BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A 2011-2012 Regular Session B 1 3 0 AB 1300 (Blumenfield) 0 As Amended June 1, 2011 Hearing date: July 5, 2011 Health and Safety Code JM:dl MEDICAL MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES AND COLLECTIVES: LOCAL REGULATION OF LOCATION, ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION HISTORY Source: Author Prior Legislation: AB 2650 (Buchanan) - Chapter 603, Stats. 2010 SB 420 (Vasconcellos) - Chapter 875, Stats. 2003 Proposition 215, November 1996 General Election Support: Los Angeles City Attorney; Los Angeles County Sheriff Opposition:None known Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 71 - Noes 1 KEY ISSUES SHOULD A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY BE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE LOCATION, OPERATION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA COOPERATIVE OR COLLECTIVE, AS SPECIFIED? (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageB SHOULD A LOCAL ENTITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENFORCE LOCAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCES THROUGH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL REMEDIES AND ACTIONS? SHOULD A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENACT ANY LAW CONSISTENT WITH THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM, AS SPECIFIED? PURPOSE The purposes of this bill are to 1) specifically provide that a local government entity may enact an ordinance regulating the location, operation or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative or collective; 2) authorize local government entity to enforce such ordinances through civil or criminal remedies and actions; and 3) authorize a local government entity to enact any ordinance that is consistent with the Medical Marijuana Program, which is intended to implement the Compassionate Use Act (medical marijuana initiative). Existing law , the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) 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 for 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 primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution. 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: (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageC § 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 recommending medical marijuana to a patient. (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 , the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP), 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.) Existing law provides that nothing in the MMP shall prohibit a local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with the MMP. (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.83.) Existing law prohibits any medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider, as specified, from being located within 600 feet of a school. (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.768.) Existing law provides that the 600-feet restriction shall not apply to medical marijuana cooperatives or dispensaries, as specified, which are also licensed residential medical or elder care facilities. (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.768, subd. (d).) (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageD Existing law provides that 660-feet restriction shall only apply to a medical marijuana facility, as specified, authorized by law to possess, cultivate or distribute medical marijuana that has a storefront or mobile retail outlet that ordinarily requires a business license. (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.768, subd. (e).) Existing law states that a local entity can only adopt local ordinances concerning the proximity of a medical marijuana facility to a school that impose more restrictive requirements than the 60 feet state standard. (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.768, subd. (f).) Existing law does not preempt local ordinances, adopted prior to January 1, 2011, that regulate the location or establishment of a medical marijuana facility, as specified, as concerns proximity to a school. (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.768, subd. (g).) Existing provisions of the California Constitution authorize a city or county to make and enforce local police, sanitary and other ordinance and regulations not in conflict with state law. If a local ordinance is in conflict with general law, the local law is invalid. (Cal. Const. Art. XI, § 7.) This bill allows cities or other local governing bodies to adopt and enforce local ordinances that regulate the location, operation or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative or collective. This bill provides that a local government entity may enforce a medical marijuana ordinance through civil or criminal remedies and actions. This bill provides that a local government entity may enact other laws consistent with the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP), as specified. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageE For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation. As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts over California's prisons has intensified. On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California established a Receivership to take control of the delivery of medical services to all California state prisoners confined by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006, plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as early as this spring. In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early 2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above. COMMENTS 1. Need for This Bill According to the author: (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageF AB 1300 ensures that communities have the tools to protect themselves from delinquent medical marijuana dispensary operators who constitute a public nuisance or worse. By clarifying the scope of local authority, local governments can work with law enforcement to weed out bad dispensaries so that law abiding establishments may be left alone to help sick Californians in need. A scan of headlines paints a controversial picture of dispensaries. Some have been caught selling marijuana to people not authorized to possess it, many intentionally operate in the shadows without any business licensure or under falsified documentation, and some have been the scene of violent robberies and murder. These abuses have prompted a range of reactions from communities across California. 