BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    







                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Mark Leno, Chair                A
                             2009-2010 Regular Session               B

                                                                     2
                                                                     6
                                                                     5
          AB 2650 (Buchanan)                                         0
          As Amended June 10, 2010
          Hearing date:  June 29, 2010
          Health & Safety Code
          JM:dl
                                  MEDICAL MARIJUANA  

                                       HISTORY

          Source:  Peace Officers Research Association of California

          Prior Legislation: SB 420 (Vasconcellos) - Ch. 875, Stats. 2003
                       SB 847 (Vasconcellos) - Ch. 750, Stats. 1999

          Support: Association of California School Administrators;  
                   California Police Chiefs' Association; California  
                   Narcotics Officers Association; California State Parent  
                   Teacher Association; California State Sheriffs'  
                   Association; Sacramento Police Officers Association;  
                   Elk Grove Chief of Police

          Opposition:League of California Cities; Drug Policy Alliance;  
          Marijuana Policy Project

          Assembly Floor Vote:  Ayes 54 - Noes 15

                                           
                                     KEY ISSUES
           
          SHOULD A SPECIFIED MEDICAL MARIJUANA ENTITY THAT OPERATES  
          THROUGH A STOREFRONT OR MOBILE RETAIL OUTLET BE PROHIBITED FROM  
          LOCATING WITHIN A "600 FOOT RADIUS" OF A SCHOOL?





                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageB

          SHOULD THIS BILL NOT PREEMPT ANY LOCAL ORDINANCE REGULATING THE  
          LOCATION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA ENTITY, IF THE  
          ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS BILL  
          (JANUARY 1, 2011)?

                                                                (CONTINUED)



          AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS BILL, SHOULD ANY LOCAL ENTITY ONLY  
          BE AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN  
          THIS BILL?


                                       PURPOSE

          The purposes of this bill are to 1) prohibit operation or  
          establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative, collective,  
          dispensary or provider within 600 feet of a school; 2) to  
          provide that ordinances adopted prior to the effective date of  
          this bill (1/1/2011) regulating the location or establishment of  
          such a medical marijuana entity shall not be preempted by this  
          bill; and 3) to authorize a local entity to only adopt an  
          ordinance that restricts the location or establishment of a  
          medical marijuana entity "further" than those entities are  
          restricted by this bill.

           Existing law  - the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health & Saf.  
          Code  11362.5), includes the following purposes:

           To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to  
            obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where such use  
            is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician  
            who has determined that the person's health 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.

           To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who  
            obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the  




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageC

            recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal  
            prosecution or sanction.

           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 Saf. Code  11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(A)- (C).) 

           Existing law  - the Compassionate Use Act - also provides:

           The act shall not 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.  (Health & Saf. Code  11362.5, subd.  
            (b)(2).)

           No physician in California shall be punished, or denied any  
            right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a  
            patient for medical purposes.  (Health & Saf. Code  11362.5,  
            subd. (c).)

           Penal laws 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.  (Health & Saf. Code  11362.5, subd. (d).)

           Existing law  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.  (Health & Saf.  
          Code  11362.775.)
           
          This bill  provides that its terms shall apply to persons  
          specified in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.765.  Those  
          persons are qualified patients, persons with valid  




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageD

          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.  

          This bill  prohibits any medical marijuana cooperative,  
          collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider who  
          possess, cultivates, or distributes medical marijuana, as  
          specified, from being located within 600 feet of a school.  

          This bill  states that the 600-feet distance shall be the  
          horizontal distance measured in a straight line from the  
          property line of the school to the closest property line of that  
          lot on which the medical marijuana cooperative or dispensary is  
          located, without regard to intervening structures. 

           This bill  provides that the 600-feet restriction shall not apply  
          to medical marijuana cooperatives or dispensaries, as specified  
          that are also licensed residential medical or elder care  
          facilities. 

           This bill  provides that this restriction shall only apply to  
          medical marijuana cooperatives, collective, dispensary,  
          operator, establishment or providers that are authorized by law  
          to possess, cultivate or distribute medical marijuana. 

           This bill  does not preempt local ordinances, adopted prior to  
          January 1, 2011 (the effective date of this bill), that regulate  
          the location or establishment of a medical marijuana   
           cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or  
          provider.  

          This bill  states that after the effective date of this bill, a  
          local entity can only adopt a local ordinances that impose more  
          restrictive requirements on the location of a medical marijuana  
          cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or  
          provider that is authorized by law to possess, cultivate or  
          distribute medical marijuana than imposed under this bill.






