BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Senator Ed Hernandez, O.D., Chair
BILL NO: SB 1262
AUTHOR: Correa
AMENDED: April 21, 2014
HEARING DATE: April 30, 2014
CONSULTANT: Diaz
SUBJECT : Medical marijuana: regulation of physicians,
dispensaries, and cultivation sites.
SUMMARY : Places certain practice restrictions and requirements
on a physician and surgeon who recommends medical marijuana to a
patient; requires medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation
facilities to be licensed by the Department of Public Health;
provides for enforcement of the licensing provisions by county
health departments; prohibits anything in the medical marijuana
statute from preventing a city or other local governing body
from adopting local ordinances that regulate the location,
operation, or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative
or collective, or from prohibiting one from operating within its
borders.
Existing law:
1.Requires the Medical Board of California (MBC) within the
Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to license, certify, and
regulate physician and surgeons (physician) under the Medical
Practice Act. Requires the MBC to take action against a
physician who is charged with unprofessional conduct, as
specified. Requires the MBC to prioritize its investigative
and prosecutorial resources to ensure that physicians
representing the greatest threat of harm are identified and
disciplined expeditiously, including those with repeated acts
of excessive prescribing, furnishing, or administering of
controlled substances, or repeated acts of prescribing,
dispensing, or furnishing of controlled substances without a
good faith prior examination of the patient and medical
reason.
2.Prohibits criminal prosecution, pursuant to the Compassionate
Use Act (CUA) of 1996, of a patient with specified illnesses
or a patient's primary caregiver, as defined, for the
possession or cultivation of medical marijuana (MM) upon the
written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
Encourages federal and state governments to implement a plan
Continued---
SB 1262 | Page 2
to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of MM to
those who need it. Specifies that existing law related to MM
is not to be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting
conduct that endangers others or to condone the diversion of
MM for nonmedical purposes.
3.Prohibits physicians from being punished or denied any right
or privilege for having recommended MM to a patient.
4.Defines "primary caregiver" as an individual designated by a
patient who has consistently assumed responsibility for the
housing, health, or safety of that person.
5.Requires the Department of Public Health (DPH) to establish
and maintain a voluntary Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) by
which patients can apply for MM identification cards (MMICs).
Requires county health departments to issue MMICs, as
specified, to patients and primary caregivers who voluntarily
register for the MMP. Specifies that MMICs are valid for one
year and may be renewed annually. Requires DPH to develop a
system by which state and local law enforcement officers can
immediately verify the MMIC's validity. Prohibits state or
local law enforcement officers from refusing to accept MMICs
unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the MMIC is
being used fraudulently or its information is false or
fraudulent.
6.Prohibits patients and primary caregivers with MMICs who
associate within the state in order to, among other
activities, possess, cultivate, process, and transport MM
collectively or cooperatively from, solely on that basis,
being subject to state criminal sanctions under state laws
that prohibit those activities otherwise.
7.Makes it a misdemeanor offense to, among other things,
fraudulently represent a medical condition or provide any
material misinformation to a physician, health department
designee, or to law enforcement, for the purpose of falsely
obtaining MMICs; fraudulently use any person's MMIC in order
to acquire, possess, cultivate, transport, use, produce, or
distribute MM; counterfeit, tamper with, or fraudulently
produce MMICs; breach any confidentiality requirements
pertaining to the MMIC program.
8.Requires a person who seeks an MMIC to pay a fee and provide
to the county health department a name, proof of residency,
SB 1262 | Page
3
written physician's recommendation, physician's name and
contact information, the primary caregiver's name and duties,
and patient's and primary caregiver's government-issued photo
identification card.
9.Prohibits anything in the MMP from preventing a city or other
local governing body from adopting local ordinances that
regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a MM
cooperative or collective, or prohibiting one from operating
within its borders; enforcing local ordinances for civil or
criminal purposes; or enacting other laws consistent with the
MMP.
