BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 473
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2013
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 473 (Ammiano) - As Amended: April 15, 2013
SUMMARY : Creates the Division of Medical Marijuana Regulation
and Enforcement in order to regulate the cultivation,
manufacture, testing, transportation, distribution, and sale of
medical marijuana. Specifically, this bill :
1)States legislative intent to provide for the comprehensive
regulation of the cultivation, manufacturing, testing,
transportation, distribution, and sale of medical marijuana
and the enforcement of laws relating to these activities.
2)Creates the Division of Medical Marijuana Regulation
(division) in the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC).
3)Defines the following terms:
a) "Division" is the Division of Medical Marijuana
Regulation and Enforcement.
b) "Identification program" is "the universal
identification card program for mandatory commercial
registrants."
c) "Mandatory commercial registrant" is "any individual,
partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability
company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
or any other group or combination thereof acting as a unit,
or any employee thereof, that operates any facility,
building, structure, or location where medical marijuana is
grown, possessed, stored, manufactured, tested, or sold,
other than a location or building in which a patient or
patient's primary caregiver, as defined by the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is growing medical marijuana
exclusively for patient medical use and not for sale."
AB 473
Page 2
d) "Testing and labeling" means mandatory labeling and a
quality assurance plan in place that addresses: dosage,
microbiological contaminants, random sample testing,
handling, care, and storage.
e) "Fund" is the Medical Marijuana Fund established under
Business and Professions Code Section 26028.
4)Requires the division to be administered by a chief executive
to be appointed by the director.
5)Mandates that the chief executive be the appointing authority
of all employees within the division.
6)States that all heads of subdivisions or advisory commissions
within the division are responsible to the chief executive.
7)Confers on the division all power necessary for the
administration of this chapter, including, but not limited to:
a) Establishing statewide standards for the cultivation,
manufacturing, testing, transportation, distribution, and
sales of medical marijuana and medical marijuana products;
b) Establishing a scale of state-imposed fees for the
cultivation, manufacture, testing, transportation,
distribution, and sale of medical marijuana and medical
marijuana products;
c) Adopting, amending, and rescinding reasonable
regulations, special rulings, and necessary findings for
the regulation and control of the cultivation, manufacture,
testing, transportation, distribution, and sale of medical
marijuana, and to govern the procedures of the division to
exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred upon
it;
d) Approving or denying mandatory registration application
for cultivation, manufacturing, testing, labeling,
transportation, distribution, and sale of medical
marijuana;
e) Suspending, fining, restricting, or revoking mandatory
commercial registration upon a violation of a rule or
regulation adopted by the division;
AB 473
Page 3
f) Imposing penalties;
g) Taking any reasonable action with respect to a mandatory
commercial registration application;
h) Hearing and determining, at a public hearing, any
appeals of application denials and any complaints against a
mandatory commercial registrant;
i) Administering oaths and issuing subpoenas to require the
presence of individuals and the production of documents
necessary to the determination of a hearing;
j) Maintaining the confidentiality of any information
obtained from a mandatory commercial registrant related to
medical marijuana patients and caregivers in strict
compliance with the federal Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act and other specified laws;
aa) Developing any necessary forms, identification cards,
and applications;
bb) Overseeing the operation of the Medical Marijuana Fund;
and,
cc) Establishing reasonable fees.
8)Allows the division to charge separate fees for each mandatory
commercial registrant application but limits the total fees
imposed to the total costs of administering this regulatory
scheme.
9)Requires the division to assist in the development of uniform
policies for the taxation of medical marijuana businesses.
10)Requires the division to identify successful regulatory
structures for the purpose of supporting cities and counties
in appropriately governing activities related to medical
marijuana.
11)Establishes the Medical Marijuana Fund within the State
Treasury. The fund shall include any interest and dividends
earned on money in the fund.
AB 473
Page 4
12)Specifies that all fees collected pursuant to this regulatory
scheme shall be deposited into the fees account, that all
monies are continuously appropriated without regard to fiscal
year to the division.
13)Establishes the Medical Marijuana Penalties Account and
specifies that all penalties collected shall be deposited into
it. All monies available in the penalties account are
available for purpose of this chapter, upon appropriation by
the Legislature.
14)Requires, by July 1, 2014, the division to establish a
mandatory commercial registration program and a fee structure
for the cultivation, manufacture, testing, transportation,
distribution, and sale of medical marijuana and medical
marijuana products, and make available mandatory commercial
registration forms.
