IN THE NEWS: The House ended a discussion to speed up efforts to legalize marijuana in Virginia. Senator Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) believes that Republicans are afraid to act on a policy already implemented.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) is the patron of a bill that would allow local police to use AI facial recognition technology to catch criminals. The General Assembly prohibited that practice last year, but supporters of the bill say that was a bad decision.

For people struggling to make ends meet, getting hit with a medical bill from five years ago is a burden that can lead to financial ruin. That's why members of the General Assembly are considering a three year statute of limitations for medical debt.

GUEST: Dylan Bishop, Virginia Cannabis Business Association. The Association of small and medium businesses in the marijuana industry are disappointed the General Assembly declined to speed up legal marijuana sales. He takes you into the weeds to explain what the debate was and what went wrong.

Learn more at http://linktr.ee/JacklegMedia

Michael Pope

I'm Michael Pope.

Thomas Bowman

I'm Thomas Bowman.

Michael Pope

And this is Pod Virginia, the podcast that takes you inside Virginia politics.

Thomas Bowman

We're gonna talk to Dylan Bishop later in the show. He's Legislative Counsel for the Virginia Cannabis Business Association. And if you're like me, you probably think about marijuana legalization from the end users point of view, or generally, in the abstract. Dylan's gonna give you a fascinating insight into the nuts and bolts of policymaking, and the perspective of the cannabis industry itself, specifically, small and medium sized businesses. He's going to explain what, some, in the business community think about the decision of the House Republican leadership this session to puff puff pass on marijuana legalization.

Michael Pope

I see what you did there, Thomas. So you're definitely gonna want to stick around for that discussion. And on that note, let's get to the news. Last year, lawmakers legalized marijuana, but nobody can legally buy it because nobody has a license to sell it. At least not yet. The General Assembly was considering a bill to create a marketplace. But now a Republican led House panel is ending that discussion. Republican Delegate Emily Brewer of Isle of Wight County leads the subcommittee that killed the bill.

Emily Brewer

We have folks that are still trying to grapple the differences between CBD, the terms, "hemp," "cannabis," "Delta 8," "Delta 9," and there's a lot of confusion. And so I really truly think that for us to get to a regulated market, all the stakeholders really need to come together.

Michael Pope

Is there's a really confusion? Senator Adam Ebbin says there's no confusion. Lawmakers have been debating this stuff for years, and when they made that decision, they still had two weeks. I mean, even now, there's another week they have to figure this thing out. Here's part of my discussion with Adam Ebbin.

Adam Ebbin

It's hard to read their minds, but I'd say they're unprepared to govern in this area and afraid of their base.

Michael Pope

What do you mean by that?

Adam Ebbin

I think they're afraid of cannabis, which the General Assembly has already made public policy decision to legalize, and they didn't do their homework.

Michael Pope

So just like that, the discussion of creating a marketplace for selling marijuana went up in smoke. Now Thomas, call me cynical, but it's also worth pointing out that extending this discussion another year, creates a lot of potential campaign contributions for 2023, when all 140 members of the General Assembly will be on the ballot. Now it's possible that all these businesses that want to make money in the newly created industry, well, they might end up making a lot of campaign contributions. Thomas, what do you make of this discussion about creating a marijuana marketplace, essentially, going up in smoke?

Thomas Bowman

Well, first, I want to say, that there's not going to be nearly as many campaign contributions than if we had accelerated sales, and they had money to donate. Maybe from out of state entities, and big business, will have the campaign contributions. But I don't think it's going to be as big of a contributor this time. And we get into an interesting discussion of that with Dylan Bishop. But this really, first off, Senator Ebbin is completely right in that this is not a new issue, and this is a policy that puts Republicans in a weird position. They had shut down all discussion of marijuana legalization for the 27 years that they had power in the House of Delegates. And then the Democrats come to power, and some people criticize them for trying to make it too complicated, or at least, more complicated than it needed to be. At the same time, the effort toward equity, in making sure that people who had been convicted of former crimes that were no longer illegal, had the ability to get one of these licenses, are first priority to get one of these licenses, that levels the playing field. Because if you only solely rely on available capital, in order to procure these licenses, then you're going to be blocking out people who have been systemically disenfranchised from the financial system, or from society at large.

