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