Dear Delegate Simon, My name is Kayla McCue, and I am a Registered Peer Recovery Specialist (RPRS) working directly with individuals in substance use recovery in Henrico County. I am writing to respectfully urge your support for people in recovery who rely on medical cannabis as part of their treatment and stabilization, particularly those living in recovery housing. Recovery is not one-size-fits-all. There are multiple pathways to recovery and multiple forms of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT), including methadone, buprenorphine, and medical cannabis. What works for one person may not work for another, and recovery outcomes improve when individuals are allowed to pursue the pathway that best supports their stability and health. Who are we, as policymakers or providers, to choose which legitimate, physician-guided treatment is acceptable for someone else’s recovery? Medical cannabis should be approached through the same evidence-based, harm-reduction lens as other MAT options. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Kayla McCue Registered Peer Recovery Specialist (RPRS)

Please amend this bill to allow medical marijuana. This bill will force addicts into homelessness's or back on medication they are trying to stay away from

My name is Jeremy Tillem founder of GreenhouseRVA -A cannabis inclusive recovery organization located in Richmond. Im asking for a critical amendment to HB931 : To permit medical cannabis in certified recovery residences. Without it, this bill forces Virginians in recovery to choose between their doctor-prescribed medicine and stable housing- a choice that could derail lives and exacerbate our states addiction crisis. Imagine a place where recovery thrives not despite medical cannabis, but because of it. At GreenhouseRVA, we house 25 residents with a growing waiting list. Calls flood in daily from desperate individual's thrilled by our innovative model: A structured environment that integrates medical cannabis to manage chronic pain, anxiety, PTSD and more. We enforce random drug tests, strict curfews, mandatory meetings and weekly chores to foster accountability. Our residents all range from participating in Partial Hospitalization or Intensive Outpatient programs, others holding full-time jobs and rebuilding their futures. Astonishingly, 85% stay over 8 months, a threshold that dramatically boosts long term-term sobriety rates. Every resident holds a medical cannabis card, mostly using it as a safer alternative from more harmful pharmaceuticals. The science is undeniable. Medical cannabis reduces anxiety, depression, chronic pain and insomnia with fewer side effects than traditional pharmaceuticals. It slashes opioid use from 40-60% in chronic pain patients, curbing cravings, withdrawal symptoms, lower relapse rates and improves treatment-retention-acting as a harm reduction lifeline without the addiction potential of harder drugs. Studies even show medical cannabis users in treatment fair equal to or better than non-users in key outcomes like completion rates and reduced criminal involvement. 70% of our residents are involved with Henrico probation-not court ordered, but voluntarily choosing us because it works. Just last week, Clint, a greenhouse participant, completed his probation officially and has been working full time as a welder. Shout out to Clint! Yet probation officers threatened to bar residents here without HB931 certification, even when medical cannabis aligns with their conditions. This arbitrary hurdle punishes success and ignores Virginias own medical cannabis program. Without this amendment, HB931's blanket marijuana ban in certified homes would devastate programs like ours, potentially shutting the doors and leaving 25 people homeless- rippling to hundreds or thousands statewide. Why force Virginians into abstinence-only models that fail many, when inclusive approaches save lives? Even the National Alliance for recovery residences endorses policies allowing medical cannabis with safeguards for states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Virginia can join them, aligning with our progressive cannabis laws to reduce opioid dependence and harm reduction recovery. On behalf of medical cannabis patients fighting addiction without resorting to deadly alternatives, I implore you: Amend HB931. Build an inclusive system that empowers, not excludes. The lives of countless Virginias depend on it. www.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848643 www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2019/07/16/cannabis-treatment-counters-addiction-first-study-of-its-kind.html www.recoveryreview.blog/2025/12/02/.research-article-review-medical-cannabis-for-addiction-treatment-in-a-residential-sud-setting

Please add an amendment to be inclusive of medical cannabis; it is the fastest-growing pathway to recovery in the U.S. I opened my first recovery house in 1985 and have opened or provided technical assistance to over 500 recovery houses in Virginia and nationwide. I am the co-founder of VARR and McShin, I established 4 Oxford homes in the late 80's and early 90's. I'm a past board member of SAARA. . I have a cannabis healthcare certification from Syracuse University. Also, over 43 years clean and sober. I am currently a national harm reduction advocate.I say these things to verify the depths of my institutional knowledge on this matter. The point is, medical cannabis recovery homes are real and work as well as most any other recovery residences. Harm reduction, including harm reduction recovery residences, is the future. Addiction still has a 97% reoccurance rate. Where do they go? I'm sure banning medical cannabis in this bill is an unintentional error. Please amend it. I only support this bill with the requested amendment. PS, how will we continue to get good data and participate in clinical and scientific studies if they are outlawed? It makes no sense why discrimination is in this bill.

