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

Break from state precedent: Virginia’s existing casino policy limits authorizations to economically distressed localities; SB 756 instead targets a thriving region contributing around 20% of Virginia’s General Fund revenue.

I live in Wolf Trap Woods in Tyson’s. I am against casino gambling in Tyson’s. Casino gaming is a regressive tax. It doesn’t benefit the neighborhood. The jobs created don’t outweigh the very real dangers of gambling addiction. Traffic in tysons is bad as it is and can’t withstand more traffic. Locate it far away from Tyson’s, or better yet, outside of Virginia. We can find better uses for our tax dollars than to support casino owners. The taxes it brings in won’t make up for the societal ills and negatives.

I am writing to express my concern for the potential of having a casino in Tysons corner of Virginia. There is no positive benefit to the residence of the area, and this type of establishment will not bring in benefits to the residence… Only to the owners. Casinos are known to be linked with higher crime and other traffic challenges as well as various negative impacts to an area. Please do not allow this casino to move forward.

Veto the bill.

NO TO CASINO IN FAIRFAX. They increase crime and attract a bad element. Keep them out of Fairfax County.

I oppose any casinos in Fairfax Co. or VA. They bring crime and other issues.

Object to all said bills and any casios developments.

HB 218: Please vote NO to forcing a referendum on allowing a casino in Fairfax County. This bill, if passed would set a serious precedent for all communities in that local, elected government officials did not initiate this request as described under current law. In addition, the local voters have already made it clear that we do not want a casino, we should not have to formally vote, our officials have already listened. The precedent here is that every community can have 'outsiders' force a change that benefits a few. This can include your district and would represent a 'sell-out' to money interests. Local, elected officials should initiate requests for support/action, especailly as it affects local land use and zoning.

I oppose SB 756. Virginia’s existing casino policy limits authorizations to economically distressed localities; SB 756 instead targets a thriving region contributing around 20% of Virginia’s General Fund revenue.

Protect the integrity of the state and residents from the fiscal and civic dangers if gaming it every damaging iteration. The negatives far out way any gains., especially fir this state abd especially for Fairfax county, a county which has provided the state with vital progressive leadership.

Strongly oppose a casino in the Tyson's area. Already too congested and would lead to increased traffic and most likely to increased crime.

A casino in Vienna is an outrageous and immoral tactic suggested by people who dont live here. The area is low crime but high traffic because of the still expanding Tyson’s Corner shopping mall. In addition, Vienna residents have very stable government jobs and have not shown any interest in a gambling venture that could increase personal debt, dangerous crime, ok and traffic fatalities. Vienna residents have already indicated they don’t want this casino so I don’t understand why people in Richmond are still pushing to make it happen. The state of Maryland already has a gambling venture that can be accessed from Vienna in less than 60 minutes for anyone who wants to gamble. So in effect you are proposing a risky venture that already has competition. My own professional work has included helping people whose lives have been affected by addiction and gambling is one of those issues. Please do not do this. It is not healthy or cost effective and could bring crime and other unhealthy behavior to our beautiful Town of Vienna.

This bill has been previously review. The majority of the population that this would effect are against the proposal. This second chance for approval must be stopped.

No casino in Tyson's. Increase in crime. Increase in traffic. Increase in drug sales. Minors will be negatively affected.

No casinos in Fairfax

Surveys show roughly 75% of Fairfax County residents oppose a casino, cutting across demographics and political lines; 66% of residents associated with unions who were polled oppose a casino. We do not want this, it is a family centered county. Keep it out.

I oppose the building of ANY casino in Fairfax.

Virginia’s existing casino policy limits authorizations to economically distressed localities; SB 756 instead targets a thriving region contributing around 20% of Virginia’s General Fund revenue. This is only one reason to vote against this bill

I oppose the proposed casino in Tysons because it conflicts with the community’s long-term vision and would introduce significant social, economic, and infrastructure challenges. Tysons and Vienna have worked for decades to evolve into balanced, walkable communities with strong business districts, residential neighborhoods, and access to public transit. A casino would undermine that progress by prioritizing short-term revenue over sustainable development. Casinos are proven to increase traffic congestion, strain public safety resources, and bring higher rates of problem gambling, which disproportionately affects vulnerable residents. The promised economic benefits are often overstated, while local costs—policing, addiction services, and infrastructure wear—fall on taxpayers. Tysons and Vienna already face congestion and growth pressures; adding a casino would intensify these issues without delivering meaningful community value. Fairfax County should focus on development that supports innovation, quality of life, and family-friendly amenities—not a destination that risks altering the character of Tysons and Vienna and creating long-term social costs that outweigh any temporary financial gain. ——————————————- I support eliminating certain products and cosmetics that contain harmful or unnecessary ingredients because consumer safety and long-term health should come first. Many everyday items still include chemicals linked to hormone disruption, skin irritation, environmental damage, or long-term health risks, despite safer alternatives being available. Removing these products from the market encourages innovation, greater transparency, and higher manufacturing standards. It also protects children, pregnant women, and individuals with sensitivities who are often most vulnerable to toxic exposure. By prioritizing clean, responsibly sourced ingredients, we can reduce environmental impact, limit chemical buildup in our bodies, and create a marketplace that values well-being over profit.

