BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  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