BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1262
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 24, 2014
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 1262 (Correa) - As Amended: June 15, 2014
SUMMARY : Establishes a licensing and regulatory framework for
the cultivation, processing, transportation, testing,
recommendation and sale of medical marijuana to be administered
by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). Specifically, this
bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding medical
marijuana.
2)Requires the Medical Board of California to include in the
cases it prioritizes for investigation and prosecution those
involving repeated acts of excessively recommending marijuana
to a patient for medical purposes without a good faith
examination of the patient and a medical reason for the
recommendation.
3)Prohibits a physician who recommends medical marijuana to a
patient from accepting, soliciting, or offering any form of
remuneration from or to a licensed medical marijuana facility
if the physician or his or her immediately family have a
financial interest in that facility, and makes that conduct a
misdemeanor.
4)Requires the Medical Board to consult with the California
Marijuana Research Program on developing and adopting medical
guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of
marijuana.
5)Prohibits a person from recommending medical marijuana to a
patient unless that person is the "patient's attending
physician" as defined by the Compassionate Use Act (CUA).
6)Defines the following terms:
a) "Certified testing laboratory" means a laboratory that
SB 1262
Page 2
is certified by the DCA to perform random sample testing of
marijuana pursuant to the certification standards for these
facilities promulgated by the DCA;
b) "Department" means the DCA;
c) "Dispensary" means a distribution operation that
provides marijuana for medical use and that is licensed
pursuant to these provisions;
d) "Licensed cultivation site" means a facility that grows
marijuana for medical use and that is licensed pursuant to
these provisions;
e) "Licensed dispensing facility" means a dispensary or
other facility that provides marijuana for medical use that
is licensed pursuant to these provisions;
f) "Licensed processing facility" means a facility licensed
by the DCA where marijuana or marijuana products are
inspected, packaged, labeled, or otherwise prepared prior
to being provided to another licensed facility;
g) "Licensed transporter" means an individual or entity
licensed by the DCA to transport marijuana to and from
licensed facilities; and,
h) "Marijuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa
L., whether growing or not; the seeds of that plant; the
resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It does not
include industrial hemp, except as specified.
7)Prohibits selling, providing, growing, or processing marijuana
other than at a licensed facility, or transporting marijuana
without a license, and prohibits any of these activities for
any other purpose than those authorized under the Medical
Marijuana Program Act (MMPA).
8)Requires that marijuana and marijuana products be tested by a
certified testing laboratory.
9)Mandates that the DCA require specified identifying
information before issuing a license to a dispensing facility
SB 1262
Page 3
or cultivation site, as well as a certified copy of the local
jurisdiction's approval to operate, a completed application,
payment of a fee, fingerprints and related information by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain records of criminal
conviction. In the case of a license for a cultivation site,
Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) coordinates of the site are
also required.
10)Allows the DCA to deny a license based on past criminal
conviction if the crime is substantially related to the
qualifications, functions, or duties of the business for which
the license will be issued.
11)Prohibits the DCA from issuing a license if the applicant
fails to establish with sufficient specificity the
jurisdiction in which the applicant proposes to establish
operations.
12)States that each application for a license is separate and
distinct.
13)Prohibits licensees from holding a license in more than one
class of specified medical marijuana activities, or from being
an officer, director, member, owner, or shareholder in another
licensed entity.
14)Provides that a licensed facility shall not acquire,
cultivate, process, possess, store, manufacture, test,
distribute, sell, deliver, transfer, transport, or dispense
marijuana for any purposes other than those authorized by the
MMPA.
15)Provides that a licensed dispensing facility shall not
acquire, cultivate, process, possess, store, manufacture,
test, distribute, sell, deliver, transfer, transport, or
dispense marijuana plants or products except through a
licensed cultivation site or processing facility.
16)Authorizes a licensed transporter to only ship marijuana and
marijuana products to licensed facilities and only in response
to a request for a specific quantity and variety from those
facilities.
17)Requires a licensed transporter, prior to transporting any
medical marijuana product, to complete a shipping manifest
SB 1262
Page 4
using a form prescribed by the DCA, to securely transmit a
copy of the manifest to the receiving licensee, and to the
DCA, prior to transport.
18)Requires licensed transporters to maintain shipping manifests
and make them available to the DCA and local enforcement
entities upon request.
19)Establishes safety and staffing requirements for licensed
transporters when the vehicle contains medical marijuana, as
specified.