15)Specifies that a mandatory commercial registration
application or renewal shall be approved unless the division
determines any of the following:
a) The applicant fails to meet the established requirements
or any regulation adopted;
b) The applicant, or any of its officers or directors, is
under 21 years of age;
c) The applicant has knowingly answered a question or
request for information falsely on the form;
d) The applicant, or any of its officers or directors, has
been convicted in the past five years of a serious or
violent felony, as specified, a felony involving fraud or
deceit, or any other felony that, in the division's
estimation, would impair the applicant's ability to
appropriately operate medical marijuana cultivation,
manufacturing, testing, distribution or sales;
e) The applicant is a licensed physician making medical
marijuana recommendations for patients; or,
f) The applicant, or any of its officers or directors, had
been sanctioned by the division for operating unregistered
commercial medical marijuana activities, or has had a
AB 473
Page 5
registration revoked in the previous three years.
16)Allows the division to establish various classes or types of
registration, including distinguishing between operators and
employees, for specific medical marijuana-related activities.
17)States that each mandatory commercial registration
application approved by the division is separate and distinct.
18)Allows an applicant to apply for registration in multiple
classes of specified medical marijuana activities.
19)States that an approved application is valid for a period not
to exceed two years from the date of approval, unless revoked
or suspended.
20)Requires the division to notify the registrant 90days prior
to expiration.
21)Requires the registrant to apply for renewal not less than 60
days prior to expiration, but allows the division to waive
this requirement in its discretion.
22)Requires the division to act upon a renewal application
within 10 days before expiration of the registration.
23)Requires an application for mandatory commercial registration
to include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
a) A plan for conformance with testing;
b) A plan to address security for the premises where
marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, testing,
distribution, or sales will occur;
c) A plan for conformance with local zoning requirements;
and,
d) Protocols to prevent the unlawful diversion of
marijuana.
24)Requires the division to approve and to contract with one or
more laboratories that can document compliance with industry
best practices to provide plan-consulting services and testing
services to determine compliance.
AB 473
Page 6
25)Allows the division to approve cultivation registration only
in conjunction with the city, county, or city and county land
use authority in which the cultivation occurs, where the city,
county, or city and county address compliance with relevant
state and federal environmental impact laws and regulations,
including, but not limited to clear-cutting, road building,
water diversion, and use of chemicals.
26)Exempts all mandatory commercial registrants from arrest,
prosecution, or sanctions, as specified, unless the registrant
does not possess a valid registration or the conduct in
question is not within the scope of the registration.
27)States that this chapter does not apply to and has no
diminishing effect on the rights and protections granted to
individual patients and primary caregivers under the
Compassionate Use Act (CUA).
28)Exempts individual patients and caregivers cultivating
marijuana at their private residences who do not sell or
charge for the cultivation of marijuana from mandatory
commercial registration.
29)Allows a facility, building, structure, or location operating
in conformance with local zoning requirements as of the
effective date of this chapter to continue to operate until
such time as its application for registration is approved or
denied.
30)Requires the division to work with law enforcement entities
throughout California in order to implement and to enforce the
rules and regulations regarding medical marijuana, and to take
appropriate action against businesses and individuals who do
not comply.
31)States that nothing in this chapter prevents a city, county,
or city and county from enforcing a local zoning ordinance or
law of general application.
32)Requires, commencing on January 1, 2015, that any product
containing marijuana offered for sale be subject to testing
and labeling requirements.
33)Makes it a misdemeanor, commencing on January 1, 2015, for
AB 473
Page 7
any person, except a mandatory commercial registrant, to offer
for sale any product containing marijuana, or to operate any
facility where medical marijuana is grown, processed, stored,
manufactured, tested, or sold, other than a place where a
patient or his or her primary caregiver, as defined by the
CUA, is growing marijuana exclusively for patient use and not
for sale.
34)Makes it a misdemeanor for a person to steal or fraudulently
use a registrant's identification card or status to acquire,
possess, cultivate, transport, use, produce, or distribute
marijuana, or to tamper with or fraudulently produce an
identification card or registration status.
35)Establishes the following penalties for the misdemeanor
crimes:
a) For the first offense, imprisonment in the county jail
for no more than six months, or a fine up to $1,000, or
both.
b) For a second or subsequent offense, imprisonment in the
county jail for no more than one year, or a fine up to
$1,000, or both.
36)Subjects a person operating an unregistered medical marijuana
facility to civil penalties of up to $25,000, which shall be
deposited in the Penalties Account.
37)Authorizes the division to destroy any marijuana being
cultivated, manufactured, or possessed in violation of this
chapter.
38)Prohibits the spending of funds by state or local officials
to assist federal authorities in enforcing federal marijuana
prohibitions with regard to activities carried out by
mandatory commercial registrants in compliance with these
provisions. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
limit law enforcement's ability to investigate unlawful
activity in relation to a mandatory commercial registrant.
