moonymonkey
Active member
Finally celebrations next week the federal law might go to. All legal In virgina nowxx
Va went recreation cannabis legal now buy it now
- Thread starter moonymonkey
- Start date
TheDarkStorm
Well-known member
Finally celebrations next week the federal law might go to. All legal In virgina nowxx
Congratulations guys.....its great news to hear.
big news! way to go virginia
virginias not just for lovers anymore and i bet they grow some world class outdoor in years to come
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/virginia-legalize-marijuana-1124749/
virginias not just for lovers anymore and i bet they grow some world class outdoor in years to come
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/virginia-legalize-marijuana-1124749/
moonymonkey
Active member
Ya be enjoying that laws why i puff out and grow onward steady as she goes.got to keep on movingxxx
DontStopBelievn
Member
Finally celebrations next week the federal law might go to. All legal In virgina nowxx
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but that's not how it works. It will be legal federally, but statewide it will still be illegal until legislation passes to change that.
So far, the VA Senate ahs passed a bill (SB 1406) and the VA House has passed a bill (HB 2312), but neither has passed the other's bill for it to be sent to the Governor to sign.
The Senate's bill explicitly states is to create a new agency to handle licensing and regulations, which means that retail will be delayed until 2024. If they let ABC handle it, which the House bill leaves a possibility, then retail could begin in 2023.
Even if they met tomorrow and passed a bill, it would not go into effect until July of this year at the earliest.
If you want to read the bills, go here for SB 1406: https://lis.virginia.gov/000/CannabisBillEngrossed.pdf
Go here for HB 2312: https://lis.virginia.gov/000/housecannabisbillsub2.pdf
Of particular note is that both bills state you may have up to two immature and up to two mature plants for personal use. Immature plants are defined in both bills as " 'Immature plant' means a nonflowering marijuana plant that is no taller than eight inches and no wider than eight inches, is produced from a cutting, clipping, or seedling, and is growing in a container."
For regulations regarding personal grows, see § 4.1-1101 in the Senate bill or the House bill or read below.
§ 4.1-1101. Home cultivation of marijuana for personal use; penalties.
A. A person 21 years of age or older may cultivate up to two mature marijuana plants and two immature marijuana plants for personal use at their place of residence; however, at no point shall a household contain more than two mature marijuana plants and two immature marijuana plants. For purposes of this section, "household" means those individuals, whether related or not, who live in the same house or other place of residence.
A person may only cultivate marijuana plants pursuant to this section at such person's main place of residence.
B. A person who cultivates marijuana for personal use pursuant to this section shall:
1. Ensure that the marijuana is cultivated indoors and is not visible from a public way without the use of aircraft, binoculars, or other optical aids;
2. Take precautions to prevent unauthorized access by persons younger than 21 years of age; and
3. Attach to each mature marijuana plant and immature marijuana a legible tag that includes the person's name, driver's license or identification number, and a notation that the marijuana plant is being grown for personal use as authorized under this section.
C. A person shall not manufacture marijuana concentrate from home-cultivated marijuana. The owner of a property or parcel or tract of land may not intentionally or knowingly allow another person to manufacture marijuana concentrate from home-cultivated marijuana within or on that property or land.
D. The following penalties or punishments shall be imposed on any person convicted of a violation of this section:
1. For possession of more than two mature marijuana plants and two immature marijuana plants but no more than 10 total marijuana plants, (i) a civil penalty of $250 for a first offense, (ii) a Class 3 misdemeanor for a second offense, and (iii) a Class 2 misdemeanor for a third and any subsequent offense;
2. For possession of more than 10 but no more than 49 marijuana plants, a Class 1 misdemeanor;
3. For possession of more than 49 but no more than 100 marijuana plants, a Class 6 felony; and
4. For possession of more than 100 marijuana plants, a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $250,000, or both.
§ 4.1-1102. Illegal cultivation or manufacture of marijuana or marijuana products; conspiracy; penalties.
A. Except as otherwise provided in §§ 4.1-700 and 4.1-1101, no person shall cultivate or manufacture marijuana or marijuana products in the Commonwealth without being licensed under this subtitle to cultivate or manufacture such marijuana or marijuana products.
B. Any person convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
C. If two or more persons conspire together to do any act that is in violation of subsection A, and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
Excited about opening your own store and farm? Well, be prepared to pay $1 million and to have you woke plan laid out. From SB 1406:
§ 4.1-805. Multiple licenses awarded to one person permitted; exceptions.
D. Any person who wishes to possess a license in more than one license category pursuant to subsection B shall pay a $1 million fee to the Board.
[...]
In addition, any licensee who wishes to possess more than one license pursuant to subsection B shall submit a diversity, equity, and inclusion plan to the Cannabis Business Equity and Diversity Support Team (the Support Team) for approval, and upon approval shall implement such plan in accordance with the requirements set by the Support Team.
DontStopBelievn
Member
I thought I would add, the difference between the House and Senate bills is fairly minimal. Much of the language in the bills are exactly the same. The big difference is that the Senate bill sets up an new agency called "the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority."
Nearly half of the bills both deal with striking and adding to language of existing legislation, such as criminal charges, gun rights, etc.
Which brings me to another point: how to read these bills. Regular text is existing language in laws, strikethroughs are things to be removed and italics means new additions or original language. Using the search feature is very helpful if you want to look for specific aspects of the bills.
I would highly recommend that if you have any concerns or issues with the legislation, you contact your representatives and, more specifically, the authors of legislation. For example, I think 2 immature and 2 mature plants is a bit prohibitive and that we should be allowed 6 plants total, like most other states allow. I also feel that taxes should be reduced for the state and increased the ceiling for localities to leverage.
I should also note that the bills allow the sale of both seeds and clones.