20)Authorizes the DCA to license persons for the cultivation,
manufacture, testing, transport, storage, and sale of medical
marijuana within the state, subject to local ordinances.
21)Authorizes the DCA to levy appropriate licensing fees, not to
exceed the reasonable costs of enforcement and administration.
22)Requires a license to be suspended within five days of
notification to the DCA by a local agency that a licensee is
no longer in compliance with local ordinances or regulations.
23)Requires the DCA to promulgate regulations by July 1, 2016,
for implementation and enforcement of these provisions,
including:
a) Procedures for issuing, renewing, suspending and
revoking licenses, and their corresponding forms and fees;
b) Timeframes for approval and denial of licenses;
c) License qualifications;
d) Standards for certification of testing laboratories;
and,
e) Minimum statewide health and safety and quality
assurance standards.
24)Gives local agencies the primary responsibility for
enforcement of health and safety standards in accordance with
DCA regulations.
25)Allows the DCA to consult with other state agencies and
SB 1262
Page 5
departments, as well as public and private entities to
establish regulations.
26)Provides conditions which disallow approval of an application
for a license or its renewal, including: non-compliance with
local ordinances or regulations, providing false or incomplete
information; and, prior sanctions or license revocation within
the last five years.
27)Requires advertising for physician recommendations to meet
specified requirements, to bear a specified notice to
consumers, and to comply with false advertising prohibitions.
28)Requires licensed facilities to implement sufficient security
measures to both deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into
areas containing marijuana and theft of the product at those
facilities, as specified, and requires the facility to notify
law enforcement within 24 hours after discovering criminal
activity or any other breaches at the facility.
29)Requires licensed cultivation sites to weigh, inventory, and
account for on video, all marijuana to be transported before
it leaves the originating location. Within eight hours after
arrival at the destination, the licensed dispensing facility
must reweigh, re-inventory, and account for on video the
marijuana.
30)Requires the DCA to annually audit all licensees and submit
audit reports to local code enforcement offices.
31)Provides that a licensee shall be subject to the restrictions
of the local jurisdiction in which the facility operates or
proposes to operate, and that even if a license has been
granted, a facility shall not operate in a local jurisdiction
that prohibits the establishment of that type of business, and
that nothing in these provisions shall prevent a city or other
local governing body from adopting and enforcing local
ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or
establishment of a medical marijuana facility.
32)Provides that a violation of the provisions is punishable by
a civil fine of up to $35,000 per violation.
33)States that this chapter does not supersede Los Angeles
Measure D of 2013.
SB 1262
Page 6
34)States that this chapter does not apply to nor diminishes the
rights and protections granted to patients and primary
caregivers under the CUA, and exempts them from licensure when
medical marijuana related activities are conducted for the
patient's personal use and when the primary caregiver does not
receive remuneration.
35)Defines "edible marijuana product" as marijuana or
marijuana-derived product that is ingested or meant to be
ingested through the mouth and into the digestive system.
36) Requires the DCA to establish quality assurance protocols by
July 1, 2016, to ensure uniform testing, safety, and labeling
for all marijuana sold via dispensaries or other facilities,
or cultivated by any licensed facilities, as specified, and to
develop a list of certified testing laboratories that can
perform uniform testing in compliance with these provisions
and post that list on its Internet Web site.
37)Provides that for purposes of these provisions, edible
marijuana products are deemed unadulterated food products, and
requires these products to comply with quality assurance
protocols and specified health and safety and labeling
standards, which include requiring products containing
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to be prepared in compliance with
maximum potency standards for THC and THC concentrates, as set
forth in the DCA regulations.
38)Requires licensees to bear the responsibility and the costs
for contracting with certified testing laboratories for
testing marijuana samples, and to provide test results to
local code enforcement officers, any other locally designated
enforcement entity, and the DCA, as specified.
39)Authorizes the legislative body of any county to levy a tax
on the privilege of cultivating, dispensing, producing,
processing, storing, providing, or distributing marijuana or
products containing marijuana, as specified, and provides that
those provisions are declaratory of existing law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits the possession, possession with intent to sell,
cultivation, sale, transportation, importation, or furnishing
SB 1262
Page 7
of marijuana, except as otherwise provided by law. (Health &
Saf. Code, §§ 11357, 11358, 11359, and 11360.)
2)States that the People of the State of California hereby find
and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act
(CUA) 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 & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, subd.