39)States that the provisions of this Act are severable, and
that if one is held invalid, the invalidity will not affect
other provision which can still be given effect.
AB 473
Page 8
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that 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 cannabis 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
would benefit from the use of cannabis in the treatment of
cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma,
arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which
cannabis provides relief.
b) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who
obtain and use cannabis 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 cannabis to all patients in medical need of
cannabis. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections
11362.5(b)(1)(A) to (C).]
2)States that nothing in this section shall be construed to
supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in
conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of
cannabis for nonmedical purposes. [HSC Section
11362.5(b)(2).]
3)Provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
physician in California shall be punished, or denied any right
or privilege, for having recommended cannabis to a patient for
medical purposes. [HSC Section 11362.5(c).]
4)Defines a "primary caregiver" as the individual designated by
a patient who has consistently assumed responsibility for the
housing, health, or safety of that person. [HSC Section
11362.5(e).]
5)States existing law, relating to the possession and the
cultivation of cannabis, shall not apply to a patient, or to a
patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates
AB 473
Page 9
cannabis for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon
the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
[HSC Section 11362.5(d).]
6)Requires the Department of Public Health to establish and
maintain a voluntary program for qualified patients to apply
for identification cards, and county health departments to
issue identification cards to qualified patients and their
caregivers. [HSC Sections 11362.71(a) and (b)].
7)Provides that persons with valid identification cards shall
not be subject to arrest for possession, transportation,
delivery, or cultivation of cannabis, absent evidence of
fraud. [HSC Section 11362.71(e).]
8)Provides that patients and caregivers may possess and
cultivate an amount of cannabis reasonably necessary for the
patient's current medical needs, notwithstanding any limits
set by the Legislature that impermissibly amend the
Compassionate Use Act. [People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th
1008, 1043.]
9)Requires a person who seeks an identification card to pay a
fee and provide to the county health department the person's:
name, proof of residency, written doctor's recommendation,
doctor's name and contact information, caregiver's name and
duties, and patient's and caregiver's government-issued photo
identification card. [HSC Section 11362.715(a).]
10)Requires county health departments to issue serially numbered
identification cards to patients and caregivers containing: a
unique user identification number, an expiration date, the
county health department's name and telephone number, photo
identification of the cardholder, and a toll-free Department
of Public Health telephone number enabling state and local law
enforcement officers to immediately verify the card's
validity. [HSC Section 11362.735(a).]
11)Prohibits state or local law enforcement officers from
refusing to accept an identification card unless the officer
has reasonable cause to believe that the card is being used
fraudulently or its information is false or fraudulent. (HSC
Section 11362.78.)
12)Provides that qualified patients, persons with valid
AB 473
Page 10
identification cards, and their designated primary caregivers
who associate in order collectively or cooperatively to
cultivate cannabis are not subject to criminal liability on
that basis. (HSC Section 11362.775.)
13)Restricts the location of medical marijuana cooperatives,
collectives, or dispensaries to more than 600 from a school,
and authorizes cities and counties to further restrict the
locations of these establishments. [HSC Section 11362.768(b),
(f), and (g).]
14)Allows local governments to adopt and enforce local
ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or
establishment of a medical marijuana collective or
cooperative. [HSC Section 11362.83(a) and (b).]
15)Prohibits the possession, possession with intent to sell,
cultivation, sale, transportation, importation, or furnishing
of marijuana, except as otherwise provided by law. (HSC
Sections 11357, 11358, 11359, and 11360.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "The people of
California overwhelmingly enacted the Compassionate Use Act of
1996 with the passage of Proposition 215. The people declared
that their purpose in enacting the measure was, among other
things, '[to] ensure that seriously ill Californians have the
right to obtain and use medical 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 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.'
"The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 called on state government to
implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of
marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
"In 2003, the Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Program
Act (MMPA). Under the guidance of the MMPA, approximately 60
California cities and counties have created medical marijuana
AB 473
Page 11
access ordinances that can act as a guide for the state.
However, many other cities and counties are calling for more
guidance and regulation from the state and have passed bans or
moratoria on medical marijuana cultivation and distribution
while awaiting such guidance.
"Greater certainty and uniformity are urgently needed regarding
the rights and obligations of medical marijuana facilities,
and for the imposition and enforcement of regulations to
prevent unlawful cultivation and the diversion of marijuana to
nonmedical use."
2)Medical Marijuana Law at Present : California voters passed
Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), in 1996.