10.Designates marijuana as a hallucinogenic substance in
Schedule I of the California Uniform Controlled Substances
Act.
11.States legislative intent for the state to commission
objective scientific research by the University of California
(UC), and if the Regents of the UC accept the responsibility,
the UC is required to create the California Marijuana Research
Program (CMRP) to develop and conduct studies intended to
ascertain the general medical safety and efficacy of MM and to
develop guidelines for the appropriate administration and use
of MM; requires the CMRP to use a peer review process, as
specified, to guard against funding research that is biased;
requires the CMRP to report to the Legislature, as specified;
requires the President of the UC to appoint a
multidisciplinary Scientific Advisory Council to provide
policy guidance.
This bill:
1.Requires a physician, prior to recommending MM, to have a
physician-patient relationship, conduct an appropriate prior
exam of the patient, consult with a patient as necessary, and
periodically review the MM treatment's efficacy.
2.Requires a physician that recommends MM to discuss side
effects with the patient, address what kind of MM to obtain,
as specified, explain the reason for the type of MM
recommendation, and maintain a system of record keeping to
support recommending MM. Prohibits a recommendation for butane
hash oil. Requires a recommendation to patients under 21 to be
approved by a board certified pediatrician, to be for high
cannabidiol MM, and to be for non-smoking delivery.
SB 1262 | Page 4
3.Makes it unlawful for a physician who recommends MM to accept,
solicit, or offer any form of remuneration from or to a
licensed MM facility if the physician or his or her immediate
family have a financial interest in that facility. Makes a
violation of this provision a misdemeanor.
4.Requires the MBC to convene a task force, as specified, to
review and update guidelines for recommending MM to ensure
competent review in cases concerning the recommendation of MM.
5.Provides for a civil fine of up to $5,000 for any violation by
a physician of any requirements when recommending MM.
Specifies that any recommendation for MM without an
appropriate prior examination and a medical indication
constitutes unprofessional conduct and may be punishable, as
specified.
6.Prohibits, except as provided in the CUA and MMP, a person
from selling, providing, growing, or processing MM other than
at a licensed facility. Defines a licensed dispensing facility
as a dispensary, mobile dispensary, marijuana processing
facility, or other facility that provides MM that is licensed
by DPH, as specified.
7.Requires DPH, prior to issuing a license to a MM facility, to
obtain specified information, including names of the owners, a
description of the scope of business, a certified copy of a
local jurisdiction's approval to operate the MM facility, and
payment of a fee determined by DPH that is sufficient to cover
the administrative costs of licensing MM facilities. Requires
DPH to consult outside entities and establish standards for
quality assurance testing of MM. Prohibits non-organic
pesticides from being used to cultivate MM.
8.Prohibits a licensed MM facility from acquiring, possessing,
cultivating, delivering, transferring, transporting, or
dispensing MM for any purpose other than for those authorized
by the MMP. Prohibits a licensed MM facility from acquiring
plants or products except through the cultivation of MM by
that facility or another licensed cultivation site. Prohibits
a licensed MM facility from providing a MM product until it
verifies that a recommending physician is licensed to practice
in the state.
9.Prohibits a person from distributing any form of advertising
SB 1262 | Page
5
for physician MM recommendations in the state unless the
advertisement bears a notice to consumers indicating that the
CUA ensures access to MM when the use is deemed appropriate
and in accordance with accepted standards of medical
responsibility.
10.Requires a licensed MM facility to implement security
measures to deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into areas
containing MM and theft of MM, including limiting access to
the facility, as specified; storing MM in a locked safe or
vault; and notifying law enforcement when there are breaches
in security, as specified.
11.Requires county health departments, with DPH oversight, to
enforce the licensure requirements of MM facilities, including
conducting inspections, obtaining evidence, and reporting to
DPH on the number and types of MM facilities operating within
their jurisdiction. Specifies that an MM facility license is
subject to local jurisdiction restrictions and provides that
any violation is punishable by a civil fine of up to $35,000.