(b)(1)(A)-(C).)
3)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. (Health & Saf. Code, §
11362.5, subd. (b)(2).)
4)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. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, subd. (c).)
5)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. (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11362.5, subd. (e).)
6)States that existing law, relating to the possession and the
cultivation of cannabis, shall not apply to a patient, or to a
SB 1262
Page 8
patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates
cannabis 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).)
7)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. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.71, subds. (a) and
(b).)
8)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. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.71, subd. (e).)
9)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 CUA.
(People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1043.)
10)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. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.715, subd.
(a).)
11)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. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.735, subd. (a).)
12)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.
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.78.)
SB 1262
Page 9
13)Provides that qualified patients, persons with valid
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. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.775.)
14)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. (Health & Saf. Code, §
11362.768, subds. (b), (f), and (g).)
15)Allows local governments to adopt and enforce local
ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or
establishment of a medical marijuana collective or
cooperative. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.83, subds. (a) and
(b).)
16)Recognizes the authority of cities and counties to make and
enforce, within their borders, all local, police, sanitary,
and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with
general laws. (Cal. Const., art. XI, sec. 7.)
17)Licenses and regulates physicians and surgeons under the
Medical Practice Act by the Medical Board within DCA. (Bus. &
Prof. Code, § 2000 et seq.)
18)Requires the Medical Board to prioritize its investigative
and prosecutorial resources to ensure that physicians
representing the greatest threat of harm are identified and
disciplined expeditiously and includes in that prioritization
list: "Repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing,
furnishing, or administering of controlled substances, or
repeated acts of prescribing, dispensing, or furnishing of
controlled substances without a good faith prior examination
of the patient and medical reason therefor." (Bus. & Prof.
Code, § 2220.05.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Since the
approval of the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) and
SB 1262
Page 10
passage of SB 420 (2003) no broader, feasible regulatory
structure has been established, and the implementation of
these laws has been marked by conflicting authorities,
regulatory uncertainty, intermittent federal enforcement
action, and a series of lawsuits.
"Nearly all recent attempts to regulate medical marijuana do not
have appropriate health and safety standards and neglect the
importance of local control.
"SB 1262 will require licensing, set quality assurance and
testing standards, and establish for the sale of medical
marijuana while protecting public safety and local control."
2)Medical Marijuana Law at Present : California voters passed
Proposition 215, the CUA, in 1996. The CUA prohibits
prosecution for growing or using marijuana 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
MMPA. The MMPA offered a voluntary identification card which
patients and caregivers could obtain that would additionally
protect them from arrest. The MMPA also set limits on the
amounts of marijuana to be legally grown and possessed. The
California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Kelly (2010) 47
Cal.4th 1008, that the MMPA section limiting quantities of
marijuana is unconstitutional because it amends a voter
initiative.
Now, California patients who obtain a physician's oral or
written recommendation are protected from state prosecution
for possessing or cultivating an amount of marijuana
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
marijuana. But, 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. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales
v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, that the federal government can
enforce marijuana prohibition despite state medical-marijuana
SB 1262
Page 11
laws. Thus, the CUA and the MMPA have no effect on federal
enforceability of the federal Controlled Substances Act.
The California Supreme Court recently held that the medical
marijuana statutes do not preempt a local ban on facilities
that distribute medical marijuana. Municipalities can
prohibit such conduct as a public nuisance. (City of
Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health & Wellness Center
(2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 737.) The Court noted, "the CUA and
the MMP are careful and limited forays into the subject of
medical marijuana, aimed at striking a delicate balance in an
area that remains controversial, and involves sensitivity in
federal-state relations. We must take these laws as we find
them, and their purposes and provisions are modest. They
remove state-level criminal and civil sanctions from specified
medical marijuana activities, but they do not establish a
comprehensive state system of legalized medical marijuana; or
grant a 'right' of convenient access to marijuana for
medicinal use; or override the zoning, licensing, and police
powers of local jurisdictions; or mandate local accommodation
of medical marijuana cooperatives, collectives, or
dispensaries." (Id. at pp. 762-763.)
3)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, § 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, §
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.
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
SB 1262
Page 12
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, supra, 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.)
But, as the Supreme Court recognized in City of Riverside v.
Inland Empire Patient's Health & Wellness Center, supra, 56
Cal.4th 729, the CUA and the MMPA are limited exceptions to
the state's criminal sanctions and nuisance laws. (Id. at pp.
