I would like to see an amount greater than only 5% of the 10% tax given over to Problem Gambling Treatment and Support Fund.

I fully support HB 218 because it simply puts Virginians back to work with honesty, dignity, and respect for the Commonwealth’s trust. This legislation recognizes that people can grow beyond their past. It creates opportunities for employers to hire skilled, qualified individuals without compromising safety or integrity. Many Virginians—myself included—are not the same people we were decades ago. Growth, accountability, and rehabilitation matter. HB 218 removes unnecessary barriers while maintaining clear standards for serious offenses. It allows individuals who are ready to work to care for themselves, their families, and contribute meaningfully to our economy. The workforce strengthens communities. When we open doors to opportunity, we reduce recidivism, support workforce stability, and affirm that redemption is possible. Through HB218 will embark upon thriving and not just surviving in cities and counties across Virginia. HB 218 reflects the values of fairness, responsibility, and progress that Virginia stands for. I am Clovia Lawrence and thanks for allowing me to share this afternoon

Comments Document

I STRONGLY OPPOSE Patrick HOPE why do you have to always attack the vape industry. Did you get hurt by it? Does your children disobey your parental skills and do what they want? Why don't you go after the alcohol industry? DID you know that vaping nicotine doesn't create problems for the State Police or Local Police in paperwork for DWI and DUIs? Think about that. Your law is saying its ok to have prefilled pods but not nicotine in a traditional format that has less nicotine then the pre-filled pods? DID you know that the prefilled pods have the HIGHEST nicotine level on the market? DO you go after the alcohol industry and control their alcohol proof? DO you tell them you can't add fruity, desert or bakery flavors to their product? DO you tax them on the ingredients in their products like you tax the ingredients in vape e-liquid? DO you tax the beauty, food, and drug industry for their use of Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerine? Let adults that are 21+ make the choice to do what THEY want with their BODY and MINDS. If you are serious about keeping this out of the "kids" hands, then make every single SMOKE SHACK, TOBACCO HUT and the gas stations owned by NON-CITIZENS use a software like "INTELLICHECK" to scan and verify REAL IDs. Underage individuals are NOT trying to purchase traditional juice (lowest nicotine); they are buying the PRE_FILLED pods which has the HIGHEST nicotine levels. Even when the undersage individuals get the products they are getting it from those who are of age and most likely IRRESPONIBLE parents are NOT PARENTING. If you are so serious about banning and SUPPORTING THE MONOPOLY OF BIG TOBACCO, then take away the following food products from the shelf: -Potatoes -Bell Peppers -Eggplants -Chili Peppers -Tea -Cauliflower -Chocolate -Toothpaste ALSO take away all the products in the health industry like patches, OTC nicotine gum and lozenges. Those products are most likely lining your pockets with donations by the lobbyists. Find a better way to keep these products out of the hands of underage individuals; 21+ adults don't want to use BIG TOBACCOs nasty ass products!!!

Hello, "No person shall sell retail tobacco products from a vending machine." should be removed from "§ 4.1-359. Persons to whom retail tobacco products may not be sold; proof of legal age; civil penalty." or just the whole bill entirely. What good does it do ban those products from vending machines that are placed in 21+ venues? Virginia is the only state in this area of the United States that has completely banned those products from vending machines, even when the machines have ID verification and facial recognition software. I believe it should be removed from the bill entirely and allow those in Virginia to have the same opportunities as those in the surrounding states have.

In HB308, "§ 4.1-359. Persons to whom retail tobacco products may not be sold; proof of legal age; civil penalty. A. No person shall sell to any person younger than 21 years of age, knowing or having reason to believe that such person is younger than 21 years of age, any retail tobacco products. No person shall sell retail tobacco products from a vending machine." "No person shall sell retail tobacco products from a vending machine" should be removed completely unless the definition of "retail tobacco products" is changed, or should be changed to exclude "aerosolized or vaporized by such device, whether or not the substance contains nicotine" or changed to only include aerosolized or vaporized when the product contains nicotine. Including vaporized or aerosolized products that do not contain nicotine, or hemp does not make sense when applied in the term "retail tobacco products" The definition makes it so that vending machine operators cannot offer products like HealthVape, Ripple+, MONQ, and VitaStik which are aromatherapy diffusers and vitamin vaporizers, which would be far better alternatives to nicotine vapes. Removing "aerosolized or vaporized by such device, whether or not the substance contains nicotine" from the definition of "Retail tobacco products" would allow people to have the opportunity to purchase healthier alternatives to nicotine vapes from vending machines, instead of purchasing nicotine vapes from convenience stores and gas stations, provided the vending machines have ID verification and facial recognition. I still believe that those products should not be sold to those who are under the age of 21, using ID verification as well as facial recognition on vending machines would make it so those who are under the age of 21 could not purchase any aerosolized or vaporized products. My hope is that the definition of "retail tobacco products" is changed to remove those products that do not contain nicotine or hemp. I understand why the state would not want to allow people to purchase nicotine or hemp products from vending machines, but why include the products that do not contain nicotine? Thank you