                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageE

                                          

                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
          
          The severe prison overcrowding problem California has  
          experienced for the last several years has not been solved.  In  
          December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the  
          Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a  
          court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the  
          federal Prison Litigation Reform Act.  On January 12, 2010, a  
          federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to  
          reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity  
          -- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.   
          In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,  
          2009, that court stated in part:

               "California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"  
               the state's independent oversight agency has reported.  
               . . .  (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,  
               "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is  
               Running Out").  Tough-on-crime politics have increased  
               the population of California's prisons dramatically  
               while making necessary reforms impossible. . . .  As a  
               result, the state's prisons have become places "of  
               extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house . .  
               .  (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison  
               Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while  
               contributing little to the safety of California's  
               residents . . .   California "spends more on  
               corrections than most countries in the world," but the  
               state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . .  .   
               Although California's existing prison system serves  
               neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has  
               for years been unable or unwilling to implement the  
               reforms necessary to reverse its continuing  
               deterioration.  (Some citations omitted.)

               . . .

               The massive 750% increase in the California prison  




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageF

               population since the mid-1970s is the result of  
               political decisions made over three decades, including  
               the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the  
               passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes  
               laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole  
               system.  Unfortunately, as California's prison  
               population has grown, California's political  
               decision-makers have failed to provide the resources  
               and facilities required to meet the additional need  
               for space and for other necessities of prison  
               existence.  Likewise, although state-appointed experts  
               have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the  
               state could safely reduce its prison population, their  
               recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or  
               postponed indefinitely.  The convergence of  
               tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend  
               the necessary funds to support the population growth  
               has brought California's prisons to the breaking  
               point.  The state of emergency declared by Governor  
               Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to  
               this day, California's prisons remain severely  
               overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison  
               system continue to languish without constitutionally  
               adequate medical and mental health care.<1>

          The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling  
          pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme  
          Court.  On Monday, June 14, 2010, The U.S. Supreme Court agreed  
          to hear the state's appeal in this case.   

           This bill  does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding  
          crisis described above.

          ---------------------------
          <1>   Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.  
          Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States  
          District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the  
          Northern District of California United States District Court  
          composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28  
          United States Code (August 4, 2009).




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageG

                                      COMMENTS

          1.  Need for This Bill  

          According to the author:

               Currently, there is no guidance from the state  
               regarding the location of medical marijuana  
               dispensaries.  In La Jolla there is dispensary across  
               the street from a high school, one block from a middle  
               school and four blocks from an elementary school.   
               This measure simply prevents medical marijuana  
               dispensaries with a storefront from being located  
               directly across from a school.  By requiring  
               dispensaries to be located at least 600 feet from a  
               school, this measure is consistent with the distance  
               most bars and liquor stores are banned. Additionally,  
               this bill does not preempt existing local ordinances  
               that regulate the location of marijuana dispensaries  
               as the most appropriate locations for these  
               dispensaries to open.  This bill represents a balanced  
               approach between our responsibilities to our children  
               and schools and the need for patients to have access  
               to medical marijuana dispensaries.

          2.  Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215) - Medical  
            Marijuana
           
          General Considerations
          
          Proposition 215 -- the "Compassionate Use Act (CUA) -- was  
          enacted in November, 1996.  The Act is set out in Health and  
          Safety Code Section 11362.5.  The CUA established the right of  
          patients to obtain and use marijuana in California to treat  
          specified serious illnesses and any other illness for which  
          marijuana provides relief.  Additionally, the CUA specifically  
          protects physicians who recommend the use of marijuana to  
          patients for medical purposes and exempts qualified patients and  
          their primary caregivers from California drug laws prohibiting  
          possession and cultivation of marijuana.  (McCabe, It's High  




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageH

          Time:  California Attempts to Clear the Smoke Surrounding the  
          Compassionate Use Act, (2004) 35 McGeorge L. Rev. 545, 546.)   
          The law review article noted:

               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 the Act, resulting in  
               inconsistent application.  It has even been alleged  
               that Proposition 215 was purposely drafted to be  
               vague.  (Ibid at p. 547.)

          Federal Law
          
          The United States Supreme Court in Gonzalez vs. Raich (2004) 125  
          S.Ct. 3195, held that California could not exempt marijuana for  
          medicinal use from the criminal possession statute in  
          contravention of federal law.  The ruling was based on the  
          Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The court  
          found 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.  
          However, and perhaps most important, there is no requirement  
          that state law enforcement assist in enforcement. 

