Diving into the weeds on marijuana policy: a joint effort
Part 2 of our series on marijuana policy. Jenn Michelle Pedini of NORML is back on the podcast to discuss the status and policy challenges around legalizing marijuana in the 2021 Legislative Session. Ngiste Abebe, of Columbia Care. She served on the governor’s workgroup last year and Ngiste is a member of the Cannabis Trade Federation’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Taskforce and Virginia Medical Cannabis Coalition. We dive into the weeds on marijuana policy and the policy debates around equity and inclusion.
Michael Pope
Welcome to Transition Virginia, the podcast documenting the ongoing transition of power in Virginia. My name is Michael Pope.
Thomas Bowman
And I'm Thomas Bowman. Today on the podcast, legalizing marijuana. Yes, 2021 might be the year when Virginia will legalize weed. The Governor is on board and Democrats who run the House and Senate are all in support of ditching the failed War on Drugs, and ending the prohibition on marijuana.
Michael Pope
Don't assume that's going to be easy. In fact, for a measure of how difficult this is going to be, check out the text of Senate Bill 1406. It's 500 pages long. It's actually more than 500 pages long. Now, many questions need to be answered about which government agency will regulate marijuana. How old convictions will be expunged? Will Black and Brown communities stand to benefit from the new industry that disproportionately attacked their communities?
Thomas Bowman
And we have a dynamite panel to help us dig into this issue and walk us through the policy questions that lawmakers need to answer. We're pleased to welcome back to the podcast, the force behind legalization, Jenn Michelle Pedini of NORML. Thanks for joining us again.
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Thanks so much for having me back.
Michael Pope
We're also joined by the Director of Public Policy for Columbia Care. She served on the Governor's workgroup last year, and she's a member of the Cannabis Trade Federation's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force, and the Virginia Medical Cannabis Coalition. Ngiste Abebe, thanks for joining us.
Ngiste Abebe
It's great to be here today.
Michael Pope
Okay, so let's start with regulation. Governor Ralph Northam wants the Alcoholic Beverage Control authority, known as ABC, usually, the Governor wants ABC to regulate marijuana. Here's Agriculture and Forestry Deputy Secretary, Brad Copenhaver, laying out the Governor's position on this.
Brad Copenhaver
ABC is the only state agency in the Commonwealth that has the experience of regulating a product that is as controlled, and also a product that was formerly totally prohibited. So we know that we can gain a lot of efficiencies and a lot of knowledge working with ABC. We know that we could do it more quickly with ABC, that they have the resources to kind of hit the ground running in the expertise. And we can gain a lot of efficiencies there.
Michael Pope
The senators have rejected that approach and instead decided to create a separate independent agency, the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority. Here's Senator John Cosgrove asking Senator Barbara Favola about this.
John Cosgrove
Is this Cannabis Control organization really going to fall under ABC in their their regulatory-
Barbara Favola
This a separate independent authority. Okay, separate agencies.
John Cosgrove
Wow, okay.
Michael Pope
Wow. Okay. Does Virginia really need a separate independent agency to regulate marijuana?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Well, in short, yes. I think it's worth noting that, in Virginia, we already have two agencies that are regulating cannabis. So the notion that we now need to have a third entity, you know, that really could be burdensome, presumably for the businesses that are operating in the cannabis space, but certainly for consumers who are going to bear the burden of businesses being regulated by three separate entities. So in that regard, it makes the most sense to establish an independent agency that can create a regulatory ecosystem for the two existing silos of medical cannabis and cannabinoid products derived from hemp, and then to incorporate the third silo of adult use.
Michael Pope
What about Copenhaver's point there about efficiency...and like ABC already exists, so using it is more efficient than creating a new agency from scratch. What do you make of that argument?
Ngiste Abebe
I think that there are some efficiencies that can be held there. But there are also other ways to benefit from those efficiencies. I know at one point there was a conversation around how could ABC, perhaps, provide a cost sharing support through their admin services for a nascent independent agency? Jenn Michelle and I brought this up ad nauseum in the workgroup last year, but it's really important to have an independent agency because this isn't just about regulating a controlled substance. Equitable cannabis legalization includes providing support to social equity businesses, and having wraparound community support. It includes administering this Community Reinvestment Fund, as well as a Revolving Loan Fund, and those are not skills that ABC currently has, with all due respect, because I think, Travis Hill, ABC was a fantastic member of the workgroup, and ABC does great work, and I appreciated how all the senators made it really clear that this change was not about ABC, it was about the right way to legalize cannabis in Virginia and how to really address the dual priorities of public health and equitable path legalization that repairs the harms that have been done to communities impacted by prohibition.
