Virginia’s Hemp Industry on the Brink: How Budget Politics Could Criminalize Small Businesses Overnight
Virginia’s hemp industry was never supposed to look like this. What began as a state-regulated marketplace built by Virginia farmers, manufacturers, and small retailers is now staring down an August 15 deadline that industry members say could turn years of careful compliance into potential criminal liability.
The people affected argue that the most troubling part is not simply that Virginia is changing its cannabis laws, but how those changes were made. Rather than moving through a standalone bill and the usual legislative process, major changes to how Virginia defines and regulates hemp and marijuana were incorporated into the state budget.
At a Virginia Hemp Conference press event at the General Assembly, the people facing those consequences explained what the changes could mean in practical terms. Small business owners talked about employees whose jobs are suddenly uncertain. Patients and caregivers described products they have relied upon for years. Criminal defense attorney Tom Garrett, representing plaintiffs challenging the new restrictions, explained why businesses that spent years trying to follow Virginia law are now preparing for the possibility of criminal enforcement.
Across those very different perspectives, one concern kept resurfacing: Virginia established the rules, businesses and patients relied on those rules, and now the Commonwealth is changing them with potentially devastating consequences.
Why a Criminal Defense Attorney Is at a Hemp Press Conference
Tom Garrett opened the event by pointing out how unusual it was for someone in his profession to be standing at a hemp industry press conference in the first place. Garrett is representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging Virginia’s new hemp restrictions, and while he also serves in the Virginia House of Delegates, he was not participating in the event in his capacity as a delegate. His role there was solely as a criminal defense attorney and legal counsel for the plaintiffs.
“For my day job, I'm primarily a criminal defense attorney, and I'd stop for dramatic effect because why am I standing here as a criminal defense attorney next to a whole bunch of people who want nothing more than to obey the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia?”
For Garrett, the answer lies in the way the new policy was enacted and the potential criminal consequences it creates for people who had previously structured their businesses around Virginia law.
“I was retained because the General Assembly has enacted policies in darkness, right, not in the light of day, that impacted their livelihoods here in the Commonwealth of Virginia.”
Garrett argues that sweeping cannabis policy changes were made through the state budget rather than through the normal legislative process, leaving businesses that had invested heavily in compliance suddenly facing a very different legal landscape. The same operators who registered with the state, tested their products, invested in compliant facilities, paid taxes, and attempted to follow Virginia's regulatory framework are now seeking criminal counsel because they fear continuing to operate could expose them to prosecution.
He urged Virginians to look beyond their personal opinions about hemp or marijuana and consider what that kind of abrupt regulatory change means for businesses, employees, tax revenue, healthcare, and confidence in the legislative process.
“If you don't care about hemp, and if you don't care about recreational marijuana, I hope you care about things like tax revenue and teachers and sheriff's deputies. I hope you care about things like people and opportunity and health and good outcomes, because that's why I'm here.”
That concern — what happens when people follow the rules only to have those rules change underneath them — became the thread connecting nearly every speaker who followed.
Graham Redfern: A Virginia Farm With 15 Jobs on the Line
For Graham Redfern of Redfern Hemp Company, that uncertainty is already affecting the people who depend on his business for their livelihoods. His vertically integrated operation includes a farm in Caroline County, a commercial kitchen operating under Richmond's food safety program, and a registered retail establishment back in Caroline County.
“My name is Graham Redfern. I run a farm out of Caroline County. I have a commercial kitchen that is compliant with the food safety program in Richmond, Virginia, and I have a retail establishment in Caroline County that also follows the retail registration rules. I employ 15 people, and I'm really worried about literally their jobs come Sunday.”
Redfern described years of time, money, and effort spent creating a supply chain designed specifically to comply with Virginia's rules. For him, compliance has meant more than filling out paperwork. It has shaped how the company farms, manufactures, tests, sells, and ultimately gets products into consumers' hands.
“We have really worked an amazing, amazing amount of time, effort, money into establishing a compliant market and ensuring quality, quality products are getting to the consumer, and the consumer has the option.”