Michael Pope

You know, I thought I saw a potential compromise emerging on the equity licenses, which is, there are parts of this, the Republicans just hate and would never accept, and there's parts that they were actually willing to talk about. So for the first batch of things, they just didn't like the idea that you might give preference to somebody who has been convicted of a marijuana misdemeanor, or you're a relative of someone who's been convicted of marijuana misdemeanor, or you live in a jurisdiction that's been disproportionately policed. The Republicans didn't like any of those categories. And so like, let's assume that you take those off the table to strike a deal, you know, what they were willing to talk about is licenses, preferential treatment, for people who live in economically disadvantaged areas, which actually wasn't Ebbin's bill. So there's a win there, because people actually, on both sides of the aisle, were actually for that. The Republicans also suggested adding women and minority owned businesses. I think you could probably get some traction around that. So I actually kind of thought there was a compromise emerging on the preferential treatment for the licenses. But then, as it turns out, the Republican House Caucus was just kind of bitterly divided here on this. Half of the Caucus didn't want to have to have anything to do with marijuana, and they certainly didn't wanna have to explain it to their voters that the Republican led House of Delegates created a marketplace for marijuana. But then half the Caucus thought it was a good idea, and wanted to strike a deal, and wanted to talk about how the new marketplace might work. So I guess they were just intractably divided and couldn't figure out anything. And so we're going to have this discussion again next year.

Thomas Bowman

Yeah. And it goes to show you just how closely divided they were because neither side had quite enough votes to do it the way they wanted to do it. The members of the Republican Caucus, who supported marijuana legalization, don't have enough votes to outweigh the members of the Republican Caucus who opposed marijuana legalization. It's enough when Democrats are in control to get a bill passed on the floor. But it's not enough to win the committee votes, and win majority support in the Republican Caucus, itself.

Michael Pope

All right. Well, also in the news, Big Brother is watching you, or at least, that's the concern of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who are opposing legislation that would let your local police department use facial recognition technology. Senator Scott Surovell says those concerns are overblown.

Scott Surovell

There's nothing in the bill that allows any type of surveillance or monitoring. The technology can only be used if you have a picture of somebody that you want to feed into the algorithm to then try to identify them, or to identify their people affiliated with them for purposes of investigating a crime.

Michael Pope

So it's a very limited use, that's the argument that Surovell is making, but that is not a persuasive argument to Delegate Cia Price. She says this technology will allow for the kind of over policing that Democrats were trying to end when they were in power.

Marcia Price

There are neighborhoods where police cars drive by certain spots 4, 5, 6, 7 times a day, and little kids in neighborhoods like the ones that I grew up in, and that I represent, know this feeling, and other areas don't have that.

Michael Pope

So here's one suggestion to make this bill better, get a warrant. Delegate Sam Rasoul says one way to safeguard privacy rights is to make the cops get a warrant if they want to use facial recognition technology.

Sam Rasoul

Our laws have not kept up with technology as it has evolved. What we see is a clear violation of not only our privacy laws, but of the Fourth Amendment, that there should be due process. In the use of technology, there should be due process, as well, and that's why you'll find concerns on both sides of the aisle that say we need to be smart about this.

Michael Pope

So the version that's currently under consideration has no requirement to get a warrant before this technology is used. Your local police department is prohibited from using it right now. Surovell's bill would allow them to use it, he would say with some safeguards. Price feels like, you know, there are communities in Virginia that are going to be over policed, and Rasoul says, we can at least create some sort of safeguards around this thing. Thomas, what do you think about the police use of facial recognition technology?

Thomas Bowman

To be honest, I think it's inevitable. One way or another, you know, where we're headed toward the dystopian Capitol surveillance state.

Michael Pope

That's grim.