Thomas Bowman
Okay. Another major issue lawmakers need to decide is what happens at the local level. Some are pushing for marijuana to remain illegal everywhere with the authority for local governments to opt in to legalization. But that's not where senators are at the moment. The current posture of the bill is that marijuana will be legal everywhere and a local government would need to conduct a referendum to make it illegal. Here's Republican Senator Ryan McDougle, outlining his opposition to that.
Ryan McDougle
It will be legal in jurisdictions, for a period of time before a referendum could even be held by the locality, to determine whether they want to opt out. And I have some concerns about whether then a jurisdiction can take away that right without it being a taking once it's vested and somebody's established a shop.
Thomas Bowman
What would happen to a marijuana shop in Bristol, for example, that's up and running when a referendum suddenly makes marijuana illegal there? Does this opt out system create problems for businesses that have already been established?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Well, it could. So to clarify, the opt in was proposed by the administration, and then the Senate debate led to a much preferential posture of requiring an opt out. And the reason an opt out was proposed, is because that is exactly what Virginia does for alcohol. If a county or locality in Virginia wants to be quote, dry, they must have a voter referendum, and then let the voters decide if this is a policy they'd like to put in place. This opt out would be specific, however, to adult use, retail locations. It shouldn't have any impact on the medical cannabis providers that are existing. But it could pose a potential problem for those that are looking to co locate.
Michael Pope
What about this issue of the taking that Senator McDougle raises? I mean, is there some legal Jeopardy there with making something illegal that's already been legal in the past?
Ngiste Abebe
Well, I'll chime in here and say I think one of the core things to remember here is, again, Michelle and I brought this up in a workgroup as well, is that we're asking for the Commonwealth to treat cannabis the way the Commonwealth has decided to treat alcohol. And we don't appear to have any concerns about that aspect of the alcohol industry. Similarly, to McDougle's concern, there will be time before the first retail shops are allowed to open, so they won't necessarily be taking a power away because there's a way to do it in advance before retail shops even open. That said, I think there are two really important reasons to have local opt out and to learn from the errors in other states. First of all, there's a public health issue. If localities have to opt in, then you're putting the burden on choosing to start, which means that it's the first places that decide to allow retail shops that will have retail locations. And that can lead to a concentration in certain areas because, you know, folks can't open their businesses anywhere else. Then that's bad for public health reasons, you know, we don't want to have lots of concentrations and in one area, and it's also not healthy for equity reasons. You know, the first batch of licenses are going to go to social equity applicants, and they're all going to end up, if you do an opt in process, there's a risk that they end up clustered and having to compete in ways that are not viable for for all of these nascent businesses. Having an opt out process, which many other states have chosen to do, because after learning had seen how opt in has played out in other states, choosing an opt out process is just about shifting the process burden to make the default, yes, you can have a business here, and in communities where they're very passionate about not having retail cannabis locations, they can organize and keep those businesses out. But I'll remind folks that like, you know, when people are looking for places to open a business, they want to go somewhere where they're wanted. So if there's a lively conversation already going on about a referendum to ban retail, like, businesses are going to be careful about whether or not they start a business there, while that conversation is happening, because they want to go somewhere where they're going to have local, you know, authorities who care about the success of their local economy. They're not going to go somewhere where they're going to have to navigate every hurdle in the bureaucracy because they're unwanted.
Michael Pope
On the issue of business, let's talk about who stands to gain in all of this. Now, Republican Senator Richard Stuart posed a question that's worth some consideration.
Richard Stuart
I grew up in an area where we have a lot of minority farmers, and quite frankly, they are pretty good at growing pot. Do those folks have the opportunity to get into this or is this just a corporate giveaway?
Michael Pope
Will Altria end up making millions of dollars on this and hog all the potential profits?