That investment is what makes the approaching deadline so difficult for businesses like his. Virginia regulated the marketplace, established requirements, registered businesses, and created standards operators were expected to meet. Redfern says his company built around those expectations, yet he now fears that operating the business he worked to make compliant could put him on the wrong side of the law.
“It's unfortunate. I feel like I'm going to be a criminal this coming Sunday, and so we're here to try and protect the industry that the government did not actually understand the impact that this will be.”
His story illustrates the central complaint from small hemp businesses: they are not objecting to the existence of regulations. They are objecting to having built businesses around one regulatory framework only to face a dramatic change without what they consider a meaningful transition period.
Barbara Biddle: Nine Years of Following a Moving Finish Line
Barbara Biddle of District Hemp Botanicals approached the same problem from the perspective of an entrepreneur who built her company without major investors or large amounts of outside capital. She described starting the business nine years ago with roughly $2,000 and growing it into something capable of supporting her family.
“I didn't start with investors. I didn't have millions of dollars behind me. I was cash-strapped, young, and I believed in this industry. I believed in Virginia. I believed in the American dream.”
As the industry evolved, Biddle said her company evolved with Virginia's regulations. She paid taxes, invested locally, and adapted to requirements involving age restrictions, laboratory testing, and child-resistant packaging.
“I paid my taxes. I invested in Virginia. I built a business in good faith based on laws and regulations that were passed, age restrictions, lab testing requirements, child-proof packaging.”
Her objection is not that government should never change regulations. It is that businesses need enough predictability to make investments based on those regulations without fearing that the underlying legal framework will suddenly disappear.
“Now the rules that define my industry are changing overnight, and it seemingly has little to do with safety and more to do with wiping out existing competition.”
Biddle said the scale of the disruption could be enormous, claiming that the changes threaten approximately 1,400 licensed small businesses while creating substantial financial barriers for those hoping to enter the new market.
“What this bill really does is turn 1,400 licensed small businesses into criminals, creates an 11-month gap in lawful access, and creates barriers costing hundreds of 1000s for just 350 people to re-enter.”
For a small company, being told to “pivot” does not necessarily mean changing a product line or adjusting a marketing strategy. It can mean rebuilding an entire business model in a matter of weeks while facing civil or criminal consequences if the transition cannot happen quickly enough.
“I'm being told to just pivot, but given 45 days to build a completely different business model, or risk civil or criminal penalties.”
Biddle summarized the frustration in terms that reached well beyond the hemp industry.
“You cannot build a strong small business economy by constantly moving the finish line. You cannot tell entrepreneurs for years, build here, invest here, follow the law, and then suddenly change the rules without a meaningful opportunity for affected businesses to be heard.”
Jenny Wood: The Difference Between Relief and Intoxication
While the business owners focused on investment and employment, Jenny Wood described what the policy changes could mean for patients who use hemp products while trying to maintain ordinary lives. Wood, a working mother, said hemp products have helped her manage symptoms without preventing her from working, parenting, or meeting her other responsibilities.
“It didn't cure my disease. It didn't replace my medical care, but it helped keep my pain manageable, and it helped me avoid adding another medication to my treatment plan. More importantly, it allowed me to function.”
Her testimony focused on a distinction she believes is being lost in the policy debate: for her, a non-intoxicating hemp product and an intoxicating marijuana product do not serve the same purpose.
“I can't walk around this building high all day. I can't go to soccer practice high. But somehow, that seems to be the alternative that lawmakers are leaving patients like me.”
Wood said that distinction can appear minor when viewed as a matter of statutory definitions, but it becomes much more consequential for someone trying to manage chronic symptoms while continuing to work and raise a family.
“Those are not interchangeable for me. Maybe that distinction seems small when you're writing legislation, but when you're the person trying to manage chronic pain and still go to work, raise your kids, and live a normal life, it's not small at all.”