Thomas Bowman

It is what it is. On another note, though, that I'm kind of surprised that this bill is coming from Scott Surovell. When he was Delegate Scott Surovell, he was a member of the Privacy Caucus, one of the co chairs of the Privacy Caucus, with, of all people, Republican Delegate Bob Marshall, if anybody remembers him. So that was the one thing that they could agree on. And, you know, Scott supported positions, like getting rid of the police license plate scanners, and getting rid of, in letting you think shoot drones down that we're flying over your property. Those are some of the like, vintage core values for Scott Surovell. So it makes me wonder, where did the idea for this bill come from? Did an agency or industry bring it to him, which is sometimes the thing that happens with this technical legislation?

Michael Pope

I think there is one vendor here that is particularly well heeled vendor, who would stand to gain by having their technology be used in police departments across Virginia. So I mean, there are- there is a business stakeholder here. But then also, I mean, keep in mind, Fairfax County used to be able to use this technology, so like before the Democrats passed this bill to, basically, outlaw it, Fairfax County use this all the time, and they actually caught lots of criminals using this technology. And then now, all of a sudden, they can't use it anymore, but they want to use it, of course. And so like, I'm sure Surovell's hearing about this from many different people, including his constituents and his local police department.

Thomas Bowman

Yeah. Well, as a practicing attorney and Fairfax County, I am certain that he is getting an earful from either county officials, or county police, about how this bill had the unintended consequence of setting their efforts back. There's a philosophical question to be discussed, as to whether or not that's a bad thing. But clearly now Senator Surovell is convinced that it was.

Michael Pope

Alright, one more thing in the news. For people struggling to make ends meet, getting hit with a medical bill from five years ago, is a burden that can lead to financial ruin. That's why members of the General Assembly are considering a three year statute of limitations for medical debt. Jay Spear at the Virginia Poverty Law Center says lawmakers need to take action.

Jay Spear

It's a huge problem. And it's all over people's credit reports. But then they also- a lot of people get sued for this debt, get a judgment against them, have their wages garnished, so it can be a real problem.

Michael Pope

The bill was introduced by freshmen Delegate Nadarius Clark, a Democrat from Portsmouth.

Nadarius Clark

So many times, we see that people have these ghost bills that come back to haunt them 20 or 25 years later, 30 years later, and now they have garnishments coming out, or different things happening. And it was completely out of their mind, out of their thought, and now they're struck with a burden.

Michael Pope

So this bill is headed to the Governor. And this is a pretty significant bill, especially for for a House freshmen. So yeah, this issue of medical debt is really crippling to a lot of people. And what do you make of Nadarius Clark being able to set this three year statute of limitations?

Thomas Bowman

Well, I'm glad that he has been able to find a bipartisan issue that he can pass, and this is going to be his first huge bill, and there are legislators who go many years, and many sessions, without passing their first bill. Michael, I tried to find some stats on medical debt, or outstanding medical debt, in Virginia. I couldn't find anything good, but I did find a story that illustrates just how bad the problem is. Do want to hear about it?

Michael Pope

Of course.

Thomas Bowman

Alright, so this woman in Charlottesville, Doris Hutchinson, wanted to use money from the sale of her late mother's house, to help her grandchildren go to college. But the University of Virginia Health System took $38,000 of the proceeds, because a 13 year old medical bill, owed by her deceased brother, had somehow turned into a lien on the property.

Michael Pope

What a nightmare.

Thomas Bowman

Yeah, and it goes on to say that UVA Health had sued patients 36,000 times over six years, for more than $100 million. Now, this article came out in 2020, but it is also where the status of the law is exactly the same as it is right the second, and they would not have the ability to go 13 years back.

Michael Pope

Well, you mentioned that story is from 2020. Just last week, Thomas, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had a new report highlighting the complicated, and burdensome, nature of medical billing in the United States. So the CFPB report revealed that the U.S. healthcare system is supported by a billing payments collections and credit reporting infrastructure where mistakes are common, where patients often have difficulty getting these errors corrected or resolved. So I mean, like this is a huge problem, the scale of which is difficult to even grasp. And the consequences of getting caught up in this sort of thing are completely ruinous to a lot of people. So yeah, Nadarius Clark getting this thing to the Governor's desk is a pretty big win for him, but then also people across Virginia whose lives will be improved by this.