12.Specifies that the licensing of MM facilities by DPH does not
prevent a city or other local governing body from, among other
things, adopting and enforcing local ordinances that regulate
or prohibit MM facilities.
13.Makes a legislative declaration that the police power, as
specified, allows each city and county to determine whether or
not an MM facility may operate within its borders and that,
when there are MM facilities, there is a need for the state to
license them and, among other things, prevent the potential
diversion of MM for recreational use.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal
committee.
COMMENTS :
1.Author's statement. According to the author, since the
approval of the CUA (Proposition 215) and passage of SB 420
(Vasconcellos), Chapter 875, Statutes of 2003, no broader,
feasible regulatory structure has been established, and the
implementation of these laws has been marked by conflicting
authorities, regulatory uncertainty, intermittent federal
enforcement action, and a series of lawsuits. Nearly all
recent attempts to regulate MM do not have appropriate health
SB 1262 | Page 6
and safety standards and neglect the importance of local
control. This bill will set needed health and safety
standards, require licensing, protect local authority, and
establish security measures for the sale of MM.
2.CUA. The CUA was passed by California voters and established
the right of patients and their primary caregivers to obtain
and use MM, as recommended by a physician, in the treatment of
cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma,
arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which MM
provides relief. Additionally, the CUA specifically protects
physicians, for the purposes of any state laws, who recommend
the use of MM to patients and exempts qualified patients and
their primary caregivers from California drug laws prohibiting
possession and cultivation of marijuana.
3.MBC policy on MM. In May 2004, the MBC issued a statement on
the CUA and a physician's role in recommending MM, which
according to the MBC is still recognized policy. The MBC
stated that physicians who recommend MM will not be subject to
investigation or disciplinary action by the MBC if the
decision to recommend MM is made in accordance with accepted
standards of medical responsibility, which MBC states is not
specifically defined. The statement also indicates that a mere
complaint that a physician is recommending MM will not
generate an investigation absent information that a physician
is not adhering to accepted medical standards. According to
the MBC, while MM is not subject to reporting to the
Department of Justice's Controlled Substance Utilization
Review and Evaluation System, MM recommendations are treated
like any prescription for a controlled substance, meaning
there are no added training requirements for prescribing a
certain type of controlled substance nor are any controlled
substance prescriptions for people under the age of 21
required to be approved by a board certified pediatrician. The
MBC also indicates that it does not track complaints by
controlled substance but rather by allegations against a
physician, such as unprofessional conduct.
4.MMP. The MMP was established by SB 420 to create a
state-authorized system by which patients and their primary
caregivers could obtain MMICs, along with a registry database
for verification of the MMICs. Participation by patients and
primary caregivers in the MMP is voluntary. The Web-based
registry allows law enforcement and the public to verify the
validity of a qualified patient or primary caregiver's MMIC as
SB 1262 | Page
7
authorization to possess, grow, transport, and/or use MM
within the state. Under the MMP, the local county health
department issues MMICs and collects fees. The MMIC is valid
for one year, after which it may be renewed. A primary
caregiver's card expires when the patient's card expires.
Patients are responsible for notifying the county within seven
days when they change primary caregivers and must instruct the
previous primary caregiver to return the MMIC to the county
for confidential destruction.
In order to receive an MMIC, patients must reside in the
county where they apply, present the physician recommendation
for MM, and pay the fee required by the county. If the primary
caregiver lives in a different county, he or she must obtain
an MMIC in the county where the patient lives. A patient or
primary caregiver is not required to obtain an MMIC or to
participate in the MMP in order to use, obtain, possess, or
cultivate MM upon the recommendation of a physician pursuant
to the CUA.
According to DPH, the total amount of MMICs issued to date is
72,762. DPH began tracking MMICs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-05
when 85 cards were issued. A peak 12,659 MMICs were issued in
FY 2009-10. The number of MMICs issued began to decline in the
following years with a total of 3,732 being issued in FY
2013-14. MMIC application fees are $66 each for patient and
primary caregivers, and for patients who are Medi-Cal
eligible, the fees are $33 for each the patient and the
primary caregiver.