          A Patient's Right to Possess Marijuana, and the Right to Return  
          of Marijuana taken from the Patient by the Police, under  
          California Law
          




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageI

          In City of Garden Grove vs. Superior Court of Orange County  
          (hereinafter Garden Grove) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355 the Court  
          of Appeal held that a defendant, whose charges of marijuana  
          transportation were dismissed, was entitled to the return of  
          seized marijuana.  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 the  
          defendant was entitled to a return of property that was legal  
          for him to own 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.  (Id, at p.  
          370.)



         3.  Constitutional Provisions Limit the Ability of the Legislature  
            to Affect the CUA   

          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 an initiative,  
          only the voters may alter statutes created thereby. 

          The court in Proposition 103 Enforcement Project vs. Quackenbush  
          (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1473, explained:

               The purpose of California's constitutional limitation  
               on the Legislature's power to amend initiative  
               statutes is to protect the people's initiative powers  




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageJ

               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. 

          The California Supreme Court recently ruled on the power of the  
          Legislature to amend or affect the Compassionate Use Act (CUA).   
          (People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008.)  In Kelly, the court  
          ruled that the Legislative restriction on the number of plants a  
          qualified patient may possess was unconstitutional as it  
          interfered with the rights established by the initiative.   
          Although the Legislature may 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  [patients and primary caregivers] 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  




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageK

               takes away from rights granted by the initiative  
               statute.  In this sense, 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 v.  
               Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1044.)

          This bill creates a statewide prohibition for any medical  
          marijuana dispensary to be located within 600 feet of a school.   
          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.

          AS THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY SET OR LIMIT THE  
          AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA A QUALIFIED PATIENT MAY POSSESS, CAN THE  
          LEGISLATURE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBIT A VALID COOPERATIVE OR  
          COLLECTIVE FROM OPERATING WITHIN 600 FEET OF A SCHOOL?

          4. California Supreme Court Case Interpreting the Term "Primary  
            Caregiver" Arguably Limits the Function or Powers of  
            Caregivers under the Act, Particularly as Concerns Providing  
            Marijuana to Patients 

           In People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, the California  
                 Supreme Court interpreted the term "primary caregiver" within  
          the mean of the CUA.  The defendant in Mentch (Roger Mentch)   
          operated a business called the Hemporium and provided marijuana  
          to five medical marijuana users, each of whom had a doctor's  
          recommendation to use the drug.  Mentch testified that he did  
          not make a profit from medical marijuana, but only recovered his  
          expenses. He took two of the patients/customers to medical  
          appointments on a sporadic basis.  He counseled his  
          patients/customers on the best strains of marijuana for their  
          particular maladies. (Id, at pp. 280-281.) 




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageL


          The court found that Mentch was not a primary caregiver.  The  
          court succinctly held:  "[A] defendant asserting primary  
          caregiver status must prove at a minimum that he or she (1)  
          consistently provided caregiving, (2) independent of any  
          assistance in taking medical marijuana, 3) at or before the time  
          he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical  
          marijuana."  (Id, at p. 283.)  The court continued:  "A primary  
          caregiver must establish he or she satisfies the responsibility  
          clause cased on evidence independent of the administration of  
          marijuana."  (Id, at p. 284.)  The words the statute uses --  
          housing, health, safety -- imply a caretaking relationship  
          directed at the core survival needs of a seriously ill patient,  
          not just one single pharmaceutical need."  (Id, at p. 286.)

          5.  Joint Consideration of Mentch and Kelly  

          The decision in Kelly clearly establishes the right of a patient  
          to obtain any amount of marijuana necessary to treat his or her  
          malady.  The decision in Mentch effectively limits the  
          assistance a qualified patient can received from others in  
          obtaining medical marijuana.  A patient who does not have a  
          primary caregiver who meets the standards set out in Mentch must  
          rely on his or her own efforts to obtain medical marijuana.  A  
          law that substantially or significantly impedes the 

          patient's ability to obtain medical marijuana - including by  
          make it unreasonably difficult for a patient to reach a coop or  
          cooperative - would be challenged as being an unconstitutional  
          amendment to the CUA.

          IN CONSIDERATION OF THE RELATIVELY STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS FOR A  
          PERSON TO BE A PRIMARY CAREGIVER, WOULD STATEWIDE RESTRICTIONS  
          ON THE LOCATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA  
          COOPERATIVES AND OTHER PROVIDERS BE UNDULY BURDENSOME?

