BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2385|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2385
Author: Jones-Sawyer (D)
Amended: 8/15/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 7-1, 6/20/16
AYES: Hill, Block, Galgiani, Hernandez, Jackson, Mendoza,
Wieckowski
NOES: Gaines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
---
| | |
| | |
---
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-16, 5/19/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act: state
licenses: Measure D
SOURCE: United Cannabis Business Alliance Trade Association
United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States
Council
DIGEST: This bill exempts a commercial cannabis applicant from
the local licensure requirement as a condition of state
licensure if the applicant meets requirements specified by the
City of Los Angeles' Measure D and the Medical Marijuana
AB 2385
Page 2
Regulation and Safety Act (Act).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation within
the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to oversee the
licensing and regulation of medical marijuana pursuant to the
Act. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section 19300, et
seq.)
2)Defines a "licensing authority" as the state agency
responsible for the issuance, renewal, or reinstatement of the
license, or the state agency authorized to take disciplinary
action against the license. (BPC § 19300.5 (w))
3)Requires licensing authorities administering the Act to issue
state licenses only to qualified applicants with a license or
permit from the local jurisdiction in which he or she proposes
to operate, following the requirements of the applicable local
ordinance.
This bill:
1)Exempts qualified applicants to engage in commercial cannabis
activity from the local licensing requirement for state
licensure if the licensing authority determines that the
applicant satisfies requirements of the Act and Measure D.
2)Establishes the following requirements pursuant to Measure D:
a) The applicant was operating in the City of Los Angeles
as a medical marijuana business by September 14, 2007, as
evidenced by a business tax registration certificate issued
by the City of Los Angeles on or before November 13, 2007.
b) The applicant registered with the City of Los Angeles
city clerk by November 13, 2007, in accordance with all of
the requirements of the City of Los Angeles' Interim
Control Ordinance.
c) The applicant obtained a City of Los Angeles business
AB 2385
Page 3
tax registration for taxation as a medical marijuana
collective (class L050).
3)States that a state license issued pursuant to this bill for
commercial cannabis activity shall have the same force and
effect and shall confer the same benefits and responsibilities
as licenses issued to licensees outside the City of Los
Angeles that obtain a license, permit, or other authorization
from the local jurisdiction.
4)States that the determination of the licensing authority that
an applicant for a state license meets Measure D criteria
shall be based on a written or electronic notification
provided to the licensing authority by the City of Los Angeles
that the applicant has met the criteria. If the City of Los
Angeles does not provide written or electronic notification to
the licensing authority confirming an applicant has met the
criteria, the licensing authority shall not issue a state
license.
5)States that if the voters of Los Angeles approve an initiative
after January 1, 2016, but prior to the time that the State of
California begins issuing state licenses, the City of Los
Angeles may issue local licenses to medical marijuana
businesses in the City of Los Angeles, and the exemption for
local licensing in Los Angeles shall be superseded by the
local licensing requirements as enacted by that initiative.
Background
According to the author, "The City of Los Angeles failed
multiple times to regulate medical marijuana, but finally in
2013 it passed (Proposition D) Measure D. That ballot measure
allowed 135 dispensaries, all of which had been in business
since 2007, to remain open, while banning others. However, the
measure did not actually permit those 135 dispensaries to
operate - which legal experts said, at the time, the city could
not do because marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
Measure D merely said the city would not prosecute those 135
dispensaries.
"Under the recently enacted Medical Marijuana Regulation and
AB 2385
Page 4
Safety Act (MMRSA), California will start issuing licenses to
medical cannabis businesses after January 1, 2018. MMRSA
requires a license, permit or other authorization from a local
jurisdiction in order to apply and receive a state license.
"However, the state will only grant them to businesses with
permits from their local jurisdictions. Because Los Angeles
doesn't issue permits, growers, testing labs and dispensaries in
L.A. are not currently eligible for state licenses.
"AB 2385 seeks to protect these 135 dispensaries from future
prosecution by allowing them to obtain a state issued medical
cannabis license, provided that they can demonstrate that they
have complied with specified Measure D requirements."
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill has
ongoing costs of $160,000 per year for the Bureau of Medical
Cannabis Regulation to license applicants from the City of Los
Angeles and verify that licensees meet the requirements of
Measure D and all applicable state requirements (Medical
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).
SUPPORT: (Verified8/12/16)
United Cannabis Business Alliance Trade Association (co-source)
United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council
(co-source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/16/16)
Los Angeles Cannabis Task Force
AB 2385
Page 5
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: United Food and Commercial Workers,
Western States Council writes, "This legislation will give state
agencies direction to issue state licenses to those medical
marijuana businesses that are Measure D compliant and will
respect the Los Angeles voters' desire to provide access to
qualified patients who will continue to be able to obtain
medical marijuana. This legislation will permit Measure D
compliant medical marijuana businesses who have been afforded
limited immunity to continue to operate as they have been since
September 2007, and who have been continuously operating in
compliance with all local zoning, environmental, and tax
requirements as set forth in Measure D."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Los Angeles Cannabis Task Force
writes:
"?our organization is writing to express deep concern over AB
2385. It is our firm belief that this well-intentioned bill
will produce myriad negative unintended consequences that not
only undermine the intent and purpose of MMRSA, but also quash
the entrepreneurial spirit and racial/ethnic diversity that
defines the Los Angeles cannabis industry.
"As you know, AB 2385 would provide state recognition and
legitimacy to so called 'Prop D' retail establishments
provided they can demonstrate compliance with the criteria set
forth therein for businesses to be immune from the ordinance's
ban on medical marijuana businesses. Prop D bans all marijuana
business from operating in the City of Los Angeles except for
those that can meet these criteria, which have been applied in
a controversial and confusing way by the City, and in
particular the Office of the City Attorney, for years. In this
way, AB 2385 provides a mechanism for select retail businesses
otherwise banned in the City of Los Angeles to obtain state
licensing. While this might seem to provide some relief to
those qualifying shops and ensure continuity of at least some
marijuana business in the City once MMRSA is fully implemented
in 2018, in truth this bill would merely entrench the status
quo."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-16, 5/19/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta,
Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
AB 2385
Page 6
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger
Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine,
Linder, Lopez, Low, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell,
Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth,
Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Beth Gaines,
Gatto, Gray, Grove, Harper, Kim, Maienschein, Mayes, Melendez,
Obernolte, Patterson, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Chang, Gallagher, Hadley, Jones,
Mathis, McCarty, Olsen, Williams
Prepared by:Sarah Huchel / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104
8/16/16 13:22:14
**** END ****