BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2650
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010
Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2650 (Buchanan) - As Amended: April 8, 2010
SUMMARY : Prohibits any medical marijuana cooperative,
collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider who
possess, cultivates, or distributes medical marijuana, as
specified, from being located within 1,000 feet of a school,
public park, public library, religious institution, licensed
child care facility, youth center, substance abuse
rehabilitation center, or any pre-existing medical marijuana
cooperative or dispensary, as specified. Specifically, this
bill :
1)States that the 1,000-foot restriction shall be the horizontal
distance measured in a straight line from the property line of
the school, public park, public library, religious
institution, licensed child care facility, youth center,
substance abuse rehabilitation center, or preexisting medical
marijuana cooperative or dispensary, as specified, to the
closest property line of that lot on which the medical
marijuana cooperative or dispensary is located without regard
to intervening structures.
2)Provides that the 1,000-foot restriction shall not apply to
medical marijuana cooperatives or dispensaries, as specified
that are also licensed residential medical or elder care
facilities.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States the People of the State of California hereby find and
declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996
are as follows:
a) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right
to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that
medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended
by a physician who has determined that the person's health
AB 2650
Page 2
would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of
cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma,
arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which
marijuana provides relief.
b) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who
obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the
recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal
prosecution or sanction.
c) To encourage the Federal and State governments to
implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable
distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need
of marijuana. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section
11362.5(b)(1)(A) to (C).]
2)Provides that nothing in this law shall be construed to
supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in
conduct that endangers others, or to condone the diversion of
marijuana for non-medical purposes. [HSC Section
11362.5(b)(2).]
3)States notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
physician in California shall be punished, or denied any right
or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient
for medical purposes. [HSC Section 11362.5(c).]
4)States existing law, relating to the possession of marijuana
and the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a
patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or
cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the
patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of
a physician. [HSC Section 11362.5(d).]
5)Provides that qualified patients, persons with valid
identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of
qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who
associate within the State of California in order collectively
or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes,
shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state
criminal sanctions under existing law. (Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 11362.775.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
AB 2650
Page 3
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "January 2010,
the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance to regulate
the collective cultivation of the medical marijuana in order
to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the residents of
the City of Los Angeles. Several cities in our district,
including Danville, Walnut Creek and Isleton, have recently
passed ordinances to move, restrict or ban marijuana
dispensaries in within their city limits. As Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries are increasing throughout the state,
more and more are opening closer to our schools. Currently,
there is no guidance as the most appropriate locations for
these dispensaries to open. As a result, we have cases of
dispensaries opening up close to schools and other places
where children congregate. As Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
continue to open throughout the state, they are increasingly
located near schools and parks, public libraries and child
care facilities. To keep Medical Marijuana Dispensaries from
further encroaching from places where children and families
congregate, we believe we need to keep them a measured
distance from these locations."
2)Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215) : In November
1996, Californians voted in favor of Proposition 215, the
"Compassionate Use Act". Pursuant to HSC Section 11362.5, the
Act ensured the right of patients to obtain and use marijuana
in California to treat specified serious illnesses.
Additionally, the Act protected physicians who appropriately
recommended the use of marijuana to patients for medical
purposes and exempted qualified patients and their primary
caregivers from California drug laws prohibiting possession
and cultivation of marijuana. (McCabe, It's High Time:
California Attempts to Clear the Smoke Surrounding the
Compassionate Use Act, 35 McGeorge L. Rev. 545, 546.)
"Although qualifying patients and their caregivers are exempt
from California state cultivation and possession laws under
the Act, there are no provisions addressing other relevant
issues, such as the formation of cooperatives for the purpose
of cultivating and distributing marijuana, transportation of
marijuana by patients or caregivers, or provisions
establishing the quantity of marijuana a qualified person may
possess. Further, absence of uniform guidelines adversely
affected the ability of law enforcement officers to enforce
AB 2650
Page 4
the Act, resulting in inconsistent application. It has even
been alleged that Proposition 215 was purposely drafted to be
vague." (Ibid at 547.)
The United States Supreme Court specifically ruled on whether
the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 could decriminalize the use
of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Gonzalez vs. Raich
(2004) 125 S.Ct. 3195 held California could not exempt
marijuana for medicinal use from the criminal possession
statute. The Court based its ruling on the idea that use of
"any commodity, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial
effect on the supply and demand in the national market for
that commodity" and, hence, falls within interstate commerce.