I support this bill. The bill provides a way to help preserve cemeteries which is greatly needed. I would like some consideration to being more specific in some instances. "Good faith" does not provide any specific guidelines . It does not indicate who is going to decide whether the petitioner has adequately followed through in searching for the owner of the cemetery. Two notices in the newspaper is not enough especially if the notices are buried in the legal pages of the newspaper. One simple example would be to require a sign to be placed for a couple of months in the cemetery with contact information of the person who is applying to be the petitioner. That was done at an African American cemetery in Fairfax County and both neighbors and descendants replied. Other concerns of mine include: what happens if the petitioner does not adequately maintain the cemetery; will the petitioner's contact information be available for visitors, neighbors, relatives, etc.; what happens if the petitioner needs to relinquish his license; what are the plans for getting a new petitioner. Is any guidance about maintenance provided to the petioner? For example, tree stumps in a cemetery should be leveled but not extracted. Because during removal, the tree roots could damage the coffin and remains. This bill is extremely necessary in helping preserve the cemeteries in Virginia. Mary Lipsey, a member of th Northern Virginia Cemetery Consortium, representing Fairfax County

This bill would prove to aid in Cemetery non-profits in identifying and restoring cemeteries throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. Cemeteries are a vital part of our state historic resources and the history of Virginia is buried in these vacated cemeteries. This bill would aid in protecting and restoring these important resources.

I am writing in support of HB1237. HB1237 is designed to improve the condition of abandoned private cemeteries by providing a legal mechanism through which nonprofit organizations or adjoining property owners can perform maintenance on them. It fills a gap in the state code by specifically addressing those situations where abandonment has occurred because ownership is unknown or unrecorded, or where an owner has passed without heirs, and it does so while preserving the rights of cemetery owners who may subsequently emerge or be discovered. When abandoned cemeteries become overgrown, filled with debris, damaged by the elements, or otherwise neglected, members of the public often demand action from local governments, or simply trespass on the property to address the situation. A variety of nonprofit organizations exist that are dedicated to cemetery preservation, but current law limits maintenance petitions to local governing bodies or adjoining property owners and does not fully address situations where an owner of a cemetery is unknown, difficult to determine, or effectively unreachable due to distance, illness, or some other factor. This legislation permits both adjoining property owners and incorporated nonprofit organizations to petition the court for an exclusive, limited-time, renewable license to perform cemetery maintenance upon a showing that a cemetery’s owner of record or their heirs cannot be identified and contacted, or are dead, and that the petitioner has met a publication notice requirement. The type of maintenance that petitioner seeks to perform is limited to actions enumerated in the legislation (which are similar to those permitted in the Virginia Historical African American Cemetery and Graves Fund). Upon the granting of a license, petitioner will have the same obligations as the law imposes on other non-owners with a right of access (i.e., plot owners, descendants of buried individuals, or genealogical researchers), and any owner who subsequently emerges will have the same liability protections as under current law. Additionally, if a formerly-unknown owner emerges, they shall be entitled to petition the court to terminate the license. By expanding who may petition the court to perform cemetery maintenance at their own expense, by specifically addressing situations where ownership cannot reasonably be identified, and by preserving the rights of any owners later to emerge, this legislation significantly advances opportunities to improve the condition of private cemeteries without imposing additional burdens on local governments, cemetery owners, or taxpayers, and reduces the likelihood that graveyards with historical or cultural value will be lost, forgotten, or destroyed. Thank you for your time and consideration of this legislation Earnie Porta, JD, PhD