Ngiste Abebe
You know, I'm glad that we're talking about this because I think one thing that is sometimes missing from the state level conversations, is the fact that federal normalization is around the corner. And Altria has been sitting on the sidelines. They have, I believe, some investments in Canadian cannabis companies, but they're really waiting for federal normalization, in order to make their move in. And that means that in Virginia, we have to move quickly, if we're going to see Virginia businesses and Virginia farmers benefit, and we have to move quickly if we're going to ensure social equity licensees actually have a chance at success in the state. And I think the way that we've set up the social equity licensing structure is going to make some headway towards that. But it's going to be really important that, not just in this bill, but in the regulatory environment that comes afterwards, that everyone is paying attention to how we're protecting small and local businesses who are trying to get a foothold in one of the fastest growing sectors of the American economy.
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Not only do we have Altria in our backyard, but we have the burgeoning cannabis industry that will be knocking at Virginia's doors.
Thomas Bowman
One of the major functions of the new Virginia Cannabis Control Authority will be to issue licenses to people, commercial licenses and industrial licenses. One thing lawmakers are debating is social equity licenses to undo some of the damage from the War on Drugs. Here's Kalia Harris of the Virginian Student Power Network, making a pitch to senators on how she thinks social equity licenses should work.
Kalia Harris
We think that y'all should think about social equity and thinking about the young folks who are most affected by being arrested for cannabis, and these marijuana convictions. These are also the same folks that are extremely interested in being in the business. So as we're thinking about who who is able to have licenses, who's able to legally be in the market, let's make sure that we are including the youth, and making sure that social equity is actually real in this bill.
Thomas Bowman
What exactly is a social equity license and how can this aspect of regulation fix some of the damage from the War on Drugs?
Ngiste Abebe
I'm so glad you asked. A social equity license is a way of defining a certain class of cannabis licenses, in order to prioritize folks who are directly impacted by cannabis prohibition. The standards that are currently in the bill include people with a cannabis conviction or who are family members of people with a cannabis conviction, as well as some, and I think this part is important because even if an individual never received a cannabis conviction, they still might have been impacted by the harms of prohibition. You know, the War on Drugs led to mass disinvestment, over policing, increased gun violence, and other types of social and criminal and economic factors, that disproportionately impacted certain communities. And so, in addition to that conviction, qualification, there's also one that relies on a geographic analysis of areas that were impacted by those factors. And in Illinois, for example, they designated disproportionately impacted areas using census level data that tracked you know, unemployment rates, rates of gun violence, rates of overall arrests, and things like that, in order to identify geographic areas that were disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs. I think a few other key things to look for when these social equity definitions is how folks are accounting for gentrification. And I think there's some things around having lived somewhere for three out of five years, or residency status, things like that, that make sure that you're truly benefiting the people that this law is intended to benefit.
Thomas Bowman
So following up on the licensing procedure, Politico, at the end of December 2020, reported that state marijuana legalization became a boon for corruption and making local officials the gatekeepers for businesses creates a breeding ground for bribery and favoritism. And so how will Virginia's proposed licensing process avoid the corruption seen in other states from California to Massachusetts?
Ngiste Abebe
You know, I think one thing that we have the strength in Virginia, as it relates to this, is the fact that we are a deliverable state. And one of the reasons why we've seen certain aspects of that corruption come into play is because of too much emphasis on local control, in a way that structurally favors companies that have funds to commit towards projects for local government. And this is something that's always going to be tricky, but honestly, I think in Virginia, we will be at slightly less risk. This is one of the reasons why it's really important to have a strong state level regulatory authority, so that local government have enough power to effectively serve their constituents in the cities that they're representing, but not so much influence that they can put, you know, aspiring cannabis entrepreneurs into uncomfortable or unethical situations.
Thomas Bowman
Okay. Let's take a break. When we come back, we'll get into the criminal justice issues involved with legalization.
Michael Pope
And we're back on Transition Virginia. We're talking with Jenn Michelle Pedini and Ngiste Abebe about marijuana legalization. Let's get into some of the criminal justice issues here. I want to start by playing some audio from one of the Senate Committees. This is a speaker who spent 13 years in federal prison for a nonviolent drug offense, Eric Spencer.
