BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1300|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1300
Author: Blumenfield (D)
Amended: 6/1/11 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 7/5/11
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price,
Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-1, 6/3/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives:
local
regulation of location, establishment or
operation
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill (1) provides that a local government
entity may enact an ordinance regulating the location,
operation or establishment of a medical marijuana
cooperative or collective; (2) authorizes local government
entity to enforce such ordinances through civil or criminal
remedies and actions; and (3) authorizes 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).
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA)
of 1996 (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 11362.5),
CONTINUED
AB 1300
Page
2
includes the following purposes:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. (HSC Section 11362.5, subd.
(b)(1)(A)-(C))
Existing law, the CUA also provides:
1. 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. (HSC Section
11362.5, subd. (b)(2))
2. No physician in California shall be punished or denied
any right or privilege for recommending medical
marijuana to a patient. (HSC Section 11362.5, subd.
(c))
3. 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. (HSC Section
11362.5, subd. (d))
Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP), provides
that qualified patients, persons with valid identification
AB 1300
Page
3
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. (HSC Section 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. (HSC Section 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. (HSC Section 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. (HSC
Section11362.768, subd. (d))
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. (HSC
Section 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. (HSC Section
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. (HSC Section
11362.768, subd. (g))
Existing provisions of the California Constitution
authorize a city or county to make and enforce local
AB 1300
Page
4
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.
(California Constitution Article XI, Section 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 MMP, as specified.
Prior legislation . AB 2650 (Buchanan), Chapter 603,
Statutes of 2010, passed the Senate with a vote of 28-2
(NOES: Leno, Yee) on August 11, 2010; SB 420
(Vasconcellos), Chapter 875, Statutes of 2003; and
Proposition 215, November 1996 General Election.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/6/11)
Los Angeles City Attorney
Los Angeles County Sheriff
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"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
AB 1300
Page
5
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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-1, 6/3/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng,
Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines,
Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall,
Harkey, Hayashi, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez,
Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao,
Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Ammiano
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Carter, Garrick, Gorell, Roger
Hernández, Nestande, Portantino, Silva
RJG:mw 7/6/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
AB 1300
Page
6
**** END ****