The Court ruled that the Federal Control Substances Act
preempts any state attempt to decriminalize marijuana (Raich
at 2208), meaning that federal agencies may enforce federal
law in California notwithstanding the Compassionate Use Act,
but there is no requirement that state law enforcement assist
in enforcement.
In City of Garden Grove vs. Superior Court of Orange County
(hereinafter City of Garden Grove) (2007) 157 Cal.App. 4th
355, the court of appeal argued that a defendant, whose
charges of marijuana transportation were dismissed, was
entitled to the return of seized marijuana. The trial court
granted the patient's motion for return of property. The
appellate court held that the city had standing under existing
law to seek a writ of mandate because the question of whether
medical marijuana patients were entitled to the return of
lawfully seized marijuana was an issue of considerable public
interest. The court stated that the patient's marijuana
possession was legal under state law but it was illegal under
federal law. The court concluded that his possession was
lawful for purposes of obtaining the return of property
because state courts were not required to enforce federal drug
laws. Further, the federal drug laws did not preempt state
law under the supremacy clause of the United States
Constitution as to the return of medical marijuana to
qualified users. Due process required the return of seized
property after the dismissal of a criminal charge. (City of
Garden Grove at 370.)
3)California Constitutional Limitations on Legislative
Regulation of Medical Marijuana : SB 420 (Vasconcellos),
Chapter 875, Statutes of 2003, developed and clarified
AB 2650
Page 5
Proposition 215. Much of the state regulatory scheme for use
of medical marijuana defers to city and counties to draft
their own rules. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77
states, in relevant part, "Counties and cities may retain or
enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients
or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits" for
marijuana possession set forth existing law. [HSC Section
11362.77(c).] Health and Safety Code Section 11362.72(a)
requires county departments of health to issue and regulate
medical marijuana identification cards. As noted above, SB
420 provided statutory guidelines for a right established
through initiative.
The California Supreme Court very recently ruled on the
Legislature's ability to regulate the use of medical marijuana
because it was an initiative. The California Constitution
states, "The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum
statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by
another statute that becomes effective only when approved by
the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment
or repeal without their approval." [Cal. Const., art. II,
Sec. 10.] Therefore, unless the initiative expressly
authorizes the Legislature to amend, only the voters may alter
statutes created by initiative. Proposition 215 is silent as
to the Legislature's authority to amend that proposition.
"The purpose of California's constitutional limitation on the
Legislature's power to amend initiative statutes is to protect
the people's initiative powers by precluding the Legislature
from undoing what the people have done, without the
electorate's consent. Courts have a duty to jealously guard
the people's initiative power, and hence to apply a liberal
construction to this power wherever it is challenged in order
that the right to resort to the initiative process is not
improperly annulled by a legislative body. At the same time,
despite the strict bar on the Legislature's authority to amend
initiative statutes, the Legislature is not precluded from
enacting laws addressing the general subject matter of an
initiative. The Legislature remains free to address a related
but distinct area." [Proposition 103 Enforcement Project vs.
Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App. 1473.]
In People vs. Kelly, the California Supreme Court ruled that the
Legislative restriction on the number of plants a person may
possess was unconstitutional as it interfered with the rights
AB 2650
Page 6
established by the initiative. Although the Legislature may
be able to clarify or expand the rights established in
Proposition 215, it may not enact legislation that interferes
with the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The Kelly
Court stated:
"Under the CUA [Compassionate Use Act], as adopted by
Proposition 215, these individuals are not subject to any
specific limits and do not require a physician's
recommendation in order to exceed any such limits; instead
they may possess an amount of medical marijuana reasonably
necessary for their, or their charges', personal medical
needs. By extending the reach of Health and Safety Code
Section 11362.77's quantity limitations beyond those persons
who voluntarily register under the MMP [Medical Marijuana
Program] and obtain an identification card that provides
protection against arrest - and by additionally restricting
the rights of all qualified patients and primary caregivers
who fall under the CUA - the language of Section Health and
Safety Code Section 11362.77 effectuates a change in the CUA
that takes away from rights granted by the initiative statute.
In this sense, [Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77]
quantity limitations conflict with - and thereby substantially
restrict - the CUA's guarantee that a qualified patient may
possess and cultivate any amount of marijuana reasonably
necessary for his or her current medical condition. In that
respect, Section 11362.77 improperly amends the CUA in
violation of the California Constitution." [People vs. Kelly
(hereinafter Kelly) (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1044.]