Eric Spencer
And my issue with this bill is the definition of moral turpitude. And how does that affect men and women formerly incarcerated? Are they gonna get an opportunity to really partake in this cannabis rush, regardless of whether they've had a marijuana conviction, or crack cocaine conviction, or cocaine conviction? We have to realize that the War on Drugs encapsulated a whole community.
Michael Pope
How can lawmakers structure this thing so that people who have criminal records because of the War on Drugs can benefit from legalization?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
I think this really is going to have to be defined in how we structure the equity provisions for licensure. I don't think we've really gotten that deep. I mean, as Eric wisely pointed out, there's that very loose language in the current proposal. And I think there definitely will need to be stronger definitions in what a social equity applicant.
Michael Pope
Jenn Michelle, could you explain that? So when you say loose language, I guess you're talking about the moral turpitude, part of this? Explain what we're talking about here?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Though the bill is already 515 pages, it's still not entirely prescriptive. And we've just started the debate on this legislation in the General Assembly. There are so many more changes to come and in this next week, we'll just have our first crack at at the criminal justice components of the bills. So I think there are two parts to Eric's concerns, not only the expungement process, but how does the State define a social equity applicants?
Ngiste Abebe
I just also want to add that one of the key things here too, is making sure that, you know, the expungement process is going to be running concurrently. And so just because someone's expungement hasn't finished processing through the state, doesn't mean that they should, like folks should still be able to apply for these licenses, right, while the state finishes their bureaucratic process. And we should be, and I think we've made some strides recently, but continue making strides to make sure that any cannabis related conviction can't be used against anybody, both within the cannabis industry, but anywhere they want to be employed. If you have a past cannabis conviction, and were trained while you were incarcerated in electrical work, but haven't been able to get licensed because DPOR won't license you because of your past conviction, you should be allowed to get your electricians license now in an expedited framework in some way, right? Like, when we talk about equity, it's not just equity inside of the industry, but it is really looking at all the ways previous cannabis convictions have prevented people from being able to get their lives back on track, and to live fulfilling, empowered lives as just human beings. We continue to saddle people with the weight of convictions well after they've served their debt to society. And in the case of cannabis, how much of a debt was that really supposed to be, right, depending on what the conviction is for?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Ngiste, I'm really glad you brought it back around to I think, what is one of the very first points you and I bonded over about cannabis policy, which is equity in life. Just because someone has a marijuana charge, doesn't mean they want to work in the marijuana industry. And we shouldn't look at it through that very limited lens, we have to look at at the broader scale, as Ngiste just mentioned.
Ngiste Abebe
Yeah, we've got a yes and this solution.
Thomas Bowman
There's definitely a lot to unpack there. So when legalization happens, marijuana won't just be available at the store, you will also be able to grow it at home. But, lawmakers are considering some boundaries here and potentially new criminal penalties. The current version of the bill allows for four marijuana plants, two mature plants and two immature plants. Anything beyond that would be illegal. Here's Mike Thomas of Grow Your Own RVA.
Mike Thomas
I don't really agree with the whole four plant thing. Cannabis is a medicine, and a lot of clients or patients have more than one medicine. So i.e., they would need a plant for pain, a plant for sleep, maybe a plant for appetite. So the whole four plant thing is a bit far fetched for home growing.
Thomas Bowman
Is the limit of four plants per household too restrictive? And what happens if two or more roommates want to have multiple plants? Are we running the risk of creating a new War on Plants here?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Possibly. So the way it's drafted right now, there is a household limit. So it's not just two mature and two immature plants per adult, it's per household. So, in a roommate situation, the limit is still in total four. And again, we're still very early in this debate. So will that change? Possibly. I think the more concerning argument around personal cultivation, at this point, particularly at this early point, is maintaining that provision in the bill.
Thomas Bowman
Can you expand on that? What do you mean by, "maintaining that provision?"
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Well, you just saw the debate where there was a motion made to remove personal cultivation entirely from the legalization proposal. Fortunately, it was defeated.