42 cities and 9 counties have local ordinances regulating dispensaries, 103 cities and 15 counties have moratoriums, and 143 cities and 12 counties have bans in place. Adding to the controversy, members of the growing medical marijuana industry have filed numerous legal challenges against local ordinances, often arguing that state laws are the only standard with which dispensaries must comply. If this claim were substantiated, communities would be virtually powerless in deciding dispensary concentration, location, crime mitigation, business licensure, taxation, and use permit conditions. This argument is fueled by the lack of conformity between Section 11362.768 and 11362.83 and the lack of explicit local control language. Subsequently, in the City of LA, the city attorney routinely faces arguments that the city is not allowed to adopt local ordinances or enforce them. 2. Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215) - Medical Marijuana The Compassionate Use Act (CUA) was enacted in 1996. (Health & (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageG Saf. Code § 11362.5.) The CUA established the right of patients to "obtain and use" marijuana to treat specified 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. The CUA is very general and arguably vague. As to implementation, the initiative simply encourages the state and federal governments to "implement a plan for safe and affordable distribution or marijuana Ýto qualified patients]." It has been argued that very little has been done to implement the initiative. (McCabe, It's High Time: California Attempts to Clear the Smoke Surrounding the Compassionate Use Act, (2004) 35 McGeorge L. Rev. 545, 546.) Instead of a comprehensive implementation plan, numerous uncoordinated bills have been introduced in the Legislature. 3. California Constitutional Provisions Limit the Ability of the Legislature to Amend the CUA Legislative Power to Amend Initiatives Generally The California Constitution states, "The Legislature ? 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. Legislation Affecting the Compassionate Use Act - Legislature Cannot Limit the Amount of Medical Marijuana a Patient may Possess 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 (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageH ruled that the legislative restriction on the number of plants a qualified medical marijuana patient may possess was unconstitutional as it interfered with the rights established by the CUA initiative. Although the Legislature may clarify or expand the rights established in the CUA, it may not enact legislation that interferes with those. (Id., at p. 1044.) Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775<1> specifically authorizes patients and primary caregivers to create and operate collectives and cooperatives and be free from criminal prosecution for possession, cultivation, sale or distribution and transportation of medical marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.775.) California appellate courts appear to indicate that this statute is valid under the CUA as advancing the intent of the initiative. (County of Butte v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 729, 732-733; People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747, 785.) A cooperative (co-op) is a creature of state law and subject to detailed regulations. (Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, Cal. A.G.. Aug. 2008, p. 8.) It appears that a co-op would ordinarily require a local business license. Unlike cooperatives, collectives are largely undefined. (Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, Cal. Attorney General. Aug. 2008, p. 8.) The application of local ordinances to collectives could be complicated. For example, the operators of a true collective claim that they are not engaged in commerce and thus need not obtain a business license. 4. Local Land Use and Business Regulation The case of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1153 considered the validity of local land use and business regulation ordinances as applied to a medical marijuana --------------------------- --------------------------- <1> Section 11362.775 is not part of the CUA itself. Rather, it was enacted in SB 420 (Vasconcellos), Ch. 875, Stats. 2003, with the intent of implementing the CUA. (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageI (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageJ dispensary.<2> Darrel Kruse, the defendant, opened his business without obtaining a permit and without directly challenging the denial of his permit application. The court in Kruse explained the basis for local land use ordinances, including the deference typically granted such laws: Absent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature,' we presume that local regulation in an area over which Ýthe local government] traditionally has exercised control is not preempted by state law. A local government's land use regulation is one such area. When local government regulates in an area over which it traditionally exercised control, such as the location of particular land uses, California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature, that such regulation is not preempted by state statute. (Id., at p. 1169, citations and quotation marks omitted.) The court then discussed the various circumstances under which state law preempts a local ordinance: 1) State law expressly preempts local ordinances. 2) State law fully occupies the field so as to establish an exclusive state concern. 3) State law partly covers a subject in terms that establish a paramount state interest that permits no local interference. 4) State law partly covers a subject and the adverse effects of an ordinance on non-residents would outweigh the benefit of a local law. The court found that the CUA and the MMP (Medical Marijuana Program enacted by SB 420 in 2003) did not expressly or impliedly preempt local zoning, land use and business licensing. In particular, the CUA did not mention land use law, but the CUA did expressly state that it did not supersede legislation --------------------------- <2> The opinion in Kruse described the operation as a dispensary, although the description of the business in Kruse's permit application was "Ýthe] Medical Cannabis Caregivers Collective and Information Service. Medical Marijuana Plants Cuttings, Dried Flowers and Edibles." (Id., at p. 1159.) It is unclear whether or not Kruse operated as a true collective within the meaning of the MMP. (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageK prohibiting persons from endangering others. Local ordinances are based on the local government entities power to enact laws to protect the public safety and welfare. (Id., at pp. 1172-1175.) Similarly, the MMP did not mention, let alone expressly prohibit, local regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries. The MMP grants qualified immunity to patients who cooperatively or collectively cultivate medical marijuana from prosecution for possession, sale and cultivation of marijuana<3>. Further, the MMP specifically authorizes local laws that are consistent with its terms. (Id., at pp. 1175-1176.) The court in Kruse then found that neither the CUA nor the MMP impliedly preempted local land use and business regulation. The CUA and the MMP did not mention such matters, let alone occupy the field. Neither the CUA nor the MMP included comprehensive regulations indicating that land use and business regulation of medical marijuana facilities were matters of statewide concern. Neither law partially covered land use or business regulation as a matter of paramount state concern that could not tolerate local action. Finally, local ordinances would not burden transient citizens. (Id., at pp. 1176-1177.) 