The Budget Experiment: The Consequences of A Rushed Budget
Virginia lawmakers rushed approval of the state biennium budget and left a massive mistake, leading to legal confusion. Former Attorney General Jason Miyares was among the first to raise concerns that the budget language created a gap in Virginia's marijuana criminal statutes.
The state budget has multiple failures for Virginians, but the commercialization of marijuana and the process used to enact it should concern every Virginian. The controversy exposed the risks of passing major legislation through the state budget rather than through the normal legislative process.
The purpose of Virginia's state budget is to serve as a financial blueprint by outlining how the Commonwealth will collect revenue and appropriate taxpayer dollars to agencies and public services.
While budget bills have historically contained policy language, they should not become the vehicle for passing sweeping policy changes, especially those involving criminal law. Yet, this year's budget included the framework to commercialize retail marijuana rather than advancing it through standalone legislation where it could receive full public debate and legislative review.
This article is not intended to criticize legislators because of an error. Rather, it raises a broader concern about the legislative process that was used. Transparency is essential to good government.
Major policy proposals deserve to be debated through standalone legislation where citizens, stakeholders, and lawmakers can carefully review the language, offer amendments, and fully understand the consequences before becoming law. When significant policy changes are folded into a budget bill, that transparency is reduced and public confidence in the legislative process suffers.
The purpose of the state budget is to determine how Virginia will collect tax revenue and appropriate taxpayer dollars, not to become the primary vehicle for major legislation as legislators and Governor Spanberger did.
Yet, this issue extends beyond party politics. Republicans have also used budget language to implement policy priorities. Former Governor Glenn Youngkin implemented economic policy-related issues in his passed budget. However, the marijuana commercialization language stands apart because it repealed and reenacted criminal statutes, established an entirely new regulatory framework, and ultimately produced legal uncertainty over the enforcement of existing law.
That should serve as a warning that the legislative process exists for a reason. Regardless of which party controls Richmond, lawmakers should resist using the budget as a shortcut for significant policy changes.
The marijuana policy itself also deserves careful review as the restrictions are limited and should require more distance. For example, § 4.1-1402 prohibits advertising within 500 feet of churches, schools, playgrounds, residences, and substance abuse treatment centers. Meanwhile, the Cannabis Control Act prohibits retail marijuana stores from being within only 1,000 feet from schools, hospitals, playgrounds, day care centers, and substance abuse treatment facilities However, churches are notably absent from the list of locations protected by the 1,000-foot retail buffer.
In summary, under the current framework a cannabis retail store could legally operate within less than 1,000 feet of a church. That is problematic and should concern Virginians who believe public policy ought to strengthen, not undermine, the institutions that help build healthy communities.
Virginians should also ask whether creating a commercial marijuana industry reflects the Commonwealth's long-term priorities.
Every commercial market depends on attracting and retaining customers. As marijuana becomes more visible through retail stores and advertising, there is a legitimate concern that continued commercialization could normalize its use, particularly among young people, and create the possibility of cultivating future generations of consumers.
While the marijuana industry benefits from increased sales and the state benefits from additional tax revenue, communities and families may bear the long-term social costs. Instead of creating hundreds of marijuana retail stores, Virginia should focus on strengthening families by investing in the institutions that have historically helped communities thrive: churches, schools, hospitals, parks, and playgrounds.
The biggest lesson from this breaking news is not simply about marijuana. It is about governing wisely and focusing on the impact of families. Regardless of one's position on marijuana legalization, Virginians should expect legislation of this magnitude to move through an open, transparent process rather than through the state budget.
The drafting confusion surrounding this year's budget should remind lawmakers to avoid implementing major policy through the budget. Virginia deserves a legislative process that earns the public's trust and policies that strengthen families. As Richmond becomes more like Capitol Hill than Capitol Square, Virginians should expect better.
Key Takeaways:
Major legislation should be debated openly, not passed through the state budget.
The marijuana confusion demonstrates the risks of legislating through the budget.
Virginia should prioritize policies that strengthen families and communities. The Commonwealth's focus should be on supporting institutions like families, schools, churches, and local communities rather than creating a commercial marijuana industry.