Nearly half of the bills both deal with striking and adding to language of existing legislation, such as criminal charges, gun rights, etc.
Which brings me to another point: how to read these bills. Regular text is existing language in laws, strikethroughs are things to be removed and italics means new additions or original language. Using the search feature is very helpful if you want to look for specific aspects of the bills.
I would highly recommend that if you have any concerns or issues with the legislation, you contact your representatives and, more specifically, the authors of legislation. For example, I think 2 immature and 2 mature plants is a bit prohibitive and that we should be allowed 6 plants total, like most other states allow. I also feel that taxes should be reduced for the state and increased the ceiling for localities to leverage.
I should also note that the bills allow the sale of both seeds and clones.
great post man
dident read the pdf but from you sumation it looks good for the small home grower
there is prvision to grow your own and sale of seeds and clones
the license fees are pretty high and whats up with this "eq/dv support team" for multiple licenses?
dident read the pdf but from you sumation it looks good for the small home grower
there is prvision to grow your own and sale of seeds and clones
the license fees are pretty high and whats up with this "eq/dv support team" for multiple licenses?
DontStopBelievn
Member
The quoted license fee of $1m is only for those that want licenses in more than one category. I believe they are being done to prevent larger businesses from muscling out smaller businesses and monopolizing the entire industry, such as having Altria own a bunch of farms, production, retail, etc. If that is their goal, I think there are better (and more reasonable) approaches that wouldn't be detrimental to small businesses. As I see it, it really doesn't hurt the likes of Altria (they have billions, coughing up a few million for licenses isn't a big deal for them), but creates a nearly insurmountable barrier for small businesses.
The equity and diversity stuff is baked into the legislation in both bills. There is a general fund that all marijuana taxes go into to promote equity and diversity and to fund opportunities for "historically marginalized" communities. To my knowledge, this is also being done on the federal level with the bill that recently passed the House.
On its face, I don't really have a problem with the notion, but seeing how these types of boards have played out in other regions, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of finger-wagging when the moonshining mountain-folk start asking why they're not getting a helping hand.
I also think this is rife for abuse, as it's too subjective and up for interpretation. I'm expecting a pay-for-play scandal within the first 5 years. Mainly because no one on the board is paid a salary. Also, the wording for the makeup of the board sounds like it was written by children. "We need one doctor, one lawyer, one convict, one veteran, one teacher, one social worker, one person that likes to drink coffee and paint watercolors of flowers on Sundays, one cat, my hamster Rowdy..."
I'm 99.9% sure the fund is going to be audited and face legal challenges when people finally realize that "historically marginalized" does not include poor white people from SW VA that have been jailed for marijuana offenses.
Here is language about the Fund, which uses the same "historically marginalized" language as before.
I don't have a problem with helping out poor black communities that have been affected by decades of discriminatory practices and situations, but I also think that the poor people in the Appalachias, who tend to be white, shouldn't have their current plight be overlooked. Which is why I'm not really down with this whole woke stuff. We can't change history, but we can change the present and we should strive to help all who disadvantaged, regardless of their skin color. But that's just my take.
The equity and diversity stuff is baked into the legislation in both bills. There is a general fund that all marijuana taxes go into to promote equity and diversity and to fund opportunities for "historically marginalized" communities. To my knowledge, this is also being done on the federal level with the bill that recently passed the House.
On its face, I don't really have a problem with the notion, but seeing how these types of boards have played out in other regions, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of finger-wagging when the moonshining mountain-folk start asking why they're not getting a helping hand.
I also think this is rife for abuse, as it's too subjective and up for interpretation. I'm expecting a pay-for-play scandal within the first 5 years. Mainly because no one on the board is paid a salary. Also, the wording for the makeup of the board sounds like it was written by children. "We need one doctor, one lawyer, one convict, one veteran, one teacher, one social worker, one person that likes to drink coffee and paint watercolors of flowers on Sundays, one cat, my hamster Rowdy..."
I'm 99.9% sure the fund is going to be audited and face legal challenges when people finally realize that "historically marginalized" does not include poor white people from SW VA that have been jailed for marijuana offenses.
Here is language about the Fund, which uses the same "historically marginalized" language as before.
I don't have a problem with helping out poor black communities that have been affected by decades of discriminatory practices and situations, but I also think that the poor people in the Appalachias, who tend to be white, shouldn't have their current plight be overlooked. Which is why I'm not really down with this whole woke stuff. We can't change history, but we can change the present and we should strive to help all who disadvantaged, regardless of their skin color. But that's just my take.
another great post man!
im sure your hamster rowdy would make a great board member and would not be open to bribes or influence
as you said, 1m is nothing to a large multi national company and i hope the smaller grower still has a voice in the new VA marijuana industry
good point about how there are a lot of marginalized people living in this region and i also agree that people are people, no matter what their color or ethnicity
/ie, poor is poor so why single out one group to help; why not help out all poor people live a better life?
again, thanks for being interested enough to post up brother and taking the time fer splain' things to us simpler folk
im sure your hamster rowdy would make a great board member and would not be open to bribes or influence
as you said, 1m is nothing to a large multi national company and i hope the smaller grower still has a voice in the new VA marijuana industry
good point about how there are a lot of marginalized people living in this region and i also agree that people are people, no matter what their color or ethnicity
/ie, poor is poor so why single out one group to help; why not help out all poor people live a better life?
again, thanks for being interested enough to post up brother and taking the time fer splain' things to us simpler folk
one week to go. i liked the part about a $25 fine for possessing up to a lb, lol! oooh, i'm skeered! last article i read on it says home-growers may give weed (no more than an oz) to folks, but may not be paid. i'm sure that will be fucking impossible to enforce. plus, you can trade varieties like that, in case you get burnt out on what YOU are growing...
