When state Senator Lashrecse Aird (D–Henrico) discovered that Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger had overhauled the cannabis retail market bill, which had taken years to develop, she was taken aback.
“I was completely shell-shocked,” Aird remarked in a phone interview.
Spanberger’s substitute bill aims to initiate legal recreational sales for individuals aged 21 and over by July 1, 2027, pushing the launch date back by six months. It also proposes stricter criminal penalties, limits the initial number of retail stores, and includes various other changes.
Aird and Delegate Paul Krizek (D–Fairfax), who advocated for the House version of the bill, were open to amendments but felt that the governor’s proposal does not meet the standards of the original legislation they submitted.
Democratic legislators are currently assessing their options, including the possibility of rejecting Spanberger’s substitute and reverting to their earlier version. This scenario, according to Aird and Krizek, would be the least favorable outcome.
“Unfortunately, it will likely be a last-minute decision on what action we must take, but I won’t affirm any direction until we’ve explored all options,” Aird told VPM News.
Aird did not provide specifics but indicated that she is exploring procedural avenues that might allow legislators to “consider the governor’s recommendations while also reflecting the policy positions passed by the General Assembly.”
Voting on the Future of Cannabis Legislation
Aird and Krizek plan to discuss the next steps with their fellow Democrats. Because Spanberger submitted a substitute bill rather than specific amendments, lawmakers may need to vote on the complete legislation.
The General Assembly can either approve Spanberger’s revisions or reject them in favor of the original version, compelling her to either sign, veto, or allow the bill to become law without her signature. With Democrats holding a narrow 21-19 majority in the Virginia Senate, they lack the two-thirds majority needed to override Spanberger’s amendments.
The governor’s spokesperson stated that the General Assembly has been at the forefront of marijuana legalization for years and that Spanberger is committed to collaborating with legislators to complete this crucial work.
Over recent months, Spanberger has engaged with community advocates, law enforcement professionals, and consumers regarding the importance of effective cannabis regulation.
However, questions remain about whether Spanberger would sign or veto the original legislation if lawmakers proceed to reject her substitute.
Impact of Proposed Legal Changes
If finalized, a bill would mark the conclusion of Virginia’s lengthy wait for a regulated cannabis market. In 2021, the Democrat-led General Assembly passed legislation allowing adults to possess small amounts of marijuana and cultivate up to four cannabis plants, yet did not establish a framework for legal sales the following year due to Republican opposition.
Under Aird and Krizek’s original bill, up to 350 business licenses would be available, a state cannabis tax of 6% would be imposed (with local options for an additional tax), and the possession limit would increase from 1 ounce to 2.5 ounces. In contrast, Spanberger’s substitute lowers the possession limit to 2 ounces, raises the cannabis tax to 8% starting July 2029, and caps the number of retail licenses at 200 until at least January 1, 2029.
Furthermore, Spanberger’s revisions propose that public cannabis consumption carry a higher penalty, escalating from a $25 fine to a Class 4 misdemeanor, and illegally transporting a significant quantity of cannabis could result in a Class 2 felony charge.
Chelsea Higgs Wise, executive director of Marijuana Justice, voiced concerns about the proposed legislation, urging legislators to reject the governor’s version and force her to make a decision. “This proposal would revert us to a harmful pre-decriminalization situation,” she stated.
Wise also criticized Spanberger for failing to adequately address racial justice within the context of marijuana legislation. She emphasized that no law should permit such severe penalties for marijuana offenses, describing the proposed changes as a significant setback in efforts to rectify racial disparities related to drug enforcement.
Spanberger’s revisions omit sections that would allocate a portion of state tax revenue to early childhood care and education as well as initiatives aimed at assisting communities disproportionately impacted by drug enforcement.
In closing, Krizek emphasized the importance of the extensive groundwork laid by legislators and various stakeholders, noting the comprehensive data-driven approach adopted by the Joint Commission overseeing the transition into a cannabis retail market.