I support strong standards, accountability, and oversight for recovery residences. I also want to make clear that I am not speaking about this issue as an outsider. I served on the board of the Virginia Association of Recovery Residences (VARR) from 2017–2019, and I have firsthand experience with the recovery-housing system and the importance of having safe, structured homes available to people trying to rebuild their lives. My concern is that Virginia’s current certification structure may allow a private credentialing organization to effectively decide which recovery models are eligible for certification and, consequently, access to referrals and public funding.

The issue of cannabis is a perfect example. Recovery residences routinely make accommodations for medications used in medication-assisted treatment, including methadone and buprenorphine/Suboxone. These are powerful medications that can produce physical dependence, yet we recognize that they can be legitimate and effective tools for treating opioid use disorder. Virginia recognizes their role in the recovery system. So why should cannabis automatically be treated as disqualifying simply because it does not fit one particular recovery philosophy? I am not arguing that every recovery residence should allow cannabis. Some homes should absolutely remain completely abstinence-based. I am arguing that a responsible recovery residence should be able to establish a clear policy for residents who are legally using medical cannabis and be judged on whether that policy protects residents—not simply on whether a private credentialing organization agrees with the philosophy behind it.

If a residence meets Virginia’s safety and operational requirements and has safeguards such as documentation, secure storage, no sharing or diversion, appropriate monitoring, and consequences for misuse, it should have a meaningful opportunity to become certified. The state has directed DBHDS to monitor credentialing entities to ensure their certification criteria comply with Department regulations and to create a process through which recovery residences can seek certification independently or alongside a credentialing entity. The purpose of that oversight should be to ensure that private credentialing policies do not override the standards established by the Commonwealth.

I am not asking Virginia to declare medical cannabis appropriate for everyone in recovery. I am asking for choice, transparency, and consistent standards. If we recognize that someone can take a powerful, dependence-forming medication like methadone or buprenorphine while living in recovery housing, then we should at least evaluate a residence’s medical-cannabis policy based on safety, responsible management, and the actual needs of its residents rather than stigma or a single recovery philosophy. Recovery housing is supposed to create more safe places for people to rebuild their lives. Set the standards. Enforce the standards. Let residents know exactly what each house allows. But don’t allow one private organization to decide which lawful recovery models Virginia will recognize or fund.