The CUA prohibits prosecution for growing or using cannabis of
Californians who have the oral or written recommendation of
their doctors, and these patients' caregivers. The
Legislature sought to clarify this initiative in 2003 with SB
420 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 875, Statutes of 2003, the Medical
Marijuana Program Act (MMPA). The MMPA offered a voluntary
identification card which patients and caregivers could obtain
that would additionally protect them from arrest, and set
limits on the amounts of cannabis to be legally grown and
possessed. In 2010, the California Supreme Court ruled in
People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1008 that the MMPA section
limiting quantities of cannabis is unconstitutional because it
amends a voter initiative. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, that the
federal government can enforce cannabis prohibition despite
state medical cannabis laws.
Now, California patients who obtain a physician's oral or
written recommendation are protected from prosecution for
possessing or cultivating an amount of cannabis reasonably
related to their current medical needs, as are these patients'
caregivers. Patients and caregivers who obtain a state MMPA
identification card from their county health department are
protected from arrest and prosecution for possessing,
transporting, delivering, or cultivating cannabis. Patients
and caregivers who engage in these activities remain liable
for federal arrest and prosecution, and those who operate
dispensaries face frequent federal enforcement actions.
Meanwhile, many city and county officials have expressed
confusion about the scope of state medical cannabis law. Some
AB 473
Page 12
localities have passed ordinances that have been overturned by
the courts (Los Angeles) while others have been upheld
(Riverside).
3)Pending Litigation Could Conflict with this Bill : The
California Supreme Court has recently granted review in
several cases related to the rights of medical cannabis
patients and dispensaries: City of Riverside v. Inland Empire
Patient's Health and Wellness Center (review granted Jan. 18,
2012, S198638), People v. G3 Holistic (review granted Jan. 18,
2012, S198395); County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal
Cannabis Collective (review granted Sept.19, 2012, S204663);
420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (review granted
Sept. 19, 2012, S204684); and, City of Temecula v. Cooperative
Patients Services, Inc., (review granted Dec. 12, 2012,
S206085). All of these cases deal with the legality of local
rules regarding the operation and location of dispensaries and
cultivation sites. Oral argument in the lead case, City of
Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health & Wellness Center,
was held on February 5, 2013. Generally, the Supreme Court
issues an opinion within 90 days of argument. Since the
Supreme Court will soon rule on the legality of regulations
governing dispensaries, parts of this bill could possibly be
preempted.
4)California Constitutional Limitations on Legislative
Regulation of Medical Marijuana :
Because the CUA was enacted by voter initiative, the Legislature
may not amend the statute without subsequent voter approval
unless the initiative permits such amendment, and then only
upon whatever conditions the voters attached to the
Legislature's amendatory powers. [People v. Superior Court
(Pearson) (2010) 48 Cal.4th 564, 568; see also Cal. Const.,
art. II, Section 10, subd. (c).] 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,
Section 10, subd. (c).] 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.
AB 473
Page 13
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. [Proposition 103
Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th
1473.] Yet, despite the strict bar on the Legislature's
authority to amend initiative statutes, judicial decisions
have recognized that the Legislature is not thereby precluded
from enacting laws addressing the general subject matter of an
initiative. The Legislature remains free to address a
"related but distinct area" or a matter that an initiative
measure "does not specifically authorize or prohibit." [People
v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 1008, 1025-1026.]
As noted above, the California Supreme Court has previously
ruled on the Legislature's ability to regulate the use of
medical marijuana because it was an initiative. In People v.
Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1008, 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 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. (Id. at 1044.)
This bill establishes a regulatory scheme. This bill does not
appear to place a greater burden on patients than the CUA
does. Rather, by providing for the uniform regulation of
medical cannabis, arguably, this bill makes the rules clearer
for both law enforcement and medical cannabis users and
providers.
5)Argument in Support : According to the American Civil
Liberties Union of California , "Although the text of
Proposition 215, passed by the California voters in 1996,
specified that the Legislature should pass a statutory
regulatory scheme for the operation of medical marijuana
dispensaries in California, SB 420 (Vasconcellos) enacted in
2004, did not include any mechanism for the application and
AB 473
Page 14
registration of commercial entities selling or distributing
marijuana. Hence, more than fifteen years after the passage
of Proposition 215, a great deal of confusion has resulted
regarding the respective rights of patients, card holders, and
businesses, vis-'a-vis the duty and responsibility of local
governments to faithfully comply with the tenants of SB 420,
and authorize some access to medical marijuana within city or
county limits.