No casino!!!

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

Object to all said bills and any casios developments.

My name is Susan Cave. I am also the mother of William Cave, who died at just 32 years old from consuming raw leaf not 70h. William was a healthy young man who worked hard. He had no history of addiction or drug use or abuse. He was a loving father of one daughter and a devoted husband… On April 20 2024, my son did not come home. His toxicology confirmed mitragynine was his killer. My William died from a toxic mixture of his prescribed antidepressants and RawLeafKratrom (RLK) In the beginning, Will and I were told that RLK was safe, natural, and a benign supplement to help with anxiety/ depression. After consuming RLK for less than one year, Will realized he had become dependent when he tried to stop and could not because the withdrawals and cravings were so overpowering. Will took raw leaf for 4 years before it took his life and the last 3 yrs was spend trying to withdraw and stop kratom…each time failing. Parents like me are left to bury our children while the AKA and the kratom industry continue to deny responsibility., deny deaths, call medical examiners incompetent, and call grieving parents liars. If RLK bans had existed earlier, my son might still be here today. After his death I joined a national non-profit organization called Kratom Danger Awareness founded by Wendy Chamberlain. Now I advocate not only for my son but for 1000s of other families who have been devastated by RLK. In 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration formally accepted our citizen petition requesting the scheduling of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine. That acceptance means is enough scientific and medical concern to warrant a full review under the Controlled Substances Act. The FDA has been clear that products containing kratom are adulterated and unlawfully marketed under food and drug law. They are not approved drugs, not lawful dietary supplements, and not compliant consumer products. Yet HB 308 establishes inspection, seizure, and enforcement authority for nicotine and hemp while leaving these adulterated, opioid-active products entirely outside the framework. That gap is now known. Parents have asked that it be addressed. The enforcement structure already exists on these very pages. I respectfully urge the Committee to amend HB 308 to include kratom, so that products the FDA has already identified as adulterated are subject to the same permitting, inspection, and seizure authority as every other high-risk retail product regulated by this bill. Please listen to the families. Please support Bills that ban or schedule RLK.

HB 308 is premised on the idea that products marketed as legal, natural, or reduced-harm still require oversight when they present public-health risks. That principle is sound — but the bill fails its own logic by excluding kratom. Kratom is a psychoactive substance sold in gas stations, vape shops, and tobacco retailers; it is available in high-potency extracts and concentrates; and it is associated with documented dependence, withdrawal syndromes, poison-center calls, and fatalities. Leaving kratom unregulated while regulating nicotine pouches and tobacco alternatives creates a regulatory contradiction and a clear loophole that undermines the purpose of HB 308. Kratom should be explicitly included under the same regulatory framework, or addressed through immediate companion legislation. Anything less is a failure of responsible governance.

HB 308 regulates tobacco and nicotine products in the name of public safety — yet completely ignores kratom, a psychoactive substance sold in the same gas stations and vape shops, marketed as “safe,” and available in high-potency extracts. This omission is not theoretical to me. On December 6, 2023, my son Austin died alone in his room. His toxicology was negative for fentanyl, heroin, and other illicit street opioids. The cause of death was ruled intoxication by mitragynine, the primary alkaloid in kratom. I was the one who found him, and that is a trauma I will live with forever. If Virginia believes public safety justifies regulating nicotine pouches and tobacco alternatives, there is no defensible reason to leave kratom completely unregulated. Treating kratom more leniently than tobacco is illogical and dangerous. A bill that claims to protect public health while ignoring a substance that has already killed Virginians is not reform — it is willful neglect.

My daughter Kielee died March 1st 2025 of mitragynine overdose. She was only 23 years old. Because she was so young they did an investigation. After an autopsy and a toxicology screen was preformed mitragynine overdose was determined to be the factor of death. Kielee trusted the word natural. She used natural kratom off. She believed it was safe to use for pain because that's how it is marketed. If HB 308 is about public safety and enforcement, then leaving kratom out guts the bill. Kratom is a gas-station opioid sold in convenience stores and smoke shops, taken for opioid-like effects, and concentrated into shots and extracts with no permit, no inspection, and no seizure authority. This bill proves the General Assembly knows how to regulate dangerous retail products. The structure is here. The enforcement power is here. The precedent is written line by line. And yet kratom alone is spared. That choice guarantees circumvention. When tobacco and nicotine are regulated, retailers will pivot to the one opioid-active product the law does not touch. Enforcement will tighten everywhere except where the risk is greatest. I urge the Committee not to advance a bill that closes every door while leaving the opioid on the counter untouched.