5.Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR). The UC's CMCR
was created pursuant to SB 847 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 750,
Statutes of 1999. SB 295 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 704, Statues
of 2003 subsequently repealed SB 847's three-year sunset on
the CMRP. CMCR is tasked with developing and conducting
studies intended to ascertain the general medical safety and
efficacy of marijuana and, if found valuable, to develop
medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use
of MM. According to their Web site, CMCR coordinates and
supports cannabis research throughout the state, which focuses
on the potential medical benefits of cannabis, the general
medical safety and efficacy of cannabis, and on examining
alternative forms of cannabis administration.
In 2010, CMCR issued a report to the Legislature and Governor
SB 1262 | Page 8
pursuant to SB 847. At that time, CMCR had approved 15
clinical studies, including seven clinical trials, which
focused on conditions identified by the Institute of Medicine
for which cannabis might have potential therapeutic effects,
based on current scientific knowledge. Three of the studies
utilized cannabis as an add-on treatment for patients who were
not receiving adequate benefit from a wide range of standard
pain-relieving medications. The studies demonstrated that
cannabis has analgesic effects on pain conditions. CMCR
suggests that cannabis may provide a treatment option for
those individuals who do not respond or respond inadequately
to currently available therapies. The CMCR report also stated
that until alternative delivery systems and new molecules are
available, smoked cannabis offers the most effective delivery
of cannabinoids for clinical trial.
6.Litigation involving MM. The Legislature sought to clarify the
CUA in 2003 through SB 420 by establishing the MMP. SB 420 set
limits on the amounts of MM to be legally grown and possessed.
However, the California Supreme Court later ruled in People v.
Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008 that the MMP section limiting
quantities of MM is unconstitutional because it amends a voter
initiative, and the CUA did not specifically include
legislative authority to amend it. Pursuant to the CUA,
patients and primary caregivers who obtain a physician's oral
or written recommendation are protected from state prosecution
for possessing or cultivating an amount of MM reasonably
related to their current medical needs. Although the MMP
provides protections from state law, patients and their
primary caregivers who engage in these activities remain
liable for federal arrest and prosecution, and those who
operate dispensaries face frequent federal enforcement
actions. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich
(2005) 545 U.S. 1 that the federal government can enforce
marijuana prohibition despite state MM laws. The CUA and the
MMPA have no effect on federal enforceability of the federal
Controlled Substances Act. In 2013, the California Supreme
Court in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health &
Wellness Center (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 upheld that local
governments have inherent zoning power. The issue in this case
was whether state MM statutes preempt a local ban on
facilities that distribute MM. The Court concluded they do not
and upheld the City of Riverside's implementation of a ban on
MM dispensaries and on any facility that is prohibited by
federal or state law.
SB 1262 | Page
9
7.Double referral. This bill was heard in the Senate Committee
on Business, Professions, and Economic Development on April
21, 2014 and passed with a 9-0 vote.
8.Related legislation. AB 1894 (Ammiano), would establish the
Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act and creates the
Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation and Enforcement within
the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for the
purpose of registering people for the cultivation,
manufacture, testing, transportation, storage, distribution,
and sale of MM within the state subject to specified
exemptions for a city or county; provides that the ABC
director and its employees who administer and enforce
provisions of the Act are peace officers; requires the ABC to
work with law enforcement entities to implement and enforce
the rules and regulations regarding MM and to take appropriate
action against businesses and individuals that fail to comply
with the law; authorizes a board of supervisors of a county
and the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend
transactions and use taxes on the retail sale of or storage,
use, or other consumption of MM or MM-infused products. AB
1894 is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 604 (Ammiano) of 2013 is substantially similar to AB 1894.