Michael Pope
You know, one of the thorniest issues here, is a criminal justice issue the lawmakers have to decide, is what to do with expungements. We've already talked about that a little bit in this podcast. Now this is a debate that's been happening separate and apart from the legalization question, about whether these expungements should be automatic, or petition based. House Democrats have been pushing for an automatic model. But Senator Scott Surovell is among those who want a petition based model, where people would probably have to hire a lawyer, and miss a day or two of work to show up in court to make their case before a judge. Here's Surovell talking about that.
Scott Surovell
We've been fighting hard to build discretion back into our system, whether it's giving prosecutors the discretion to drop charges when they want to, or giving judges or juries the discretion to impose a sentence that they feel is appropriate, instead of the General Assembly telling them what they can and can't do. And automatic expungement is exactly the opposite of that.
Michael Pope
How does this effort at legalization fit into the larger debate about how expungements should happen?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
So yeah, that debate rages on between the House and the Senate. I think it's important to keep in mind that the budget proposed by Governor Northam does include funding for an automatic expungement process and the infrastructure that Virginia is sorely lacking, as well as calling specifically for the automatic expungement of misdemeanor related marijuana records, misdemeanor possession related. And those records have been sealed, but they're still there. So I think that there is of course, the broader debate on expungement versus petition based, and then there are the specific provisions for automatic expungement of misdemeanor possession, marijuana related charges, which is baked into not only the budget, but also the legalization legislation. I also think it is worth noting, it is particularly troubling, when those who could benefit from the establishment of this niche market of you know, the maybe the attorney who does expungements, are the ones who are so adamant against people being able to have those records expunged automatically.
Ngiste Abebe
I wanted to piggyback on what Jenn Michelle said, too, and just point out that in the excerpt you pulled, the whole point of automatic expungement is there is no more discretion left, right? The charges have been completed, sentences have been determined, the debt has been paid to society. The automatic expungements that are being thrown around inside of the General Assembly, and the proposal that's been put forward by the Governor and the Majority Leader Charniele Herring and Delegate Scott and so many others who've been working on this, the whole point of automatic expungement, which by the way, is not even a partisan issue. The majority GOP Pennsylvania General Assembly passed this, I think, a year or two ago, a full clean slate lot. Michigan has also done this recently. The whole point is the debt has been paid to society, there's been a period of time that's elapsed where somebody has not committed any you know, there's no recidivism happening. We're saying, you know what, like, you deserve to be unburdened from this past mistake and given a second chance. Because a petition based process one, puts additional burden on our already overburdened court system. It mostly benefits the lawyers who have to negotiate that petition process. And it adds additional resources, right, you have to be able to afford a lawyer, you have to afford the time, as you said earlier, in order to pursue that. Those are inherently inequitable requirements to put upon something that, frankly, should be a right as part of you going through the criminal court process, and addressing these harms. And the whole point here, and I think it's important to remember, especially in the state like Virginia, that so much of our criminal code system is based upon the criminalization of Black Virginians. And it's expanded to mean Black, Indigenous people of color inside of this Commonwealth. But Jim Crow, and so many things baked into our Constitution, and then into our laws, have been about finding any possible proxy to continue to subjugate non white folks through the law, and by creating more hurdles and more complex processes. And if we're going to seriously look at how we dismantle the legacy of Jim Crow, dismantle the legacy of slavery inside of Virginia, we absolutely should be fighting for automatic expungement and making these processes as easy as possible for folks to navigate, while also balancing these public safety concerns. And I think that, you know, the automatic expungement provisions as it relates to cannabis, but also more broadly for Virginia, are absolutely addressing both of those priorities.
Thomas Bowman
Okay, let's take a break. When we come back, we'll discuss the Reinvestment Fund, and the timing for ending prohibition.
Michael Pope
And we're back on Transition Virginia. We're talking about legalization of marijuana, ending the prohibition against marijuana and let's start there. So what is the timing look like here in terms of ending the prohibition on marijuana, allowing retail sales entering this new framework that we're gonna have where it is It's actually going to be legal and you can grow it in your house and you can go to the store. When is when can we expect to go to the local corner store and buy marijuana?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
That's a great question. So in the administration's initial proposal, they had determined that January 1, 2023, would be the first date that legal retail sales of adult use cannabis would be allowed, and this was with ABC as the regulator. When the senators debated moving to an independent agency, they also discussed whether or not this would push out that timeline and possibly buy in an entire year, making it January 1, 2024. Virginians are understandably upset by this, and we've been hearing a lot about this. We've provided guidance, NORML has provided guidance to the Legislature that regardless of when retail sales can begin, what's a critical factor is when we end this, this failed policy of prohibition and criminalization, and there isn't a need to tie that to the date of retail sales. So let's say this legislation were to succeed in the 2021 Session, that would generally make the effective date, at least for some components of the bill, July 1, 2021. And that is a date when personal possession, and personal cultivation could take effect. Neither of those components need to be tied to the date that the state or businesses can benefit from the financial opportunity of legal sales.