Thomas Bowman

Yeah, I love bills like this because they're good bills. They help the little guys. And that's what people like Nadarius Clark, and all delegates, frankly, should be there for. All right, well, let's go ahead and take a break because I'm excited to get to this interview. When we come back, we'll light it up with Dylan Bishop. He's General Counsel to the newly created Virginia Cannabis Business Association. He's going to tell us what his members think about the decision by House Republicans to let the discussion of creating a marijuana marketplace this year go up in smoke.

Michael Pope

And we're back on Pod Virginia. We're joined by the Legislative Council for the Virginia Cannabis Business Association, Dylan Bishop, thanks for joining us.

Dylan Bishop

It's a pleasure to be with you, gentlemen.

Thomas Bowman

Thanks for being here. So let's start with your association. Tell us about your members, and what's the purpose of your association?

Dylan Bishop

Sure. So the Cannabis Business Association of Virginia, it's quite a mouthful, so we go by Cannabis VA for short. And we're a 501 C six, nonprofit trade association. And we were formed with the founding principle of ensuring that small and medium size Virginia businesses, have an opportunity to participate, and thrive, in Virginia's regulated cannabis industries. That runs the gamut from industrial hemp industry, disappointed applicants who wanted to be become more involved in the pharmaceutical process, or the medical marijuana industry, as well as entrepreneurs, businessmen and women, farmers that had an eye towards the adult use market, that we thought where it's just on the horizon. But unfortunately, it looks as if that measure will fail to pass the General Assembly this year.

Michael Pope

So that was the big news of last week, the Republican led House killing the effort to create licenses to sell marijuana. Tell us about the reaction from your members? What did they make of that?

Dylan Bishop

Our members, and myself included, we were, of course, disappointed to see that and, you know, I think it may be a short sighted decision. Right now, we've got an upside down market, where it's legal for adults to possess and consume cannabis, but there's no lawful means of cultivating, or growing that cannabis commercially, nor to purchase that cannabis as an adult. And whenever we have such a situation, the illicit market fills that void. We see that the illicit market running abound already. We've got untested, unsafe products on our shelves now. Or, of course, we've got folks purchasing cannabis products for recreational use through criminal enterprises or illicit means. Not only does that present a public safety concern, but as that black market continues to grow, it does so at the expense of legitimate businessmen and women here in the Commonwealth, and Virginia's farmers and agricultural community. So it's really, really a shame, not just for the consumers, but for the the entrepreneurs in the agricultural community here in the Commonwealth, that was really looking forward to, you know, operating in a legitimate enterprise, and doing things aboveboard, and reinvigorating some of our more distressed localities, or agricultural communities, that have found themselves in hard times of late.

Thomas Bowman

Yeah, it seems like Virginia is also missing out on an opportunity for revenue. So the average person, if they live in Northern Virginia, at least, they're gonna go up to D.C., they're gonna buy marijuana legally in D.C., D.C. is going to capture all of the revenue associated with that transaction, then they're going to break the law by bringing that cannabis into Virginia, where it's legal to have, but all the things you have to do to get it are illegal. So let's talk about early sales, Dylan. This session, we heard discussion of letting dispensaries start selling as soon as September. People who get licenses, would have to wait until whenever those are available, years, at this point. What did you make of that discussion of letting some people enter the market right away?