This bill creates a statewide prohibition for any medical
marijuana dispensary to be located within 1,000 feet of a
school, public park, public library, religious institutions,
licensed child care facilities, youth centers, substance abuse
rehabilitation centers, or another dispensary. It is arguable
that in some jurisdictions this restriction may completely
eliminate medical marijuana dispensaries. In that case, the
prohibition may be viewed by the court as "substantially
restricting" access to medical marijuana. If that is the
case, this proposed legislation, if enacted, may be
invalidated as unconstitutional. Some medical marijuana
advocates have suggested dispensaries should be treated like
liquor stores. Most jurisdictions prohibit liquor stores
within 600 to 1,000 feet from a school. However, the
AB 2650
Page 7
restriction in this bill also includes parks, libraries, youth
centers, religious institutions, child care facilities or
rehabilitation centers may be overly broad. Also, there is no
definition of "youth center" or "religious institution",
giving local government no direction on how to enforce this
provision.
4)Local Governments : This language appears to be what the Los
Angeles City Council adopted in February 2010. The City of
Los Angeles rejected a more stringent 500-foot rule in favor
of a broader 1,000-foot rule. The Council took hours of
testimony on access and agreed to consider and revisit access
to dispensaries if it is determined that the restriction will
limit the rights of patients. Americans for Safe Access (ASA)
have filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking an
injunction against the ordinance and Los Angeles City Council
from enforcing its language. ASA is arguing the 1,000-foot
restriction will effectively eliminate access to medical
marijuana in a manner inconsistent with the proposition. The
request for injunction was filed on March 18, 2010. [Barboza,
"Medical Marijuana Advocates Challenge L.A. Ordinance", Los
Angeles Times, March 2, 2010, pg. 1A.] Los Angeles devoted
two and one-half years developing regulations and may still be
constitutionally prohibited from acting.
Since the passage of SB 420 in 2003, much of the medical
marijuana regulation has been determined by local
jurisdictions better equipped to resolve issues related to the
unique nature of its city or county. Given the precarious
constitutional status of the 1,000-foot restriction in Los
Angeles, should the Legislature defer to local governments
until legal issues may be resolved?
5)Related Legislation : AB 390 (Ammiano) legalizes the
possession, sale, cultivation and other conduct relating to
marijuana by persons over the age of 21. AB 390 passed out of
the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and was never heard in
the Assembly Committee on Health.
6)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 847 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 750, Statutes of 1999,
established the Marijuana Research Act of 1999 and provided
that the Regents of the University of California, if they
elect to do so, may implement a three-year program, the
AB 2650
Page 8
"California Marijuana Research Program", under which funds
would be provided for studies intended to ascertain the
general medical safety and efficacy of marijuana and, if
found valuable, to develop medical guidelines for the
appropriate administration and use of marijuana.
b) SB 791 (McPherson), of the 2001-02 Legislative Session,
would have reduced simple possession of not more than 28.5
grams or marijuana to an infraction for the first offense
and an alternate infraction/misdemeanor for the second
offense. SB 791 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.
c) SB 420 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 875, Statutes of 2003,
establishes a voluntary registry identification card system
for patients authorized to engage in the medical use of
marijuana and their caregivers.
d) SB 131 (Sher), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session, would
have reduced simple possession of not more than 28.5 grams
of marijuana to an infraction for the first offense, would
have reduced simple possession for a subsequent offense to
an alternate infraction/misdemeanor, and would have
increased the penalty for an offense to a fine of not more
than $250. SB 131 failed passage on the Assembly floor,
was granted reconsideration, and was never re-heard.
e) SB 797 (Romero), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have reclassified a first offense for simple
possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana as an
alternate infraction/misdemeanor and increases the penalty
for the offense from $100 to $250. SB 797 failed passage
on the Assembly Floor and was moved to the Inactive File
after being granted reconsideration.
f) AB 684 (Leno), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, would
have clarified the definition of "marijuana" contained in
the Uniformed CSA to exclude industrial hemp, except where
the plant is cultivated or processed for purposes not
expressly allowed, as specified. AB 684 was vetoed.
g) AB 2743 (Saldana), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have stated that it is the policy of California that
its agencies and agents not cooperate in federal raids and
prosecutions for marijuana related offenses if the target
is a qualified patient. AB 2743 was moved to the Inactive
AB 2650
Page 9
File on the Assembly Floor.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744