AB 604 is currently in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
9.Prior legislation. SB 439 (Steinberg), of 2013, would have
exempted MM collectives and cooperatives from criminal
liability for possession, cultivation, possession for sale,
sale, transport, importation, and furnishing MM. Clarifies
MBC enforcement of MM recommendations, what constitutes
unprofessional conduct, and the bar on the corporate practice
of medicine. SB 439 was last set for hearing in the Assembly
Committee on Health on August, 13, 2013. The hearing was
canceled at the author's request. On April 21, 2014, SB 439
was gutted and amended to a new purpose.
AB 473 (Ammiano), of 2013, would have enacted the MM
Regulation and Control Act, and created a Division of MM
Regulation and Enforcement in the ABC to regulate the
cultivation, manufacture, testing, transportation,
distribution, and sale of MM. AB 473 failed passage on the
Assembly Floor.
AB 2312 (Ammiano), of 2012, would have established a
SB 1262 | Page 10
nine-member Board of MM Enforcement within DCA to regulate the
MM industry and to collect fees from MM businesses to be
deposited into a new MM Fund. AB 2312 would have authorized
local taxes on MM up to 5 percent. AB 2312 was never heard in
the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic
Development.
AB 2465 (Campos), of 2012, would have made patient and primary
caregiver MMICs mandatory and required MM collectives to keep
copies of members' MMICs. AB 2465 was never heard in the
Assembly Committee on Public Safety.
SB 1182 (Leno), of 2012, would have exempted a MM cooperative
or collective that operates within the Attorney General's (AG)
guidelines from being subject to prosecution for MM possession
or commerce, as specified; exempted such an entity and its
employees, officers, and members from being subject to
prosecution for MM commerce because the entity or its
employees, officers, or members received compensation for
actual expenses incurred in carrying out activities in
compliance with the guidelines. SB 1182 died on the Senate
Inactive File.
SB 129 (Leno), of 2012, would have prohibited employment
discrimination on the basis of a person's status as an MM
patient or on the basis of the person's positive drug test for
MM, provided that the person is a qualified patient and the
use of MM does not occur at the place of employment or during
hours of employment. SB 129 died on the Senate Inactive File.
AB 1300 (Blumenfield), Chapter 196, Statutes of 2011, permits
a local government to enact an ordinance regulating the
location, operation or establishment of an MM cooperative or
collective. Authorizes a local government to enforce such
ordinances through civil or criminal remedies and actions;
authorizes the local government to enact any ordinance that is
consistent with the MMP.
AB 1017 (Ammiano), of 2011, would have made the cultivation of
marijuana, except as allowed by the MMP, punishable as a
misdemeanor with a penalty of imprisonment in a county jail
for a period of not more than one year. AB 1017 died on the
Assembly Inactive File.
AB 223 (Ammiano), of 2011, would have specified that the CUA
does not authorize a person with an MMIC to engage in the
SB 1262 | Page
11
smoking of MM within 600 feet of the grounds of a school,
recreation center, or youth center, unless it occurs within a
residence or within a MM cooperative, collective, or
dispensary. AB 223 was never heard in the Assembly Committee
on Public Safety.
SB 626 (Calderon), of 2011, would have required the Board of
Equalization (BOE) to establish a nine-member task force to
conduct a study to determine ways to enhance collections of
sales and use taxes on retail sales of MM and ensure proper
regulation of the cultivation, transportation, and
distribution of MM and MM-based products. SB 626 was held
under submission in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
SB 847 (Correa), of 2011, would have prohibited any entity
that possesses, cultivates, or distributes MM from locating
within 600 feet of a residential area unless a local ordinance
has been adopted to specifically regulate the location of
these entities in relation to residential use. SB 847 was
vetoed by Governor Brown who stated that he had signed AB
1300, which gave cities and counties authority to regulate MM
dispensaries and that SB 847 went in the opposite direction by
preempting local control and prescribing the precise locations
where dispensaries may not be located.
