BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2650
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 19, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2650 (Buchanan) - As Amended: April 15, 2010
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits any medical marijuana cooperative,
dispensary, operator, or provider who possess, cultivates, or
distributes medical marijuana, as specified, from being located
within 1,000 feet of a school. Specifies that nothing in this
legislation shall supersede existing local ordinances that
impose more restrictive requirements on the location of a
medical marijuana dispensary.
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown, significant GF costs, well into the hundreds of
thousands of dollars, to the Department of Justice (DOJ), to
defend the state against imminent litigation. Based on the
current experience in L.A. (see comment 2), where several suits
were filed within weeks of the signing of a related ordinance,
preliminary indications from DOJ concur with this assessment.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to establish a statewide
standard and preemption regarding the proximity of medical
marijuana dispensaries to schools. The author contends this
bill provides local jurisdictions necessary guidance while
allowing them to construct a more restrictive ordinance.
According to the author, "In January 2010, the L.A. City
Council passed an ordinance to regulate the collective
cultivation of the medical marijuana in order to ensure the
health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Los
Angeles. Several cities in our district, including Danville,
AB 2650
Page 2
Walnut Creek and Isleton, have recently passed ordinances to
move, restrict or ban marijuana dispensaries within their city
limits. As Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are increasing
throughout the state, more and more are opening closer to our
schools. Currently, there is no guidance as to the most
appropriate locations for these dispensaries to open. As a
result, we have cases of dispensaries opening up close to
schools and other places where children congregate. As Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries continue to open throughout the state,
they are increasingly located near schools and parks, public
libraries and child care facilities. To keep Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries from further encroaching from places where
children and families congregate, we believe we need to keep
them a measured distance from these locations."
2)L.A. experience indicates significant state litigation
exposure if state preempts the field . AB 2650 is based on a
similar ordinance recently adopted by the L.A. City Council
that includes a 1,000-foot limitation between a dispensary and
such places as schools, parks, libraries, churches, and day
care facilities. Several groups, including Americans for Safe
Access (ASA), an organization of patients, health
practitioners and others promoting medical marijuana use, have
filed suit in L.A. Superior Court seeking an injunction
against the ordinance. ASA argues the 1,000-foot restriction
will effectively eliminate access to medical marijuana in a
manner inconsistent with Proposition 15, the 1996
Compassionate Use Act, which authorized medicinal marijuana
use under the care of a physician.
According to the L.A. City Attorney's Office, the city spent
more than two years developing regulations and now litigation
may delay the June operative date of the ordinance.
Considering the challenges to the L.A. ordinance, should the
Legislature wait-and-see before pursuing state preemption?
3)With a marijuana legalization initiative on November ballot,
should the Legislature pause before pursuing state preemption?
4)Opposition. ASA contends there is no evidence that marijuana
dispensaries are dangerous in any way, that access to medical
marijuana is protected by Proposition 15, and that local land
use decisions are best made by local leaders. "Usurping this
local authority with an arbitrary statewide limit will
AB 2650
Page 3
interfere with the ability of local governments to use their
discretion in developing the kinds of regulations that are
already proven to protect legal patients and the community at
large. Land use issues related to these associations should
continue to be made at the local level - just like those for
other legal businesses or organizations."
According to the Marijuana Project, "If enacted into law, the
bill would shut down safe access for thousands of seriously
ill patients who rely on medical marijuana collectives for
their medicine. This is at odds with the will of the
California electorate, which overwhelmingly supports medical
marijuana and patients' rights to access it in an open, safe,
and legal environment. This legislation usurps the authority
of local governments to make their own land-use decisions. It
is wholly inappropriate to enact a one-size-fits-all policy to
apply to every jurisdiction in California - the largest and
most diverse state in the nation."
5) Amendments . The author has offered amendments to reduce the
1,000-foot limit to 600 feet and to state that this bill does
not preempt local ordinances, adopted prior to January 1,
2011, that regulate the location or establishment of medical
marijuana dispensaries.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081