739, 744-746.) The CUA and MMPA are silent on zoning,
licensing, and police powers of jurisdictions. (Id. at p.
762-763.)
One area of potential conflict with the CUA is the provision
requiring the Medical Board to prioritize the prosecution of
cases involving "repeated acts of excessively recommending
marijuana to a patient for medical purposes" by physicians.
The CUA provides that "no physician may be punished or denied
any right or privilege under state law for recommending
medical marijuana to a patient." (Health & Saf. Code, §
11362.5, subd. (c).) Depending on how this provision is
interpreted, it may arguably conflict with the CUA.
SB 1262
Page 13
4)U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Guidance Regarding Marijuana
Enforcement : On August 29, 2013, the DOJ issued a memorandum
that updated its guidance to all U.S. Attorneys in light of
state ballot initiatives to legalize under state law the
possession of small amounts of marijuana and provide for the
regulation of marijuana production, processing, and sale.
While the memorandum noted that illegal distribution and sale
of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant
source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs,
and cartels, it also noted that DOJ is committed to using its
limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address
the most significant threats, which include: preventing
distribution to minors; preventing revenue from marijuana from
going to criminal enterprises; preventing diversion to other
states where marijuana is not legal under state law;
preventing state-authorized marijuana from being a cover for
trafficking in other illegal drugs or illegal activity;
preventing violence in cultivating and distributing marijuana;
preventing drugged driving and other public health problems
from marijuana use; and, preventing growing, possessing or
using marijuana on public lands or on federal property.
According to the USDOJ, "In jurisdictions that have enacted laws
legalizing marijuana in some form and that have also
implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement
systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale, and
possession of marijuana, conduct in compliance with those laws
and regulations is less likely to threaten the federal
priorities set forth above? In those circumstances, consistent
with the traditional allocation of federal-state efforts in
this area, enforcement of state law by state and local law
enforcement and regulatory bodies should remain the primary
means of addressing marijuana-related activity." (See U.S.
Department of Justice Memorandum for all United States
Attorneys regarding Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement,
James M. Cole, August 29, 2013.)
5)Lack of Severability Clause : Should there be a severability
clause in case one of the provisions, such as the provision
requiring the Medical Board to investigate and prosecute
doctors it deems are excessively recommending marijuana, is
found to improperly amend an initiative? Without such a
clause, if one part is found to violate the constitutional
limitation on the Legislature's power to amend initiative
SB 1262
Page 14
statutes, would the entire regulatory scheme be stricken?
6)Arguments in Support :
a) The California Police Chiefs Association , a co-sponsor
of this bill, states, "Among the most troublesome issues
with Proposition 215 includes the ability of virtually
anyone to obtain a medical marijuana recommendation from a
compliant doctor; unreliable quality control for consumers
with respect to potency and the presence of carcinogenic
pesticides or other contaminants, as well as retain outlets
that often become magnets for criminal activity.
"Senate Bill 1262 establishes an improved regulatory
structure to ensure that Prop. 215 works as originally
envisioned to assist patients with legitimate medical
needs, in a manner that works for law enforcement, city and
county governments, local community organizations, and
medical professionals.
"As police chiefs we believe it is time to address the flaws
associated with the implementation of Proposition 215 in a
responsible, realistic, and health-based fashion while also
protecting the needs of legitimate medical patients."
b) According to the League of Cities , the other co-sponsor
of this bill, "This legislation, in contrast to nearly all
previous attempts, acknowledges local regulatory authority
by establishing a state licensing scheme that defers to
local land use powers; under SB 1262, it will not be
possible for a prospective operator to obtain a state
license to operate a dispensary or other facility until and
unless that operator can produce evidence of local
permitting approval. This protects both the jurisdictions
that have enacted bans on such facilities, as well as those
that have elected to allow and actively regulate them.
"SB 1262 squarely addresses the many public safety concerns
that arise with a marijuana regulatory scheme by requiring
minimum security requirements that must be observed at all
dispensaries, as well as transport and inventorying
procedures to minimize the possibility of diversion of
marijuana for non-medical/recreational uses which could
stimulate cartel activity. As proposed to be amended, it
further requires a doctor-patient relationship in
SB 1262
Page 15
association with medical marijuana recommendations - a
standard that has been adopted by statute in all other
states that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes.