My name is Wendy Chamberlain. I am a mother, and I am here because my son, Joseph, is dead. Joseph did not struggle with illegal drugs. He did not overdose on fentanyl or heroin. He used kratom—Whole leaf natural powder , specifically its primary alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine—products that are sold openly, marketed as safe, and completely unregulated. My son died from mitragynine toxicity. A product he used for energy. He was my only child , business owner and a dad to 3 amazing boys.. He simply sat down one evening to watch tv and fell asleep and never to wake up again. This changed our lives forever.. He was so full of life and love.. And taken away at 38 yrs old on 8/30/2020. After his death, I did what grieving parents do when the system fails them—I started asking questions. I learned that kratom products vary wildly in potency, that newer extracts are far stronger than what users believe they’re taking, and that there is no federal oversight, no dosing standards, and no warning labels that reflect real risk. I now serve as the founder and chair of Kratom Danger Awareness, nonprofit and I represent thousands of families across this country—parents who have buried children, spouses who have lost partners, and families living through addiction that began with a product sold as “natural” and “safe.” This is not speculation. This is not anecdote. In 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration formally accepted our citizen petition requesting the scheduling of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine. That acceptance means the federal government determined there is enough scientific and medical concern to warrant a full review under the Controlled Substances Act. That matters. Because it confirms what families like mine have been saying for years: these substances are not harmless supplements. They are psychoactive compounds with real risks—risks that communities like yours are now being forced to manage on the ground. Local action matters when federal action lags. Virginia has the opportunity to put public health first, to protect families, and to prevent more parents from standing where I stand today. I am not here because I want to be. I am here because my son cannot be. If HB 308 is intended to promote public safety and retail accountability through enforceable standards, then excluding kratom undermines the very framework the bill so carefully builds. The General Assembly has already done the difficult work. The definitions are written. The enforcement mechanisms are in place. The authority is clearly asserted—within this bill itself. What remains unexplained is why kratom alone is left outside that system. I urge the Committee not to advance a bill that strengthens oversight for every high-risk retail product while leaving the most obvious enforcement gap intact. Please act—before more families join ours. Thank you. Wendy Chamberlain

If HB 308 is intended to protect public safety and ensure meaningful retail accountability, then excluding kratom defeats the bill’s purpose. Kratom is a gas-station opioid sold next to nicotine and hemp, marketed as harmless, and consumed for opioid-like effects, yet it remains entirely outside the enforcement framework this bill creates. The General Assembly has already done the hard work. The permitting structure exists. Inspection and seizure authority exist. The precedent is written clearly in this legislation. What remains unexplained is why this one product—opioid-active, unregulated, and routinely sold in the same high-risk retail environments—is left exempt. I urge the Committee not to advance a bill that modernizes enforcement everywhere except where the danger is most obvious and the incentive to evade regulation is greatest.

Members of the Committee, HB 308 is one of the most expansive retail-control bills this body has considered in years. It creates a permitting regime. It authorizes inspections. It allows seizure of contraband. It establishes nuisance standards. It revokes licenses. It imposes escalating penalties. In short, HB 308 demonstrates that the General Assembly knows exactly how to regulate dangerous retail products when it chooses to do so. That is why the bill’s most important feature is not what it contains but what it leaves out. Kratom is not mentioned anywhere in HB 308. Not by name. Not by alkaloid. Not by botanical classification. Not by functional effect. This omission has a very real consequence: Under HB 308, a retailer can lose its tobacco permit for repeated violations and still lawfully sell kratom powders, capsules, concentrated extracts, and liquid shots the next morning, from the same counter, to the same customers. ABC agents may inspect, seize, and shut down nicotine and hemp products. They may not inspect, seize, or shut down kratom. That is not a hypothetical loophole. That is an enforcement gap created by this bill. HB 308’s precision makes this gap impossible to dismiss as oversight. The bill carefully defines products, delineates authority, and assigns penalties across more than twenty pages. The exclusion of kratom is therefore a policy decision—intentional or not—with predictable consequences. Those consequences will not be theoretical. They will be operational. Retailers will adapt immediately. Products subject to permits and seizures will be replaced with products that are not. Enforcement will migrate away from regulated items and toward the one psychoactive product left untouched. If the purpose of HB 308 is public safety, retail accountability, and meaningful enforcement, then leaving kratom outside this framework defeats the bill’s core intent. The General Assembly has already done the hard work. The structure exists. The enforcement authority exists. The precedent exists—on these very pages. What remains unanswered is why kratom alone is exempt. I respectfully urge the Committee not to advance a bill that modernizes enforcement for every high-risk retail product except the one most likely to exploit the gap.

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

Object to all said bills and any casios developments.

Protect the integrity of the state and residents from the fiscal and civic dangers if gaming it every damaging iteration. The negatives far out way any gains., especially fir this state abd especially for Fairfax county, a county which has provided the state with vital progressive leadership.

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