BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AJR 13|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AJR 13
Author: Leno (D)
Amended: 4/22/03 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. COMMITTEE : 7-1, 6/11/03
AYES: Ortiz, Alarcon, Chesbro, Figueroa, Kuehl, Romero,
Vasconcellos
NOES: Aanestad
ABSENT/ABSTAINING/NOT VOTING: Ashburn, Battin, Escutia,
Florez, Vincent
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-32, 4/24/03 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Medical cannabis
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This resolution urges the President and the
Congress of the United States to take specified actions to
ease restrictions on the use of cannabis for medicinal
purposes.
ANALYSIS : Existing state law:
1.Permits seriously ill patients and their caregivers to
possess and cultivate cannabis for medicinal purposes and
protects licensed physicians from prosecution or
harassment by state or local officials for recommending
medical cannabis.
CONTINUED
AJR 13
Page
2
2.Permits the California Marijuana Research Program to be
conducted by the University of California to study the
efficacy and safety of medical marijuana.
Existing federal law:
Classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug with no currently
accepted medical use (Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention
and Control Act of 1970).
This bill urges the President and Congress to:
1.Enact legislation that secures a state's right to
regulate medical cannabis, to allow patients to possess
and consume medical cannabis, and to allow individuals
deputized by states and localities to cultivate and
distribute medical cannabis.
2.Amend the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control
Act of 1970 to allow for a medical necessity defense.
3.Review Drug Enforcement Administration policy related to
the prosecution and harassment of Californians who are
acting in compliance with the provisions of Proposition
215.
Purpose of this resolution
According to the author, this resolution is needed to
promote the will of the California voters when they passed
Proposition 215 in 1996. The U.S. Department of Justice
and other federal agencies are actively enforcing federal
law with the result that California citizens who are
obeying California law have been arrested or incarcerated.
The author contends that federal elected officials should
remove the conflict by amending federal statutes to allow
for a medical necessity defense and amend federal statute
to recognize states' rights in this area.
Previous California Legislation
After the enactment of Proposition 215, a number of bills
were proposed to facilitate the medicinal use of marijuana.
None of these measures was enacted into law. These
AJR 13
Page
3
included SB 54 (Vasconcellos) of 1997, SB 1887
(Vasconcellos) of 1998, SB 848 (Vasconcellos) of 1999 and
SB 187 (Vasconcellos) of 2001.
Letter from the California State Legislature
In February 2003, 16 California Senators and 34
Assemblymembers signed a letter urging the United States
Senate and House of Representatives to pass legislation and
amend federal law as urged in this resolution. The letter
also asked that the federal budget for enforcement against
medical users of cannabis be reduced.
Note: See Senate Health and Human Services Committee
Analysis for background information.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/13/03)
Americans for Medical Rights
Being Alive
California National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws
Drug Policy Alliance Network
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/13/03)
Committee on Moral Concerns
California Narcotic Officer's Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents contend that the
federal government is actively harassing and intimidating
California patients and caregivers through prosecution, and
the California Legislature should defend the will of the
voters.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that the
harmful effects of marijuana are better documented than the
positive effects, and further study is needed to
legitimatize the claims of medical marijuana proponents.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez,
AJR 13
Page
4
Chu, Cohn, Corbett, Dutra, Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer,
Goldberg, Hancock, Jerome Horton, Jackson, Kehoe, Koretz,
Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal,
Montanez, Mullin, Nation, Negrete McLeod, Nunez, Oropeza,
Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, Salinas, Simitian, Steinberg,
Vargas, Wiggins, Wolk, Yee, Wesson
NOES: Aghazarian, Benoit, Bogh, Campbell, Cogdill, Correa,
Cox, Dutton, Garcia, Harman, Shirley Horton, Houston,
Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Maddox, Maldonado,
Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Pacheco, Parra,
Plescia, Reyes, Richman, Runner, Samuelian, Spitzer,
Strickland, Wyland
CP:nl 6/13/03 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****