"As a result, several local governments are now enacting
ordinances to ban, or substantially restrict collectives,
cooperatives, or other business entities distributing medical
marijuana from operating in a particular area. Additionally,
there has been considerable federal law enforcement
intervention to those operating medical marijuana
dispensaries. The California Supreme Court is currently
deciding on whether local government bans on medical marijuana
dispensaries are unconstitutional. (Pack v. Long Beach 2011
WL 939163 (holding that local jurisdictions cannot ban
dispensaries).
"By creating the Division of Medical Marijuana Enforcement
within the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control,
businesses operating as growers, processors, manufactures, and
all other retailers, will be identified, licensed, and
regulated in a fair, unbiased, and uniform manner. It will
also create a greater sense of stability and safety in the
operation of storefronts - decreasing the likelihood that
local governments will ban dispensaries. Moreover, other
states with rigid regulatory schemes for the sale of medical
marijuana do not suffer from the same rate of federal
intervention. AB 473 also ensures that the marijuana sold
complies with the highest standards for safety and quality.
This is crucial to protecting patients, and ensuring that the
marijuana purchased is safe and effective.
"Finally, AB 473 specifically precludes any person who has been
convicted of a serious or violent felony from operating,
owning, or working in a storefront distributing medical
marijuana. This is both a prudent public safety measure, as
well as a faithful application of both the spirit and the text
of Proposition 215."
6)Argument in Opposition : The California Narcotic Officers'
Association states, "This bill will open the door to virtual
AB 473
Page 15
unfettered trafficking in so-called medical marijuana. AB 473
contemplates vesting jurisdiction over commercial marijuana in
the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. In its present
form, AB 473 will prevent local governments from taking action
to keep marijuana stores out of their communities. Moreover,
by creating a state agency to promote the trafficking of
marijuana, AB 473 has the unintended consequence of placing
state employees in danger of federal prosecution for promoting
illegal drug trafficking.
"Marijuana is and remains a Schedule I substance. Its
cultivation and trafficking are prohibited under federal law.
AB 473 appears to even go beyond the confines of current
California law by proposing a commercial model for so-called
medical marijuana that is not authorized by Proposition 215 or
by Senate Bill 420. In short AB 473 appears to be in
violation of both federal and state law."
7)Related Legislation : SB 439 (Steinberg) exempts marijuana
collectives and cooperatives from criminal acts and abatement
of certain nuisance provisions. SB 439 also exempts those
entities and persons from criminal prosecution or punishment
solely on the basis of the fact that they receive compensation
for actual expenses incurred in carrying out activities that
are in compliance with those guidelines. SB 439 is pending
hearing by the Senate Public Safety Committee.
8)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 2312 (Ammiano), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session,
would have established the Medical Marijuana Regulation and
Control Act, authorizing local taxes on medical cannabis
and creating a board to regulate the medical cannabis
industry. AB 2312 was never heard by the Senate Committee
on Business, Professions and Economic Development.
b) AB 1300 (Blumenfield), Chapter 196, Statutes of 2011,
provides that a local government entity may enact an
ordinance regulating the location, operation or
establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative or
collective; authorizes local government entity to enforce
such ordinances through civil or criminal remedies and
actions; and authorizes a local government entity to enact
any ordinance that is consistent with the Medical Marijuana
Program. AB 1300 did not directly regulate medical
AB 473
Page 16
marijuana facilities.
c) SB 626 (Calderon), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session,
would have required the Board of Equalization (BOE) to
establish a nine-member task force to conduct a study to
determine ways to enhance collections of sales and use
taxes on retail sales of marijuana and ensure proper
regulation of the cultivation, transportation, and
distribution of marijuana and marijuana products. SB 626
was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee's Suspense
File.
d) AB 390 (Ammiano), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
would have legalized the possession, sale, cultivation and
other conduct relating to marijuana and required ABC to
administer and enforce the terms of legalized marijuana.
AB 390 passed this Committee and was never heard by the
Assembly Committee on Health.
e) SB 1098 (Migden), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required the State Board of Equalization to
administer a tax amnesty program, as specified, for medical
marijuana dispensaries, as defined. SB 1098 was never
voted on by the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee.
f) SB 420 (Vasconcellos) Chapter 875, Statutes of 2003,
established the Medical Marijuana Program Act, a statewide,
voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards
to identify persons authorized to engage in the medical use
of marijuana under the Compassionate Use Act.
g) Proposition 215, of the November 1996 General Election,
prohibits prosecution for the possession and cultivation of
cannabis by a patient or a patient's primary caregiver with
a physician's written or oral recommendation or approval.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Drug Policy Alliance
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
AB 473
Page 17
Marijuana Policy Project
United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council
Opposition
Alcohol Justice
California Council on Alcohol Problems
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotics Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association, Inc.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744