Finally, SB 1262 addresses the significant public health
concerns triggered by medical marijuana, by requiring for
the first time the development of uniform testing standards
to identify and eliminate contaminants and toxins injurious
to human health."
7)Argument in Opposition : The Drug Policy Alliance writes, "We
are very supportive of establishing a state level program to
regulate medical marijuana in California, and we applaud the
League of California Cities and California Police Chiefs
Association for recognizing the need for licensing at the
state level. However, we have concerns over several
provisions in this bill, particularly the lack of state level
regulation and enforcement that we fear will deny safe access
for countless patients in California--especially those who are
low-income--by continuing to overburden localities with the
job of regulation development and enforcement, and that this
approach will fail to create the consistency in rules and
regulation across the state that is so sorely needed. ?
"The current version of this bill leaves out some very important
details that are crucial to the ability to properly support
and protect licensed entities and those working in the medical
marijuana industry. The bill should offer broad protection
from arrest and prosecution for licensed entities and their
workers, contractors, and landlords under state law.
"The current version of this bill also does not account for
the manufacture of concentrated cannabis. The license
categories account only for cultivation, process, and
distribution. There is no category under which an entity can
be licensed to manufacture concentrates. The manufacture of
concentrates can be dangerous and it is therefore crucial that
any medical marijuana regulatory system accounts for and
comprehensively regulates this activity.
"The current version of the bill does not properly or
adequately address transportation of cannabis throughout the
state and from cultivator to distributer. There should be
language to ensure that transportation is regulated at the
state level and that cannabis can be transported between two
licensed entities, even if it must pass through a locality
SB 1262
Page 16
that has banned medical cannabis cultivation and/or
distribution.
"Finally, a huge, overarching issue, is that the bill does not
establish a state level regulatory system for licensing
medical cannabis in CA, nor direct any state agency to
promulgate and enforce statewide medical cannabis regulations.
What it does, through the Department of Consumer Affairs, is
set up a state level registry for businesses that have been
granted local approval and are regulated in a variety of ways
and to various degrees on the local level. There is nothing
in this bill clarifying which entities are responsible for
enforcement, or who will promulgate the rules and oversee the
implementation of this program. This bill leaves the burden
of developing and implementing regulations on localities, but
does not give them any assistance or financial incentive to do
so. Many localities have banned dispensaries and very few
have approached the idea of licensing cultivation because of
the lack of support at the state level. Finally, this bill
leaves cultivators extremely vulnerable, because few, if any
localities regulate cultivation."
8)Related Legislation :
a) AB 1894 (Ammiano) of 2014 would have enacted the Medical
Cannabis Regulation and Control Act to license and regulate
the cultivation, manufacture, testing, transportation,
storage, distribution, and sale of medical cannabis, and
would create the Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation
and Enforcement within the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control. This bill failed passage on the Assembly Floor.
b) SB 1193 (Pavley) of 2014 reduces the amount of growing
or harvested marijuana that has been seized by a law
enforcement agency that must be retained for evidence from
at least 10 pounds to at least two pounds. SB 1193 will be
heard in this Committee today.
9)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 473 (Ammiano) of the current legislative session
would have created the Division of Medical Marijuana
Regulation and Enforcement in order to regulate the
cultivation, manufacture, testing, transportation,
distribution, and sale of medical marijuana. AB 473 failed
SB 1262
Page 17
passage on the Assembly floor.
b) AB 604 (Ammiano) of the current legislative session, was
gutted and amended from a different subject matter and
would have enacted the Medical Cannabis Regulation and
Control Act. AB 604 was never heard by the Senate Public
Safety Committee.
c) 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.
d) 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
marijuana facilities.
e) 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.
f) AB 390 (Ammiano), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
would have legalized the possession, sale, cultivation and
other conduct relating to marijuana and required Alcoholic
Beverage Control (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.
g) SB 1098 (Migden), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required the State Board of Equalization to
SB 1262
Page 18
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.
h) 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.
i) 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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Police Chiefs Association (Co-Sponsor)
League of Cities (Co-Sponsor)
Americans for Safe Access
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
City of Beaumont
City of Camarillo
City of Concord
City of Del Mar
City of Glendora
City of La Mirada
City of Palmdale
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rosemead
City of Sacramento
Opposition
California Cannabis Industry Association
Cannabis Action California Education Foundation
Drug Policy Alliance
Emerald Growers Association
Marijuana Policy Project
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
SB 1262
Page 19