BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 643
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
643 (McGuire)
As Amended September 1, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 26-13
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Business & |8-2 |Bonilla, Bloom, Dodd, |Jones, Gatto |
|Professions | |Eggman, Mullin, Ting, | |
| | |Wilk, Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Health |11-2 |Bonta, Maienschein, |Chávez, Patterson |
| | |Bonilla, Burke, Chiu, | |
| | |Gomez, Lackey, | |
| | |Santiago, Steinorth, | |
| | |Thurmond, Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |11-0 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta, | |
| | |Nazarian, Eggman, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
SB 643
Page 2
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact a
comprehensive regulatory framework for medical marijuana, and
makes this bill operative only if AB 266 (Bonta) of the current
legislative session is enacted and takes effect on or before
January 1, 2016.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
Purpose. This bill is author sponsored. According to the
author, "SB 643 seeks to resolve many of the issues created by
the enactment of the Compassionate Use Act and subsequent
legislation?.California voters made it clear that they wanted
medical marijuana to be legalized, but issues and concerns for
growers, doctors, dispensaries, law enforcement, district
attorneys, cities, counties and others have only become more
complicated?Since the voters of California passed Proposition
215 in 1996, it has become clear that there needs to be a
comprehensive regulation bill from the Legislature that oversees
the cultivating, processing, manufacturing, transportation,
prescribing and sale of medical marijuana?."
The Compassionate Use Act (CUA) and SB 420. In 1996, voters
approved the CUA, which allowed patients and primary caregivers
to obtain and use medical marijuana, as recommended by a
physician, and prohibited physicians from being punished or
SB 643
Page 3
denied any right or privilege for making a medical marijuana
recommendation to a patient. In 2003, SB 420 (Vasconcellos),
Chapter 875, established the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP),
which allowed patients and primary caregivers to collectively
and cooperatively cultivate medical marijuana, and established a
medical marijuana card program for patients to use on a
voluntary basis. However, since the passage of Proposition 215
and SB 420, the state has not adopted a framework to provide for
appropriate licensure and regulation of medical marijuana. As a
result, in the nearly 20 years since the passage of Proposition
215, there has been an explosion of medical marijuana
collectives and cooperatives that are largely left to the
enforcement of local governments, resulting in the creation of a
patchwork of local regulations for these industries and with
little statewide involvement.
The California Attorney General's Compassionate Use Guidelines.
SB 420 required the California Attorney General to "?develop and
adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and
non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients
qualified under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996." In 2008,
the Attorney General issued guidelines to: 1) ensure that
marijuana grown for medical purposes remains secure and does not
find its way to non-patients or illicit markets, 2) help law
enforcement agencies perform their duties effectively and in
accordance with California law, and 3) help patients and primary
caregivers understand how they may cultivate, transport,
possess, and use medical marijuana under California law.
According to a 2011 letter, after a series of meeting with
stakeholders to assess whether to clarify the 2008 guidelines to
stop the exploitation of California's medical marijuana laws by
gangs, criminal enterprises, and others, the Attorney General
decided to postpone the issuance of new guidelines because of
pending litigation and to urge the Legislature to amend the law
to establish clear rules governing access to medical marijuana.
SB 643
Page 4
California Supreme Court Affirms Local Control Over Medical
Marijuana. By exempting qualified patients and caregivers from
prosecution for using or from collectively or cooperatively
cultivating medical marijuana, the CUA and the MPP essentially
authorized the cultivation and use of medical marijuana. These
laws have triggered the growth of medical marijuana dispensaries
in many localities, and in response, local governments have
sought to exercise their police powers to regulate or ban
activities relating to medical marijuana. After numerous court
cases and years of uncertainty relating to the ability of local
governments to control medical marijuana activities,
particularly relating to the ability to control the zoning,
operation, and existence of medical marijuana dispensaries, the
California Supreme Court, in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire
Patients (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 729, held that California's medical
marijuana statutes do not preempt a local ban on facilities that
distribute medical marijuana. The court held that nothing in
the CUA or the MMP expressly or impliedly limited the inherent
authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to
regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide
that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will
not be permitted to operate within its borders.
Federal Controlled Substances Act. Despite the CUA and SB 420,
marijuana is still illegal under state and federal law. Under
California law, marijuana is listed as a hallucinogenic
substance in Schedule I of the California Uniform Controlled
Substances Act. Yet, the CUA prohibits prosecution for
obtaining, distributing, or using marijuana for medical
purposes. However, under the federal Controlled Substances Act,
it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, distribute,
dispense or possess a controlled substance, including marijuana,
whether or not it is for a medical purpose. As a result,
patients, caregivers, and dispensary operators, who engage in
activities relating to medical marijuana, may still vulnerable
to federal arrest and prosecution. According to the California
Attorney General's guidelines, the difference between state and
federal law gives rise to confusion. However, California has
SB 643
Page 5
tried to avoid this conflict by deciding not to use the state's
powers to punish certain marijuana offenses under state law when
a physician has recommended its use to treat a serious medical
condition.
United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) Guidance Regarding
Marijuana Enforcement. On August 29, 2013, the USDOJ issued a
memorandum that updated its guidance to all United States
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 USDOJ is
committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial
resources to address the most significant threats. 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."
Medical Marijuana Industry in California. According to the
author's Sunrise Questionnaire, submitted to the Committee
pursuant to Government Code Section 9148 et seq., by law
enforcement estimates, over 60% of all marijuana in the country
is grown in the Emerald Triangle counties of Humboldt, Mendocino
and Trinity, all of which are in the author's district, and once
the industry is regulated, and the medical marijuana products
are certified as safe, the market is expected to open up
SB 643
Page 6
substantially. In addition, once the industry is regulated, the
author believes that physicians who do not recommend or even
discuss medical marijuana due to its quasi-legal nature and
outright ban from the federal government may be more willing to
discuss and recommend medical marijuana to their patients.
The author asserts that the harm starts at the environmental
side of things, and simply expands from there. The regional and
State Water Boards, along with California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, are doing what they can, but without legislation,
their hands are largely tied. This leads to streams and rivers
literally running dry (even before the current drought) and to
huge loads of sediments and toxic wastes being dumped into the
watersheds. According to the author, the lack of regulation
complicates water supply for millions of legal residential and
commercial water users throughout the state-- entire tracts of
forests are being mowed down by rogue growers and planted with
marijuana with no permits, oversight, or regard for the
environment.
The author also believes that the lack of regulation on the
processing, manufacturing, testing, transportation and resale
needs to be fixed as well, and that without statewide standards
produced by specific health and safety testing, ingredient
lists, and dosage listings on all marijuana products, people are
put at risk.
According to the author, cities and counties that have medical
marijuana ordinances take the first step in protecting consumers
and the public, but without a strong state-wide regulatory body
overseeing all aspects of the product chain, consumers have very
little control over the risk unless they have personal knowledge
of the product. The author believes that clear guidelines from
the state and or the local jurisdiction, backed up by the state,
is the only way to ensure protection of consumers and the
public.
SB 643
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by:
Eunie Linden / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN:
0002013