Michael Pope
So the answer I'm hearing, in terms of going to your local corner store and buying marijuana, is probably 2023?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Maybe? I think it depends on on what agency we end up with, and what the possibility of expediting access through the existing operators in the state. Regardless of what one thinks about this limited licensure, medical program, members of our General Assembly have voted to maintain this for years and years now. And the question should no longer be about whether or not these businesses get a headstart, they already have that headstart. Now the question is, how can Virginians benefit from the model that the state has put in place? There's no real benefit to Virginians to say, listen, we've decided to legalize marijuana, but you can't buy it until we've gotten all of these businesses up and running, and the state's ready to tax it through these new entities. Instead, we're just going to continue to criminalize you in particularly Black, Brown, young and poor Virginians, we're going to criminalize you, we're not going to let you have access until this, you know protracted implementation date. We should be thinking about how we can better serve Virginians through the existing structure, how Virginians could have access to adult use products through the medical operators, while the rest of the system is built out.
Thomas Bowman
You know, maybe it's just the former Republican in me talking, but it seems to me that it's really silly to put guardrails and regulatory frameworks on an industry that just doesn't exist yet. Right? Like typically what we would do is let the industry take off and then create regulation as needed around it. Right? So like, it seems to me that Virginia is kind of backward and if we wait till 23 or 24, we could very well just have all those efforts go out the window with whatever the federal government says.
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Absolutely.
Ngiste Abebe
You do have to regulate cannabis to a certain extent. Otherwise, your cannabis businesses are out of alignment with current federal rules, right? Like you have to the federal non interference relies on having actual state level regulation, right? They're not going to interfere in a state legal cannabis business at this current point in time. But if you don't have a state legal industry, then other cannabis entrepreneurs are at risk of federal intervention while we await federal normalization. So I think that part is important. The other piece here too is also consumer safety, like we do need to have some sort of on ramp for tested tax cannabis and Jenn Michelle alluded to, and every other state that sudden legalization, has relied on their medical industry. Now Virginia's medical industry is nascent, but I know I've talked with folks about ways to include medical in whatever way the state decides to move forward. So if NORML and others can help them recognize that this extended timeline does not address disparate enforcement patterns for different Virginia communities, if we can make that message stick and folks are looking, you know, there are ways to include medical, while also still supporting your social equity goals, including and this is already in the bill, but having the fee that allows medical operators to co locate and participate in adult use sales, go into the revolving loan fund for this future social equity applicants, in order to provide low to no interest loans from the state and address one of the most significant barriers to entering the cannabis industry, which is access to capital.
Jenn Michelle Pedini
I just want to echo that, Ngiste. It's not an either or situation, the state can do both, and in the interest of Virginia, and that's exactly what we should do.
Thomas Bowman
Ngiste, you brought up money. So let's talk Turkey. You mentioned a Reinvestment Fund. But clearly, one day, this will be a lot of tax dollars for Virginia's government. Where is the money under the current proposal supposed to go? And where should it be going?