AB 2650 (Buchanan), Chapter 603, Statutes of 2010, prohibits
an MM cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator,
establishment, or provider authorized by law to possess,
cultivate, or distribute MM that has a storefront or mobile
retail outlet from being located within a 600-foot radius of
any public or private school providing instruction in
kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, except as specified; provides
that local ordinances, adopted prior to January 1, 2011, that
regulate the location or establishment of MM establishments
are not preempted by its provisions.
SB 1098 (Migden) of 2008 would have required the BOE to
administer a tax amnesty program, as specified, for MM
dispensaries, as defined. SB 1089 was never heard in the
Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation.
SB 420 (Vasconcellos) established the MMP Act, a statewide,
voluntary program for the issuance of MMICs to identify
persons authorized to engage in the use of MM.
SB 1262 | Page 12
SB 295 (Vasconcellos) eliminated the CMRP's three-year
duration limit, which was established pursuant to SB 847.
SB 847 (Vasconcellos) provided that the UC Regents, if they
elected to do so, could implement a 3-year program, the CMRP,
under which funds would be provided for studies intended to
ascertain the general medical safety and efficacy of MM and,
if found valuable, to develop medical guidelines for the
appropriate administration and use of MM.
10.Support. A sponsor of the bill, the California Police Chiefs
Association, writes that the policy underlying this bill is
the need for inclusive and substantial reform of the CUA,
which has had troublesome issues, including the ability of
virtually anyone to obtain a recommendation for MM. The other
sponsor, the League of California Cities, writes that the
state had been unable to enact a regulatory structure that
both ensures patient access to MM while recognizing laws that
authorize local regulations and address safety concerns. A
coalition of other supporters argues that the CUA lacked a
responsible, health-based regulatory scheme that upholds local
control and includes important health and safety requirements.
Supporters also argue that local governments should have a
prominent role in any regulatory process for MM.
11.Opposition. California NORML writes that many Californians do
not have primary care physicians or belong to HMOs with
policies that do not allow MM recommendations. CA NORML also
states that the restrictions on physicians' right to recommend
MM conflict with the CUA's intent. Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition (LEAP) states that the prohibitive language of the
bill will discourage and limit the number of MM patients by
placing undue burdens on both the patient and provider. LEAP
also states that patients need dispensaries and a safe place
to access MM instead of forcing them to go to other cities to
find it, which benefits the criminal element and threatens
patient safety. Yolo County, the Imperial County Board of
Supervisors, and the Health Officers Association of California
oppose based on the requirement that county health departments
enforce the licensing provisions of the bill, citing issues
like a lack of funding, staff, expertise, equipment, and
training.
12.Oppose Unless Amended. The California Medical Association
(CMA) opposes based on the bill's effort to legislate the
practice of medicine. CMA states that if a goal of the bill is
SB 1262 | Page
13
to ensure recommendation for MM is appropriate and medically
indicated, then they stand ready to engage in those
discussions. The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) opposes based on
the requirement that a physician make recommendations for a
certain kind of MM. DPA argues that medical schools have just
barely begun to teach students about the endocannabinoid
system. DPA further states that the ABC, rather than DPH,
would be better suited to oversee the licensing of MM
facilities since they have experience regulating an
age-restricted product. The Urban Counties Caucus states that
county public health department and county agricultural
commissioners would have to enforce MM with no expertise,
experience, or knowledge in this field. The California Health
Executives Association of California states that county public
health departments lack expertise and the infrastructure for
inspections or evaluations of MM.
13.Policy comments.
a. Verification of a license to practice. This bill
requires a licensed MM facility to verify a physician's
license to practice medicine in the state before an MM
product can be provided to a patient. The MBC and the
Board of Pharmacy indicate that no other scheduled drug
carries this same requirement. Committee staff suggests
an amendment to delete this requirement.
b. Physician requirements. This bill proposes a number
of requirements for physicians who recommend MM. Some
concerns have been raised about the requirements, such as
requiring physicians to make recommendations for a
certain type of MM. This is a major concern given the
lack of research available, and it is unclear why the
practice of medicine should be included in legislation.