I am writing in my comments today as a resident in Richmond City that has seen a vary large number of recovery homes enter our very small neighborhood footprint (16 homes within our three block boundary which includes a school zone). While this bill does have my support with regard to regulations and the sharing of data with the public, elements of concern remain unaddressed. For example, public access to a full listing of certified and conditionally certified residence addresses to be able to identify them accordingly within the neighborhood. Many of the recovery residences in my area are being operated out of properties that are owned by companies and are rented out to recovery management teams. This obscures the facilities and a list of those certified or conditionally certified would help with zoning enforcement of any residences that are operating outside of this framework. In addition, stipulating a length of time required for conditionally certified residences to reach certification or face rescinding of said conditional certification. Generally speaking, there is a lack of enforcement or penalty language for residences that do not comply with the regulations stipulated in the bill or fail re-certification. I ask that the committee consider these additional points either in this bill or a future bill. I reiterate my overall support for HB931 which will improve the safety of recovery residents, begin an oversight process, and close loopholes that have allowed for the exploitation of these residences for profit. Thank you.

I am the executive director of the Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board (H-NNCSB), and it is our CSB that was directly impacted when this bill stripped us of our responsibility. In 1993, the General Assembly decided that it was in the best interest of the citizens of Virginia that private mental health providers not be granted the authority to determine if a person needs psychiatric hospitalization while also being the entity that treats them and directs their services. This is because it gives an entity with financial interest the ability to make decisions about a person’s care. This represents a conflict that could place a person’s freedom at risk. At that time, CSBs were designated as the sole entity responsible for pre-screening people to determine the need for psychiatric treatment. The Code of Virginia specifically states that pre-screeners “determine the least restrictive treatment available for the person being evaluated; be able to provide an independent examination of the person; have no financial interest in the admission, treatment, or denial of admission of the person being evaluated; and have no investment interest in the facility detaining or admitting the person.” What you are being asked to do is in direct conflict to this law. These clinicians are responsible for screening the person, deciding the best course of treatment, and providing that treatment— in direct conflict with existing law. To be clear, we are in no way opposed to the psychiatric emergency department (psych ED) being present in our community; we want our citizens to have every opportunity to receive the care they need. We are concerned that the law would be changed to permit this private entity to do the very thing that required the law to be put into place in the first place. The code of Virginia states that the CSB is the “single point of entry into the publicly funded behavioral healthcare system,” yet we are often not involved in the care of the people coming to this private entity for treatment. In fact, we were told directly that their goal is that people who come through their psych ED get connected to one of their outpatient services such as partial hospitalization. Consider that the reimbursement rate for partial hospitalization is $500 per person per day, a rate that significantly increased in January of 2024, just before this pilot was put into place. I am not implying that financial gain is the intent of Riverside but pointing out that this represents financial interest— in direct conflict with the current law. There is no data we can access that is supportive of making this a permanent program. In fact, the data we have been able to see show that Riverside's psych ED issues temporary detention orders in 80% of the screenings it provides, compared to 43% issued by our CSB. While we don’t know the reason for this disparity, it warrants further evaluation to determine if this is a result of circumventing the law that has been in place to protect our citizens. I urge you to take a look at the various articles out there that show what happens when psychiatric facilities are allowed to fully direct the care of their patients. Please also consider the fiscal impact statement that shows that from a DBHDS perspective, this is not something that can be replicated throughout the state, so it is hard to understand why this exception is being made for this single entity.

Letter attached

Please see attached: I am writing to provide a clear and comprehensive explanation of why Virginia law designates Community Services Boards (CSBs) as the sole entities authorized to conduct evaluations for Temporary Detention Orders (TDOs), and to address concerns regarding the proposal to repeal the sunset clause associated with the Riverside Pilot program. These issues intersect directly with Virginia’s longstanding efforts to safeguard due process, protect clinical integrity, and ensure the equitable operation of the Commonwealth’s civil commitment system. Repealing the sunset clause for the Riverside Pilot before the final evaluation report is completed would prematurely institutionalize a model that has not yet demonstrated its safety, effectiveness, or alignment with Virginia’s statutory and ethical standards. Maintaining the sunset ensures that the General Assembly can make a fully informed decision grounded in data, not assumptions. The Preliminary Report on the Riverside Pilot provided only partial data and noted that key performance indicators had not yet been fully measured or validated. Expanding or permanently authorizing such a program without complete findings risks institutionalizing a model that has not been proven safe, effective, or legally sound A model purposely avoided for decades despite being studied by Committees of the General Assembly. A statewide system built on neutrality and consistent standards cannot safely accommodate piecemeal exceptions, especially without rigorous analysis.

HB1304 First, this bill lumps 'training sites' with 'hospitals', which is wrong because the communication security protocols must vastly differ. Second, this change seems invasive and cost-prohibitive, as it implies hospitals, training centers, etc must provide internet for all in their care. Adding internet for a troubled population can be asking for trouble on both tech and social fronts. Technologically, adding internet sufficient for email is not necessarily easy, and it grows very cumbersom to protect its security if wifi. Socially, email itself, though it might be a whistleblower outlet, is more likely to be distracting and attention deficit creating. The only valid case I see, Whistleblower, such letters should be sent physical since email is not a secure means.