Ngiste Abebe
Well, and there are two different funds around you know, social, two different social equity funds are identified. One is the Revolving Loan Fund I just alluded to. And then the other one is this community reinvestment effort, and there's really the cannabis tax revenue is divided up into a few buckets. 40% of the revenue is to go to pre k for at risk three and four year olds in Virginia, 30% goes to this Community Reinvestment Fund, and then I believe it's 25% to public health funds, and 5% to substance abuse and recovery community. And so Reinvestment Fund that's not for the pre K, there are a few different priorities that are articulated. One is, you know, scholarships for youth who have been impacted by prohibition. Another bucket is around reentry services and other efforts to help folks who are impacted by convictions, you know, get their feet back under them or continue to find access to economic and community opportunities. And I think this piece is really important. You know, to echo what Jenn Michelle and I have said before, is like, we're not just looking for equity in cannabis in the industry, like equity in life. And I always come back to the three core pillars, which we've touched on already, automatic and expeditious expungement of cannabis related convictions, equity in the ownership and a diverse industry, and this last bit of the Reinvestment Fund is really making sure that you're repairing the community level harms that happened, because every time you have a conviction, right, like, especially if somebody ends up incarcerated, that's a household that is dealing with one less adult, right, one less person available to help take care of the kids to help make ends meet. It puts a huge burden on families when you have to visit, and then help someone return, and then you get back out and it can be hard to access economic opportunities, hard to get a job, hard to get hired, hard to find a place to rent and to have your own home. And so all of these obstacles persist. And we have to be making sure that cannabis legalization and normalization is continuing to fix and address those larger scale ramifications.
Michael Pope
On that last issue of convictions, I'm wondering about the possibility of creating new crimes. So we're talking about ending the criminal prohibition for marijuana. So it's no longer illegal to possess it. It's no longer illegal to buy it. But aren't we also aren't Lawmakers also talking about potentially creating new crimes, and what would those crimes be?
Jenn Michelle Pedini
Yeah, that was a huge concern that immediately jumped off the page at us in the administration's initial proposal. So in the first iteration of the Senate Bill, you could see the proposal to create a number of new crimes, including for juvenile consumption, for consumption and possession between the ages of 18 and just before 21 , for public consumption. And again, these charges, these crimes, these new penalties, would be disproportionate, they would make Virginia the first state to rollback decriminalization measures that we frankly just implemented, and again, serve to primarily target those who are Black, Brown, poor and young. Now, the good news is that in the administration's House version of the bill, there has been at least a few steps made in amending these proposed new crimes, where instead of de facto criminalization, we're seeing instead, some civil penalties proposed and escalating penalties. So on the first or second time, it may be a civil penalty, and then the potential for greater penalty on the on the third or subsequent offenses. Now, we have not had much debate on the criminal justice components of this legislation yet.
Ngiste Abebe
I'll just add to that. There's also the potential for new crimes, for example, in the current version of the Senate Bill, it would be illegal for two adults over 21., you know, like if Jenn Michelle came over and I had a preroll, it would be illegal and a crime for me to share it with her, the way I could share a six pack of beer with them. And so I think that part is also something that we have to be diligent about going back through and looking at, that we're continuing to break down and actually achieve cannabis normalization, and stop over penalizing things that are, frankly, normal with a cigarette or a bottle of wine.
Michael Pope
Explain the sharing thing. I'm not exactly sure I'm following that...
Thomas Bowman
Michael doesn't share, basically.
Michael Pope
What is this sharing concept you're talking about?
Ngiste Abebe
Right now, as it's written, you're allowed to have up to one ounce of cannabis. But you're not allowed to, again, you know, share it the way if you were on a smoke break at work, and you bummed a cigarette off of a friend, that's legal. If you were to do that with a cannabis preroll, that would be illegal and a crime. And so, you know, there's just some, there's a lot of detail in here where, you know, and I don't put that on anybody, I'm not sure that was ever intended. But that's why the details and the nuts and bolts of this legislation are so important. Because, you know, in trying to legalize and make sure that people aren't illegally distributing, you know, cannabis to minors, you can end up making it, if you're not careful about the language, you can end up making it illegal for two adults to share a j in their backyard.
Thomas Bowman
Y'all clearly have your work cut out for you. Thank you so much for being here today. And good luck in the coming weeks as you figure this out, and hopefully Virginia gets it right.
Michael Pope
So that's it for this episode. If you have any comments or questions about what you just heard, or maybe you want to tell us how much you love the show, write us an email and send it to TransitionVApodcast@gmail.com. We might even read your comments on the air. You can subscribe to Transition Virginia anywhere pods are cast, you can follow the transition team on Twitter, you can like us on Facebook, you can check out our website transitionvirginia.com. Don't forget to like and subscribe so you can enjoy our next episode of Transition Virginia.
