The federal indictment against state Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, can be boiled down to three broad questions:
1. Did she engage in buying and selling large quantities of marijuana?
2. If so, do those actions, in conjunction with her family and business associates, constitute organized crime, which is what racketeering laws were originally set up to prosecute?
3. Finally, did she improperly use her position as a state legislator (and not just any state legislator, but chair of the budget-writing Senate Finance Committee) to influence the way the state’s new cannabis retail law is written — and attempt to influence who will get, or won’t get, licenses? (No licenses have actually been issued yet.)
Beyond those questions related to Lucas, the federal indictment handed down last week indirectly raises five other questions:
1. Who is the unnamed “senior law enforcement officer” who met with Lucas in 2022 “following his hiring” and allegedly warned her “that selling marijuana was illegal and was going to get her in trouble one day”?
2. Who is the unnamed state legislator who met with Lucas and the same “senior law enforcement officer” where the officer allegedly “reiterated that Louise Lucas needed to stop selling marijuana and asked her why, given that she was a state senator and a wealthy woman, she would engage in criminal behavior”?
These questions seem to fall under the heading of Sen. Howard Baker’s famous Watergate investigation question: “What did the president know and when did he know it?” In this case, “What did law enforcement and/or other legislators know and when did they know it?” The allegation here is that at least one “senior law enforcement officer” and one state legislator knew Lucas was allegedly selling pot as far back as 2022 and did nothing about it.
3. Who is the unnamed legislator whom the indictment says Lucas telephoned on March 9, 2026 — federal authorities had tapped her phone — and told that she needed a cannabis license? This, by itself, isn’t against the law; those licenses aren’t issued by legislators, they’re issued by the Cannabis Control Authority, but the question becomes: Did that legislator take any action to craft the bill then moving through the General Assembly to benefit Lucas?
4. Who is the unnamed legislator whom the indictment says Lucas telephoned on March 11, 2026, and again discussed cannabis legislation? According to the indictment, “the Virginia legislator responded that the cannabis legislation would make sure ‘everything is on the up and up,’” to which Louise Lucas responded, ‘[and] make it legal I did, because I did, when I did it, it was obviously illegal.’”
5. Who are the two unnamed legislators whom the indictment says Lucas telephoned that same day on a conference call to discuss cannabis licenses and told that “we [are] trying to disqualify somebody until he pays me back my money”?
Because of the way the indictment is worded, we can’t tell if it’s citing two legislators or five legislators in all.
However, this indictment raises two policy questions that go beyond whether one of the most powerful political figures in the state committed felonies.
1. To what degree will politics be involved in awarding cannabis licenses?
The preferred answer, of course, is “none.” However, the indictment alleges that on March 23, 2026, Lucas called someone with the Cannabis Control Authority and told them that there are “a couple of bad apples who are going to be applying for a license who do not get them.” This puts things in a gray area. There probably are “bad apples” in the world, and a legislator seems within her rights to alert authorities to them. You could even argue that it’s a legislator’s duty to do so. However, within the context of this indictment, the question becomes whether the people in question really are “bad apples” and whether Lucas was using her influence to disadvantage someone with whom she had a business dispute? If so, then she was improperly using her political position to settle a personal business score.
Perhaps none of this happened — Lucas, like all defendants, is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That, though, is a matter for courts of law. In the court of public opinion, has this mere allegation been enough to taint the process by which the Cannabis Control Authority will eventually award licenses?
Even if the answer is “no,” this still underscores a key facet of the law: There are a limited number of licenses available. The law mandates no more than 350 retail stores and five large-scale cultivation facilities, known as Tier V (defined as a maximum of 35,000 square feet) — with the ability to reevaluate these numbers later and add more if the authority thinks that’s a good idea. This is not like starting, say, a vape store, which anyone with the start-up money and the proper business license can do. The assumption is that these licenses will be highly prized because not everyone can get one. What kind of political jockeying are we going to see — or worse, not see — when it comes to the decisions over who gets these licenses?
This process will begin in earnest in 2027. The Cannabis Control Authority looks to issue its final regulations in January, with May 1 as the deadline to award the first round of applications. Retail sales are set to begin July 1. That brings us to the other policy question the indictment raises.
2. What’s going to happen to all the existing cannabis stores?
It’s currently legal to sell some cannabis-based products — all those “CBD oil” signs you see that use cannabis oil, drawn from the hemp version of the plant that doesn’t have much of the psychoactive compounds that produce the buzz. That’s how Lucas has been able to operate her Cannabis Outlet store; that’s perfectly legal. What’s alleged is that she was also dealing actual marijuana — the type of cannabis that does get you high.
Whether she was or not doesn’t matter for our purposes here; we already know there are other stores across Virginia that openly sell marijuana. We at Cardinal News know this because from time to time we’ve visited some of these stores in Southwest Virginia, made purchases and sent the product off to be tested. Each time it’s come back positive as marijuana — with lots of the buzz-producing tetrahydrocannabinol or THC. These are not back-alley operations; these have typically been nice-looking storefronts out on the main drag.
Law enforcement has shown little interest in these businesses, even after we’ve reported they’re selling marijuana — something currently banned under state law. The explanation has always been that the penalties are now so light, and other priorities so pressing, that it’s simply not worth law enforcement’s time to pursue charges.
That will change come July 1. At that point, we’ll have retailers who have paid dearly for their state license — $4,000 for the application, $20,000 for the license fee if they’re awarded one, and then the prospect of a $15,000 renewal and a $2,500 reinspection fee. Those are just the state-imposed costs, not the cost of actually starting a business. Someone who has invested that much money to operate a legal, regulated business will probably not be happy about someone selling the same product without having paid for that state license. The Cannabis Control Authority will also have 36 law enforcement agents across the state.
Come next year, we’re likely going to see a push for those agents (and maybe others) to crack down on unlicensed dealers. If authorities don’t, there’s no incentive for anyone to pay $24,000 to get a state license. That raises yet another question: Before anyone writes that first $4,000 check to file an application, what assurance can authorities give to potential applicants that the state will do its best to clear out these illicit dealers? California is often cited as an example of a state that hasn’t done a good job of eliminating the black market for weed. Cannabis Business Times estimates that 60% of cannabis sales in California are through unlicensed pot dealers. The cannabis business site Distru estimates that in New Jersey, the figure is closer to 80%.
Anyone shelling out money for a cannabis license in Virginia can be assured there’s a market out there. What they don’t know is how much of that market they’re actually going to be competing for.
We have more political news and analysis every Friday afternoon in West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter. This week, I’ll be taking a final look at the early voting numbers (and more). Sign up here:
