BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HEALTH
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair
BILL NO: SJR 14
S
AUTHOR: Leno
J
AMENDED: As introduced
R
HEARING DATE: July 15, 2009
CONSULTANT:
1
Dunstan/cjt
4
SUBJECT
Medical marijuana
SUMMARY
Urges the President and the Congress to take specific
actions relating to the use of medical marijuana, including
ending federal raids, intimidation and interference with
state medical cannabis laws; adopting policies and laws to
encourage advanced clinical research trials into the
therapeutic use of cannabis; establishing an affirmative
defense to medical cannabis charges in federal court; and
establishing a comprehensive federal medical cannabis
policy that ensures safe and legal access for patients.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal law:
Prohibits the cultivation, use and possession of marijuana,
without regard to medicinal or other use. Prohibits
physicians from prescribing marijuana because of the drug's
classification as a schedule 1 controlled substance.
Existing state law:
Exempts patients and caregivers from criminal penalties
when they possess or cultivate marijuana for medical use as
recommended by a physician, as specified in an initiative
statute. Protects a physician from criminal penalties or
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SJR 14 (Leno) Page 2
sanctions for recommending marijuana use for medical
purposes, and creates a voluntary program for the issuance
of identification cards to patients qualified to use
medical marijuana.
This bill:
Memorializes the President and Congress to move quickly to
end federal raids, intimidation and interference with state
medical marijuana laws. Memorializes the President and
Congress to take any necessary measures to permit an
affirmative defense to medical marijuana charges in federal
court and establish federal legal protection for
individuals authorized by state law to use or provide
marijuana for therapeutic use.
Memorializes the President and Congress to adopt policies
and laws to encourage advanced clinical research trials
into the therapeutic use of marijuana. Memorializes the
President and Congress to create a comprehensive federal
medical marijuana policy that ensures safe and legal access
to any patient that would benefit from medical marijuana.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
According to the author, SJR 14 calls for important changes
in federal policy towards medical cannabis (marijuana).
The author argues that this is an opportune time for
California to act, as comments by President Obama and U.S.
Attorney Eric Holder signal a willingness to create a new
federal policy regarding medical cannabis. The author
states that this has created a strategic moment in history
and that SJR 14 clearly states the California Legislature's
opposition to federal interference, and its support for
expanded medical research and federal reform of medical
marijuana laws.
Background
In 1996, California voters approved an initiative statute,
California's Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215, to
ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SJR 14 (Leno) Page 3
obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes. The
initiative also contained protection for physicians wanting
to inform patients about the use of medical marijuana.
Proposition 215 was a strong policy statement, but
contained few details on how patients could obtain access
to medical marijuana. The initiative also directed the
state to implement a plan for the safe and affordable
distribution of medical marijuana.
Conflicts with the federal government occurred almost
immediately in the wake of the initiative's passage. The
conflicts resulted because of the differences between state
law, which made medical use of marijuana legal, and federal
law which carries stiff criminal penalties for the use,
possession and/or cultivation of marijuana. The first
conflict resolved by the courts came after the federal
government warned physicians who discussed or recommended
the use of medical marijuana that they faced possible
sanctions including criminal prosecution, revocation of
their DEA registration to prescribe scheduled drugs and
exclusion from Medicaid and Medicare. The state law was
protected as federal courts upheld the rights of physicians
to discuss medical marijuana as a treatment option for
patients with certain conditions.
The state has not implemented a plan that provides for the
safe and affordable distribution of medical marijuana, in
part because of the potential of violating federal law.
The state has created a voluntary program by which the
State Department of Public Health issues an identification
card to patients, caregivers and other authorized parties.
The ID card grants the holder immunity from arrest for
possessing specified amounts of marijuana to be used for
medical purposes. State law also details criteria for the
definition of primary caregiver.
Conflicts over the differing state and federal laws
regarding use, possession, and cultivation were resolved
with the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Gonzalez v.
Raich. The court upheld federal marijuana laws, including
the legal basis for the DEA to conduct raids, seize
medicinal marijuana and make arrests for criminal
violations of federal drug laws.
In the aftermath of the ruling, in states like
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SJR 14 (Leno) Page 4
California--where federal, state, and local laws are in
conflict--the DEA has increased enforcement actions against
marijuana dispensaries. Additional actions have been
brought against the residences of individual
patient-cultivators. The DEA has also targeted property
owners who rent or lease space for medical marijuana
dispensaries. Reportedly, at least some of the medical
marijuana dispensaries and collectives shut down by the DEA
have been approved by local governments and were reporting
and paying sales taxes to the State Board of Equalization,
and reporting and paying income taxes.
Eleven other states: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont
and Washington have enacted laws similar to California's
medicinal marijuana policy, and all currently face the same
federal-state conflict.
Prior legislation
SJR 20, (Migden), was similar to SJR 14. This resolution
was held in Assembly Public Safety Committee.
SB 1494 (Vasconcellos), would have made technical changes
in the identification card program and expanded the
definition of caregiver. This bill was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger.
SB 420 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 875 of 2003 established a
voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards
to patients qualified to use medical marijuana and makes
numerous legal definitions, clarifications, and statutory
changes necessary to implement and enforce a system
providing medical marijuana to chronically ill patients.
Arguments in support
Americans for Safe Access, the resolution's sponsor, argues
that this will help protect the rights of legal medical
cannabis patients in California and effecting meaningful
change in federal policies at a strategic moment in
history. The Drug Policy Alliance states that despite
state protection for compassionate use, federal law
continues to see medical marijuana patients as criminals
and this has resulted in significant confusion and profound
negative effects for California patients. They note that
since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Gonzales case,
there have been 150 federal raids on medical marijuana
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SJR 14 (Leno) Page 5
dispensaries and distributors in California.
POSITIONS
Support: Americans for Safe Access
Common Sense for Drug Policy
Drug Policy Alliance
Marijuana Policy Project
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws
Oppose: None received
-- END --