Dylan Bishop

That actually came as a recommendation of the Cannabis Oversight Commission. So a joint commission that was bicameral, so members of the House and Senate, and what they had proposed was put in writing and introduced as Senate Bill 313 by Senator Ebbin. And what that legislation would have allowed, is for our existing pharmaceutical processors, as well as five qualified industrial hemp processors, to engage in sales during this transition period. So it would be in this intermediate period, until the Cannabis Control Authority can get fully propped up, and be in a position to establish and regulate, that more permanent market. Now, there was some pushback from groups like Marijuana Justice, and some of the smaller farmers saying, "Hey, what's the deal here? I thought the intention was to allow small farmers, small businesses, disadvantaged populations, to participate? But with the early sales, you're only letting the quote unquote, 'big guys,' participate?" You know, that's for pretty sound policy reasons. That early sales legislation was intended to curb this illicit market, that I referred to earlier. But in order to do that, you need pretty much turnkey operations to satiate this huge demand. Now, the pharmaceutical processors, they cultivate and distributed marijuana products, but only for those folks that have a written certification from a practitioner. Now, if we were to allow this pharmaceutical processors to sell to the full adult use market, they may have capacity issues. And as a result of that, they wouldn't be able to satiate the entire adult use demand. And it may actually inhibit their ability to provide products and therapies to their patients that are getting these products for medical reasons. With that in mind, the Cannabis Oversight Commission and Senator Ebbin, wanted to provide an opportunity for these Virginia based hemp processors that, you know, we're already processing a huge amount of industrial hemp. So they already have the infrastructure in place, they already have the knowledge, and the labor force, to process cannabis. So it was the next logical step to allow them to participate in this early adult use market. And then as it worked through legislative process, the Senate actually pulled the hemp processors from that bill. So it would have only been the pharmaceutical processors that would have been able to participate in this early sales. There's huge blowback from across the Commonwealth, from our hemp processors, to our hemp growers, to small business lobbies. Because the pharmaceutical processors here in the Commonwealth, almost to the tee, are all multi state corporations with their headquarters out of the Commonwealth. There was pushback, because if the pharmaceutical processors were able to participate in adult use sales, they would have even more of a market advantage, and getting their brand and recognition out there, before some of the smaller actors that would come on board later with the full enterprise. So I can understand some of the pushback, you know, about not having enough opportunity for small businesses, or micro businesses, or disadvantaged populations. But again, we need to keep in mind, that that was just for this transitional sales period, we need to turn key operations. And then of course, the intention. And I think in both Chambers, and by both parties, with the full and permanent regulatory framework, that's really where the little guy got the shot. There are provisions in place to give preferential treatment to small business incubator programs to really kind of grow from the ground up, these smaller micro businesses, and I know particularly, you know, Delegates Wampler and Webert, and Senators McPike and Senator Ebbin, were really trying to come up with a program to facilitate micro businesses, or craft grows as well. But unfortunately, as you both are keenly aware, the entire program, both early sales, and that permanent framework of Cannabis Control Authority, are on pause for at least another year.

Michael Pope

Well, let me ask you about the rules around advertisements. So there were a lot of them and the restrictions were things like the advertisements could not include description of like a happy hour, you could not advertise for a happy hour. You could not advertise at a sporting event. There were limitations on outdoor billboards, the signs on the retail establishments could not be in neon lights, that sort of thing. What did you make of all of the many restrictions on advertising around marijuana sales?

Dylan Bishop

Sure, well, anytime you restrict advertising marketing materials, you run the risk of a First Amendment violation. So you've got to be extremely cautious there. So the lawyer in me is automatically skeptical of advertising restrictions. But then again, at the same time, as an industry with a potentially intoxicating substance, we certainly don't want advertising and marketing materials targeted at children, or incapacitated adults. So it's a it's a fine line, we walk there. You know, I think that it's prudent to prohibit advertising that would, you know, be reminiscent of a candy wrapper, or using cartoon characters, or figures, or namesakes that, you know, are generally appealing to children. I think Justice Potter Stewart said it when referring to pornography, he doesn't know how to define it, but he knows it when he sees it. So it's tough to legislate every potential scenario, particularly, when you've got first amendment considerations at play. So, as a representative of the industry, I think it's prudent that we operate aboveboard, and without requiring the General Assembly to legislate, or prohibit, any and every instance, that could be problematic. So I think if we were to provide broad principles in the legislation, and leave that intelligible principle in place, and let the court system, or the regulators, determine what does or doesn't, you know, run afoul of those standards, that's probably more appropriate than trying to legislate any and every particular instance of marketing or advertising materials that might be problematic.