          6.  Los Angeles Ordinance  

          Terms of the Ordinance
          




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageM

          This bill appears to be modeled in part on an ordinance adopted  
          by Los Angeles City Council in January, 2010 and only fully  
          implemented in the past week.  Two of the main reasons stated by  
          proponents of the measure were that dispensaries were  
          proliferating too rapidly and concentrating in certain areas.    
          It appears that residents in some areas complained of excess  
          traffic, congregation of patients near sites, litter and other  
          problems.

          The Los Angeles ordinance prohibits medical marijuana  
          dispensaries from being located within 1,000 feet of sensitive  
          locations, including schools churches and parks.  A provision in  
          the ordinance allows police to obtain patient lists and doctor's  
          recommendations from a dispensary without a warrant.   It also  
          appears that a violation of the Los Angeles ordinance is  
          punishable by a jail term of up to six months and civil fines of  
          up to $2,500 per day.  In the past week, orders to approximately  
          440 dispensaries to shut down were implemented.

          Court Challenges
          
          It appears that numerous challenges to the ordinance were filed  
          in Los Angeles courts.  Americans for Safe Access (ASA) sought  
          at injunction in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against  
          the ordinance and Los Angeles City Council on the grounds that  
          the 1,000-foot restriction effectively eliminates access to  
          medical marijuana and thereby violates the Compassionate Use  
          Act.  A final request for an injunction was denied on June 4,  
          2010, clearing the way for enforcement of the ordinance.   
          However, additional litigation in the matter will continue.  

          The Los Angeles Times, in an article filed June 5, 2010,  
          explained the court's order and pending matters before the  
          court:


               Attorneys for patients using medical marijuana had  
               filed a class-action lawsuit against the city last  
               week, contending that the law would unconstitutionally  
               bar patients' access to their medicine.  ? In court  




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageN

               Friday, attorneys presented a map to the judge that  
               they said showed most dispensaries will have to close  
               if forced to 



               comply with the ordinance?  [Judge] Chalfant rejected  
               that argument, saying because patients can grow their  
               own marijuana and an estimated 137 shops will be  
               allowed to remain open at least temporarily, there was  
               no reason to issue an emergency order stopping the  
               city from implementing the law.
































                                                                     (More)












               "I believe access to medical marijuana ? is supposed  
               to be limited," the judge said. "It is not supposed to  
               be freely available on the street to anyone who wants  
               it; that was the intention of the people."



               He said, however, that patients may have grounds to  
               ask for an injunction based on their privacy rights -  
               the city ordinance says police will be able to obtain  
               patient lists and doctors' recommendations without a  
               warrant.



               The judge also denied requests from lawyers  
               representing dispensaries to stop the ordinance. The  
               lawyers had contended that their clients' rights as  
               property owners and their due process rights would be  
               violated when the city's law takes effect.  Chalfont  
               ordered attorneys to file additional papers on whether  
               allowing certain dispensaries to remain open while  
               closing others would be a violation of the equal  
               protection clause of the California Constitution.  
               Hearings for the patients and the dispensaries were  
               set for early July.

          ARE CHALLENGES TO THE LOS ANGELES ORDINANCE STILL BEING  
          LITIGATED?

          7.  Local Regulation Generally- Preemption Except for Ordinances  
            that are More Restrictive than this Bill  

          Since the passage of SB 420 in 2003, medical marijuana  
          regulation has been done by local jurisdictions. This bill does  
          include a "grandfather" clause that allows a local ordinance  
          enacted prior to the effective date of this bill to stand.   
          However, after the effective date of this bill, only local  




                                                                     (More)







                                                         AB 2650 (Buchanan)
                                                                      PageP

          ordinances that are more restrictive than this bill as to  
          location and establishment of medical marijuana facilities will  
          not be preempted by state law.

          It has been argued that a single state-wide standard for  
          locations of medical marijuana dispensaries ignores the wide  
          differences among communities in California.  These differences  
          extend to physical features, population density, transportation,  
          medical needs of patients and public attitudes about medical  
          marijuana.  It can be argued that each local government entity,  
          in comparison with the state, best understands the particular  
          issues concerning medical marijuana that may arise in each city  
          or county.  A standard that is workable in a rural area could be  
          very difficult to comply with in a very dense urban area such as  
          San Francisco.




          BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH CITY AND COUNTY -  
          INCLUDING DENSITY OF POPULATION, RENTAL PRICES, TRANSPORTATION,  
          AND HEALTH PROBLEMS IN PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOODS - SHOULD  
          REGULATION OF THE LOCATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL  
          MARIJUANA FACILITIES BE LEFT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT?



                                   ***************