5. Balance Between Preserving the Integrity of the CUA Medical Marijuana Initiative and the Power of Local Government to Regulate Businesses and Land Use This bill authorizes local ordinances concerning medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives. It does not directly regulate medical marijuana facilities. Arguably, the bill simply restates long-standing law on the power of local entities to adopt ordinances that protect public safety, health and welfare. The intersection of local ordinances and the CUA and MMP will likely produce legal collisions. Most of these contentious issues can only be decided in the courts. The CUA did not provide how medical marijuana can be distributed. The MMP also --------------------------- <3> (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.775.) (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageL did not comprehensively address the issues about the distribution of medical marijuana. Many local government entities are becoming very aggressive in regulating medical marijuana facilities, particularly so-called dispensaries that are not mentioned in the CUA or the MMP. Any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this bill that overly restricts patients to organize a collective or cooperative could be found to violate the CUA. SHOULD STATE STATUTORY LAW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY MAY ENACT AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE LOCATION, OPERATION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVE OR COOPERATIVE? SHOULD A LOCAL ORDINANCE REGULATING THE LOCATION, OPERATION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVE OR COOPERATIVE BE ENFORCEABLE THROUGH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL REMEDIES AND ACTIONS? 6. State Law Regulating Locating of Medical Marijuana Facilities Near Schools; Pending Senate Bill Would Prohibit Dispensaries Near Residences School Proximity Restrictions Health and Safety Code Section 11362.768 prohibits location of a storefront or mobile retail medical marijuana facility, as defined, from being located within 600 feet of a school. This section was enacted by AB 2650 (Buchanan), Ch. 603, Stats. 2010. If enacted after the January 1, 2011 operative date of AB 2650, a local ordinance regulating the proximity of such businesses to schools is only valid if it is more restrictive than state standard of 600. However, any local ordinance enacted prior to January 1, 2011 is valid. (More) Residential Proximity Restrictions and Regulations SB 847 Correa - now pending in Assembly Local Government - would prohibit a storefront or mobile retail medical marijuana facility, as defined, from being located within 600-feet of a residential zone or residential use. The bill would allow a local government entity to enact an ordinance concerning establishment of medical marijuana establishments in relation to residences. The local ordinance may be either more restrictive or less restrictive than state law. Coordinating this Bill with Existing Restrictions on Medical Marijuana Facilities This bill grants general authority to a local government entity to enact ordinances on the location, operation or establishment. How this bill would be interpreted in light of the current law on school proximity and the pending bill on residential proximity will depend on statutory construction or interpretation by the courts. A basic rule of statutory construction provides that where there is a specific law and a general law on the same subject, the specific law trumps. Thus, any local ordinance enacted under this bill could not contradict Health and Safety Code Section 11362.768, which sets very specific rules for state and local laws governing the proximity of medical marijuana facilities to school. If SB 847 (Correa) - restrictions on locations of medical marijuana facilities in proximity to residences - is enacted in its current form, there would be no conflict between SB 847 and this bill. 7. Los Angeles Ordinance Illustrates the Difficulty of Regulating Medical Marijuana Terms of the Ordinance The Los Angeles City Council adopted a medical marijuana dispensary ordinance in January, 2010. Two of the main reasons (More) AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageN 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. Court Challenges It appears that numerous challenges to the ordinance were filed in Los Angeles courts. An April 21, 2011, article in the Los Angeles Times noted: The next round of the costly, drawn-out legal brawl over how to control medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles has begun with two new lawsuits challenging the city's latest ordinance. The lawsuits, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, follow scores of other suits that stymied the city's fitful attempts to crack down on an unknown number of renegade dispensaries. The new ones could launch another series of judicial hearings and thwart the city's bid to enforce its ordinance. Some of the oldest medical marijuana collectives in Los Angeles sued on April 13 to overturn the ordinance, which will choose the dispensaries to be allowed in a lottery, a process the lawsuit mocks as "a euphemism for a municipal game of 'Russian Roulette.'" The 21 dispensaries suing the city are among those the City Council let operate when it adopted a moratorium on new stores in 2007. The city's first ordinance would have allowed them to stay AB 1300 (Blumenfield) PageO open if they complied with restrictions on locations. But a judge ruled that key aspects of the law were unconstitutional, and the City Council passed a second ordinance that relies on a random drawing to select 100 dispensaries. ARE CHALLENGES TO THE LOS ANGELES ORDINANCE STILL BEING LITIGATED? ***************