She also challenged the idea that Virginia is simply stepping in to regulate an uncontrolled marketplace. From her perspective, the marketplace already has testing, labeling, and age requirements, which is precisely why she would rather purchase products through regulated Virginia businesses than search for alternatives elsewhere.
“Virginia already has a regulatory system in place, so this is not an unregulated market that lawmakers are stepping in to regulate. It's a regulated market that they are dismantling.”
The approaching deadline does not change the underlying reasons patients seek these products, Wood argued. If legal access disappears, demand does not necessarily disappear with it.
“On August 15th, many of the products Virginians currently rely on will disappear from the legal marketplace. But my disease is not going to disappear on August 15th. Neither is anyone else's chronic pain, and neither is the demand for these products.”
Her concern is that consumers who can no longer find the products they use through registered Virginia businesses will look elsewhere, potentially moving away from the very testing and labeling standards policymakers say they want to protect.
“I would much rather see Virginians buying tested, accurately labeled products from responsible Virginia businesses than being pushed towards an unregulated market on Instagram.”
Lisa and Haley Smith: When Changing Products Isn't Simple
The stakes became even more personal when Lisa Smith spoke about her daughter, Haley, who has a severe form of epilepsy. Lisa described years of attempted treatments involving pharmaceuticals, specialized diets, and implanted devices, yet Haley continued experiencing more than 1,000 seizures a year.
“She still was having over 1000 seizures a year.”
After emergency access legislation passed in Virginia in 2015, Haley began using therapeutic full-spectrum hemp oil. Lisa said the family noticed a difference almost immediately.
“She was allowed to start cannabis or hemp oil, therapeutic full spectrum therapeutic hemp oil, on March 15, 2015, and immediately we saw a difference… She went from merely existing to living.”
According to Lisa, Haley's seizures initially declined by approximately 40 percent, and today she experiences two to four seizures per month rather than more than 1,000 per year.
“Today she has two to four a month. That's less than 50 a year, going from 1000.”
Lisa emphasized that finding the right regimen was not a matter of casually trying different products. She described blood testing and repeated adjustments between Haley's CBD oil and pharmaceutical medications until they reached a stable balance. When the family experimented with a different oil, she said Haley did not respond as well and they returned to the product that had been working.
That experience is why Lisa rejects the idea that Haley can simply substitute a different cannabis product if access to her current oil is disrupted. She said the dispensary products she reviewed were high in THC and intoxicating, while what Haley needs is the non-intoxicating full-spectrum hemp oil that has been part of her regimen for years.
“I want a non-intoxicating full spectrum hemp oil, and what has worked for her for 11 years works.”
For a patient whose treatment depends on a carefully calibrated combination of products, Lisa said changing one component introduces uncertainty that her family cannot treat casually.
“We have no guarantee that any other oil is going to fit that puzzle piece and keep her at her state she is now.”
Her final question captured the frustration shared by patients who believe the policy debate has overlooked what happens when a product on a legislative spreadsheet is also part of someone's long-established medical regimen.
“Her doctor recommends she stay on her regimen. What are you going to do, Virginia? What are you going to do?”
“They've Made Light Beer Illegal and Sent You to Buy Everclear”
When Garrett returned to the microphone, he used an analogy to describe what he sees as the fundamental contradiction in Virginia's approach.
“There is a difference between CBD and THC. There's a difference between hemp and marijuana. So what's just happened in Virginia… they've made light beer illegal and sent you to the liquor store to pick up the Everclear, right?”
His argument is that restricting lower-THC or non-intoxicating regulated hemp products does not necessarily eliminate the reasons consumers seek them. Instead, it may redirect those consumers toward more intoxicating products or toward sources operating outside Virginia's regulated marketplace.
That possibility becomes particularly frustrating to industry members because Virginia hemp businesses are already subject to regulatory requirements. Garrett contrasted those operators with illicit sellers whose products do not undergo the same testing and oversight.