Thomas Bowman

The other hat I wear is a partner at Resolute Strategies Group, we do advertising. So I can't speak to your particular association, but my experience, from the ad industry perspective, is that usually, organizations like this, don't want to deal with the potential for another $4 billion settlement. And so, you know, they're just as happy avoiding the advertising conundrum altogether, because they never know when that hammer is going to drop from the feds. Believe it or not, when I worked for a delegate in the House, several years ago, we actually had Altria bring us a bill, because they wanted to proactively prohibit, in this case, e-cigarettes, right, from getting into the hands of kids. And the tobacco industry brought that restriction to the member that I worked for, because they just wanted to get out ahead of potential lawsuits. And so that might be a model for the cannabis industry, too. But, you know, that's just my musings. Let's talk about online sales. There was some discussion about prohibiting online sales, and your association made a distinction between pickup and delivery? Do I understand that right?

Dylan Bishop

That's correct. So in both the House and Senate vehicles, try to regulate this don't use market, there were restrictions on the retail licensees. And those restrictions included a prohibition on online orders, online sales, delivery orders, and also drive thru orders. Now, we understood the the policy behind prohibiting, at least, in the early years, delivery sales, or drive thru sales. And that's because you want to confirm that that customer is at least 21 years of age or older, you can put your hands on the ID, run it through a third party verification system, and also ensure that that consumer is not under the influence of any intoxicating substances at the time of the purchase. We did think that it was going a little bit too far in prohibiting online sales. In this day and age, particularly with the millennial generation and Gen Z, when they come of age, you know, it's nice to be able to select your product online, and then go into the store and pick it up. So we thought that you know, just as a pro business factor, here, that avoiding online sales, or prohibiting online sales, for pickup, maybe went a step or two beyond the pale. And so if you maintain the prohibition on deliveries, or drive thru orders, permitted online sales, but still required that customer to come in and pick up that product, show their ID, and the teller, or the client representative, could ensure that they're not otherwise under the influence of another intoxicating substance, that would be just fine. And you know, there is some stigma around adult cannabis use. It might be nice for some of those folks that are worried about being seen inside the cannabis dispensary. They can quickly and easily already have their selection made, just walk in, show their ID, get out the door, and have a nice day. So as the business association for this industry, we've always got a keen eye on prohibitions that would inhibit commerce in any way.

Michael Pope

Let's talk about those transactions. So, clearly, the retailers can do transactions to sell marijuana products. But what about cultivators? Should cultivators be able to sell seeds or pods? Where do they fit into the selling part of this?

Dylan Bishop

If we're going to have this super regulated, and rigid structure, it really only makes sense to have the retailers in a position to make these sales. As you know, the House and Senate versions of these adult use bills are written, there's a whole slew of requirements for that retailer. They've got to have human trafficking information posted in their facilities, they've got to train their employees on what over intoxication looks like. And there's all these mechanisms in place to make sure that, you know, these adult use cannabis products aren't being misused. At the same time, those restrictions, and those training requirements, were not put in place for the cultivators. So if we're going to take this path, and require any person that sells, potentially, intoxicating products to have that training, and have that myriad of materials inside their their facility, that would also need to apply to the cultivators, if they're also in a position to sell direct to the consumer. And those requirements were not in place as the bills were drafted. So we thought, just to make it more clean, that all sales of these adult use marijuana products should probably go through that retail licensee.

Thomas Bowman

It sounds like you're trying to set up a system similar to what the beer and wine wholesalers have, where it's a three legged market, you have a distinction between the manufacturers, the distributors, and the retailers. Obviously, you're gonna have slightly different categories for your market. But do I understand that right, that's generally what you guys are looking for?

Dylan Bishop

You're exactly on the money here. And I don't know if it's what we were looking for, but it's the hand we were dealt. So I think that the legislators, in coming up with proposals, prohibited vertical integration, specifically to benefit the small and medium sized actors here in the Commonwealth, or flip the coin, to prohibit major players, major multi state actors, from coming in and vertically integrating, and dominating the market. But it's a double edged sword. Because when you prohibit vertical integration, you prohibit small businesses from growing into larger businesses and, you know, evolving and moving into different sectors of the market.

