BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chairman
684 (Leno)
Hearing Date: 8/20/07 Amended: 8/1/07
+ RN 07 26254
Consultant: Nora Lynn Policy Vote: Ag 3-1; Pub Saf 3-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY:
As proposed to be amended, AB 684 would authorize a five-year,
four-county pilot program for the cultivation of industrial
hemp, as specified.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Fund
Enforcement See staff comments GF/LF
Litigation See staff comments General
Report Minor, absorbable costs General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS:
Under existing California and federal law "marijuana" is defined
as the flowering tops, leaves and non-sterile seeds of the plant
Cannabis sativa L. Existing law exempts from the definition of
"marijuana" the stalks of the cannabis plant, products made from
the stalks, oil and oil cake made from the seed, and sterile
seed.
AB 684 would define "industrial hemp" as Cannabis sativa L that
has a THC content in its leaves and flowering tops lower than
0.3% (the THC content of marijuana leaves or flowers used for
intoxication averages 5-10%). AB 647 requires growers of
industrial hemp in Imperial, Kings, Mendocino and Yolo Counties
to grow their crops in plots between one and five acres in size
and marked with signage, as prescribed in the bill, indicating
the crop is hemp. Growers must obtain a laboratory report from a
federal Drug Enforcement Agency-registered laboratory prior to
harvest indicating THC levels below the required levels. If two
pre-harvest THC content tests show levels higher than 0.3%, the
crop must be destroyed. Lab results are to be maintained by the
grower for two years and made available to law enforcement upon
request as well as to anyone purchasing any hemp raw materials.
AB 684 also bans the transport of any live hemp plants,
flowering tops or seed. AB 684 would sunset January 1, 2013.
DOJ estimates any enforcement costs related to AB 684 would be
minor and absorbable and that its ongoing efforts to combat
marijuana propagation (Campaign Against Marijuana Planting)
would remain unaltered by the bill. The department further
contends that AB 684 as currently drafted does not create a
"hemp defense" for marijuana growers and that local law
enforcement would be able to prosecute marijuana cultivation
cases in the four hemp-producing counties without relying on DOJ
for THC testing. To the extent that local law enforcement
agencies make such referrals in the future, the agency indicated
a reevaluation of such costs might be necessary.
-1-
AB 684 (Leno)
Page 2
In terms of litigation expenses, DOJ did not reflect any such
costs associated with AB 684. The department indicated that in
the event AB 684 is challenged in court, it might incur costs
for additional deputy attorneys general, but reporting costs
ahead of such litigation was premature. Additionally, staff
notes the act of legislating invites litigation. In general, the
Senate Appropriations Committee treats the potential for
litigation as an indirect cost of any bill and does not consider
it as a part of the fiscal analysis.
DOJ estimates costs to produce a required report of outlining
cases of industrial hemp farms used to disguise marijuana
plantings will be minor and absorbable.
Proposed author's amendments would strike the word
"horticulture" and "horticultural" from the bill and create a
definition for "established agricultural research institution."