process begins. A well-informed operator base will contribute to a more stable, compliant, and successful industry overall. Third, Virginia’s public service announcement campaigns related to cannabis should be broadened and improved. While education around risks is important, the state’s messaging should not focus exclusively on negative or stigmatized narratives. Instead, PSA efforts should also: • Address senior citizens, particularly first-time consumers who are turning to medical cannabis at the recommendation of their primary care physicians. • Recognize and uplift teens and young adults under the age of 21 who choose not to consume cannabis because they understand it is illegal for them. These individuals should be affirmed for knowing it is acceptable—and responsible—to wait until legal age. • Encourage and empower parents to have informed, honest conversations with their children about the realities and risks of unregulated smoke shop products such as kratom, delta-8, and other untested substances. Finally, individuals and entities engaged in cannabis license flipping or operating unlawfully in the hemp-derived intoxicant space must face meaningful and financially significant penalties. Strong enforcement is necessary to deter bad actors who seek only to extract short-term profits rather than contribute to the long-term health and integrity of Virginia’s cannabis industry. The Virginia Minority Cannabis Coalition firmly believes there is room in Virginia’s cannabis ecosystem for a wide range of participants—including new operators, first-time business owners, compliant hemp businesses, legacy participants, multi-state operators, and individuals who have paid their debt to society. However, the future of cannabis in the Commonwealth must be designed to support those committed to building sustainable businesses over the long term, not those motivated solely by short-term financial gain. Virginia’s cannabis framework should prioritize responsible participation, community investment, and lasting economic opportunity for Virginians—not quick profits at the expense of the Commonwealth’s future. Thank you for your time and consideration. I have attached our VMCC industry Infographic

I, Gerry Rawlinson, with Virginians for Safer Cannabis.org support this bill.

I have Multiple Sclerosis and rely on the medical cannabis program to function. Please do not jeopardize patient access with conversion fees that risk decimating the program. I support the bill with changes.

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.

I am requesting an audit of the policies, procedures and financialsof the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority by the Auditor of Virginia or a Third Party.

Comments Document

Please see the attached Recommendations/changes for HB 642

Comments Document

See attachment. Summary of attachment : • The current HB 642 “impact license” criteria are overly narrow and rely too heavily on criminal conviction history, excluding many Virginians who experienced real economic harm from cannabis prohibition without ever being convicted. • Requiring applicants to meet 4 of 7 criteria will unnecessarily limit the pool of qualified license holders in an emerging, specialized market, increasing the risk of supply constraints and continued illegal cannabis sales. • Reducing the threshold to 3 of 7 criteria is a simple, low-complexity change that increases the number of eligible applicants without altering the underlying criteria or weakening program integrity. • The bill should recognize that prohibition-related harm includes documented job loss or lost employment opportunities due to zero-tolerance cannabis policies, not just arrests or convictions. • A more inclusive and realistic eligibility framework will allow impacted entrepreneurs to create jobs, reinvest in economically distressed communities, and help Virginia’s legal cannabis market function effectively