Michael Pope

Let's talk about areas that would have a kind of a local prohibition. So during this debate, there was a lot of talk about opting in versus opting out. Senator Ebbin's bill would have had every local government automatically opting into marijuana sales. And if a local government wanted to opt out of the marketplace, you know, essentially, creating a prohibition on all marijuana sales and that jurisdiction, they would have to hold a referendum. Dylan, tell us about the thoughts of your association, in terms of governments having to have a referendum to opt into marijuana sales, versus having a referendum to opt out of marijuana sales?

Dylan Bishop

Sure. Certainly, we were of the mindset that we would much rather see the opt out provision in the bill. So all localities were inherently a part of this adult use market. but they would have to take an overt step, in order to prohibit the sales of adult use cannabis in their locality. I think that makes more sense, while still at the same time, recognizing the sovereignty of that locality. And, particularly, if you're in a conservative area, or let's just use Lynchburg for example, home of Liberty University, very conservative, very pro Christian area. Not a lot of proponents of adult use cannabis there. So if they wanted to disallow adult use sales in Lynchburg, they should certainly have that right. It's very-

Michael Pope

Can I just butt in here and say, if you're a listener to this podcast, and you're in Lynchburg, and you disagree with what he just said, send us an email.

Dylan Bishop

But anyways, when when you have an opt in market, you really have a patchwork, and it's really difficult, particularly, for investors or small businesses, to plan based on an opt in. So if we want to establish an industry, that should be the default position, that everybody, every locality, can participate in that industry. And only in exceptional circumstances can and should they opt out.

Michael Pope

Alright, one last question before you go, and we really appreciate your time today. What do you hope will emerge, as like, the best possible scenario for the next time the General Assembly's taking this up, potentially next year? So if you're going to wave a magic wand, and create the best possible bill, what would it say?

Dylan Bishop

If I were to wave a magic wand, Thomas and Michael, I would have the Budget Committee Chairman, work in the substantive provisions of Senate Bill 391 into the budget, even the House Budget has over $20 million allocated to the Cannabis Control Authority. So that would be the ideal circumstance. I know there's a long standing policy not to legislate through the budget. And that's a sound policy. So there's a middle ground here again, and that would be to use the the allocation that's in the existing budget for the Cannabis Control Authority, and use that money to set up their enforcement division, law enforcement officers under the Cannabis Control Authority, and use the remaining resources to study best practices, and to come forward with a recommendation as to how to regulate this adult use market for the next year's General Assembly session. That's the ideal, or the best case scenario for this year. If we were forced to push it off until next year, you know, we like just clear cut, easy to follow, pro business legislation. If you're qualified, you should have an opportunity to participate in this market. We'd like to see preferential treatment, of course, for Virginia businesses, folks in particularly distressed localities, whether that's an urban locality, or rural agricultural community, you know, I think that's appropriate. But less is more. We've got to have age restrictions. Like I said, I think we have to have at least an intelligible principle prohibiting marketing to children. You know, we need a public messaging campaign to make folks aware of what is legal, what's not legal, the safety hazards associated with using an intoxicating substance. But otherwise, get the government out of the way, and let free enterprise reign.

Thomas Bowman

Alright, well, that's a good place to leave it. We've been joined by the Legislative Council for the Virginia Cannabis Business Association, Dylan Bishop. Thank you for providing the trade associations perspective on marijuana legalization, Dylan.

Dylan Bishop

Gentlemen, it was a pleasure to be with you today. And hope you guys have a great afternoon.

Michael Pope

Pod Virginia is a production of Jackleg Media. Our producer is Aaryan Balu, our transcriptions are by Emily Cottrell, and our satirical spots are by Steve Artley.

Thomas Bowman

Find us on Facebook or Twitter. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, and hey, write a review on Apple podcasts. It really helps people find the show.

Michael Pope

We'll be back next week with another episode of Pod Virginia.