Committee staff suggests deleting Sections 2525 and
2525.3 of this bill.
c. Regulation of MM facilities. This bill requires DPH
to license MM facilities, but enforcement officers (a
term that is not defined) of a county health department
would regulate and conduct site inspections. DPH states
that they currently do not license any type of facility
that another entity regulates or inspects. DPH also
indicates that they do not have the resources to fulfill
requirements in this bill. It is unclear why a state
agency that licenses a facility would rely on another
SB 1262 | Page 14
entity to perform regulation and inspection duties. The
author may wish to consider whether or not DPH is the
appropriate entity to administer the licensure of MM
facilities and whether there is another appropriate state
agency that can both license and regulate MM facilities.
d. Background checks. The author has indicated that an
amendment requiring background checks for a MM facility
applicant will be offered. Committee staff recommends
language be included to allow denial of a license only if
a past conviction is substantially related to the
qualifications, functions, or duties of the business for
which the license will be issued.
e. CMB task force. This bill requires the CMB to
convene a task for of experts in the use of MM to review
and update, as necessary, guidelines for recommending MM.
CMCR is tasked with conducting studies to ascertain the
general medical safety and efficacy of marijuana and
developing medical guidelines for the appropriate
administration and use of MM. It is unclear why a new
entity would be created when the CMCR has been performing
identical duties for more than 10 years. The author may
wish to consider an amendment to recognize the existence
of the CMCR within the UC system and to consider how the
CMCR can replace the requirement for the CMB task force.
14.Technical amendments. Committee staff suggests the following
technical amendments.
a. 111657.9. Violation of this provision Section
111657.8 shall be punishable by a civil fine of up to
thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) for each
individual violation.
b. 111657.6. (a) A facility licensed pursuant to this
article shall implement sufficient security measures to
both deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into areas
containing marijuana and theft of marijuana at those
facilities. These security measures shall include, but
not be limited to, all of the following:
(1) Allow only registered qualifying patients
registered with the facility , personal the patient's
primary caregiver s , and facility agents access to the
facility.
SB 1262 | Page
15
c. 111657.10. Nothing in this article shall prevent a
city or other local governing body from doing any of the
following:
(a) Adopting and enforcing local ordinances that regulate
the location, operation, or establishment of medical
marijuana cooperatives or collectives.
(b) The civil and criminal enforcement of local
ordinances described in subdivision (a).
(c) Enacting other laws consistent with this article.
taking any action as specified in Section 11362.83.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION :
Support: California Police Chiefs Association (sponsor)
League of California Cities (sponsor)
Americans for Safe Access
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Police Chiefs Association
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
City of Adelanto
City of Beaumont
City of Canyon Lake
City of Chowchilla
City of Colton
City of Concord
City of Covina
City of Del Mar
City of Encinitas
City of Etna
City of Fortuna
City of Gardena
City of Hemet
City of Highland
City of Indio
City of La Palma
City of Lathrop City Council
City of Lodi
City of Merced
City of Modesto
City of Norwalk
City of Patterson
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Rancho Mirage
SB 1262 | Page 16
City of Rosemead
City of Sacramento
City of San Carlos
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Woodland
Covina Police Department
El Cerrito Police Department
El Monte/South El Monte Chamber of Commerce
Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce
International Faith Based Coalition
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers
Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Office of the San Diego County District Attorney
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Town of Colma Police Department
Town of Danville
2 individuals
Oppose: California Medical Association (unless amended)
California Cannabis Industry Association
California NORML
County Health Executives Association of California
(unless amended)
County of San Bernardino (unless amended)
Drug Policy Alliance (unless amended)
Health Officers Association of California
Imperial County Board of Supervisors (unless amended)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Rural County Representatives of California (unless
amended)
Urban Counties Caucus (unless amended)
Yolo County (unless amended)
-- END --