“All their products are tested, and all their products are regulated. You know whose products aren't tested and regulated? Those on the illicit market…”
Garrett also argued that the restructuring of Virginia's cannabis marketplace risks favoring large, well-capitalized companies over the small businesses that helped build the state's existing hemp industry.
“You got a circumstance here where government's picking winners and losers. Literally, government's picking winners and losers, and the winners they picked are moneyed interests from outside of Virginia.”
For an agricultural state with favorable conditions for hemp production, he sees that as a missed economic opportunity as well as a regulatory failure.
“Virginia is in the sweet spot on the planet Earth for industrial scale hemp production. Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee — we're there, right?”
The concern voiced throughout the event was therefore not simply that one category of products might disappear from store shelves. Speakers argued that Virginia could simultaneously weaken an existing agricultural industry, eliminate small businesses, disrupt patients, and redirect consumers away from a regulated marketplace.
The Legal Challenge and the Question of Reliance
Those concerns have now moved beyond lobbying and into court. Garrett is acting as criminal defense counsel for plaintiffs challenging Virginia's new hemp restrictions, and at the press event he discussed a federal lawsuit involving former state senator Chap Petersen and others that raises a constitutional argument under the Takings Clause.
The argument, as Garrett described it, centers on reliance. Businesses manufactured inventory, invested in facilities, hired employees, and structured their operations around government policies that were in effect when those investments were made.
“We have literally 10s of millions of dollars worth of industry and product, et cetera, that was manufactured in reliance on… government policy being what the government said the policy was going to be when the stuff was manufactured, so the Constitution says there shall not be a taking without just compensation…”
In practical terms, the plaintiffs are challenging what happens when businesses make substantial investments in reliance on a regulatory framework and the government subsequently changes that framework in a way that destroys the value of those investments. Whether that argument ultimately succeeds is a question for the courts, but the lawsuit demonstrates how far the conflict has progressed: businesses that once focused on regulatory compliance are now preparing constitutional arguments and criminal defenses.
A Call for a Special Session
Despite the lawsuit, the speakers said they would still prefer a legislative solution. Their immediate request is for Virginia lawmakers to return in a special session, reconsider the hemp provisions, hear directly from the businesses and patients affected, and create a transition that does not leave previously compliant operators facing sudden criminal or civil exposure.
Garrett pointed to discussions about lawmakers potentially returning for other matters and questioned why the hemp issue could not be addressed at the same time.
“There's rumors that we're going to convene for a special session to address judgeships in September. How about we convene and also address this?”
The request is not to eliminate regulation. Throughout the press conference, speakers repeatedly emphasized testing, labeling, age restrictions, and responsible sales. What they are asking for is a regulatory framework that protects consumers without abruptly eliminating businesses and products that had been operating within the system Virginia itself established.
What Happens After August 15?
Virginia's hemp fight is ultimately about more than cannabis policy. It raises a broader question about what businesses and citizens should be able to expect when they make long-term decisions based on rules established by their government.
Small businesses say they did what Virginia asked of them. Farmers planted crops and developed supply chains, manufacturers invested in compliant facilities, retailers registered with the Commonwealth, and employers created jobs around a marketplace governed by state regulations. Patients, meanwhile, found products within that regulated system that became part of their everyday lives and, in some cases, long-established treatment regimens.
Now many of those same people are looking toward August 15 and wondering whether the system they spent years learning to navigate is about to disappear underneath them.
The speakers at the Virginia Hemp Conference were not asking for an unregulated marketplace. They were asking for predictable rules, meaningful stakeholder input, a reasonable transition, continued access to tested products, and an opportunity for Virginia small businesses to compete in the industry they helped build.
Whether Virginia addresses those concerns through a special session, the courts, or future legislation remains to be seen. What happens next will determine more than which hemp products remain on store shelves. It will also tell Virginia farmers, entrepreneurs, patients, and small business owners what it means to rely on the rules their Commonwealth puts in place.
This keeps the stronger material from the source—including the business, patient, regulatory, and legal narratives—but lets each idea develop before moving to the next rather than using isolated lines as artificial emphasis.
Comments