Medical Marijuana Regulation Bill SB1262 "Held in Committee"

UPDATE August 14 - The bill has been held in the Appropriations committee, meaning it won't see a floor vote this year. Read more and more.

August 12 - Cal NORML remains opposed to SB1262, pending amendment. See our revised letter to the Appropriations committee.

August 8 - SB1262 is still in play. Police Chiefs met with CCIA, EGA and Small Growers Assn. yesterday, won some concessions (allowing deliveries, removing cultivation cap) in new mock up. Cal NORML is working on suggested changes to protect H&SC 11362.775 and amend transportation codes, felony language etc. It's heading to Appropriations committee for hearing August 13 and vote by August 15. New version to be posted soon.

UPDATE August 6 - A new version of the bill posted online is substantially improved over the mark-up we saw. In addition to keeping HSC 11362.775, another significant change is that the Bureau is not required to deny licenses for past felony drug convictions, but "may" do so (section 18110).

However, the bill still says, "The public welfare and public safety require that there be a limitation on the number of premises licensed for the cultivation of marijuana to prevent the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes."

We still have doubts about its economic viability, especially given the costs of setting up a new agency and the likelihood that very few growers will be able to qualify for provisional licensing. See our letter to the Appropriations committee.

July 30, 2014 - California NORML has changed its position on medical marijuana regulation bill SB1262 from "neutral pending amendments" to "opposed unless amended."

We have concerns about new language inserted into the bill just before it was sent to the Legislative Counsel's office last week, in advance of an Assembly Appropriations committee hearing in August.

We have been in touch with Rep. Ammiano's office and understand that he has asked Senator Correa to make needed changes to the bill. We likewise have asked the Senator to address our concerns.

The new language would enact an unnamed cap on the number of cultivators in the state. This is problematic, both for the small farmer and in terms of funding the of Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation in the bill.

It would establish of a "chief" of the bureau with broad authority, plus has new language about public safety being the paramount concern that is vague and overreaching.

It has a new requirement for HIPPA exams by physicians that implies they are not currently HIPPA compliant; it's unnecessary.

The discriminatory language about disallowing former felons in the bill remains a problem. Also the provisional licensing fee of as much as $8000 remains prohibitive to small operators and puts start-up funding of the bureau in jeopardy.

Finally, the bill would strike Health and Safety Code 11362.775, under which collectives and cooperatives currently operate in California. Cal NORML has long said this would cause us to oppose the bill.

California needs a good medical marijuana regulation system and we favor further efforts by the authors to come up with an effective and workable bill.

California medical marijuana supporters are planning to travel to Sacramento for a Citizen Lobby Day on Monday, August 4.


Regulate Medical Cannabis like wine.

Could you imagine if Wine makers were told they could only sell wine in single servings and when they delivered their wine they had to video tape the trip and have two guards en route at all times? That you could not visit a winery on a tasting tour? Could you imagine if a vintner (someone who manufactures grapes into wine) could not grow their own grapes? Could you imagine a bureau telling wineries, "Sorry, there are all ready too many wineries in California, you don't get a license"?
We are getting too far from the truth that Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and we need to regulate it as less harmful and not treat it as plutonium.
California has always been a leader in supporting small farms and the regulations in this bill would essentially stifle the small farm spirit that could allow for a large number of small farmers to support themselves and their communities.
This bill would only allow for "licensed" growers to grow only the number of plants their respective counties allow and no more. As of late there are very few counties in California that allow a number of plants that would warrant the costs associated with becoming licensed. What this bill will do in essence is make it harder for farmers who have been providing cannabis to dispensaries without problems for years to become legitimate, thus driving more farmers into the black market.
I agree that cannabis needs to be regulated in California but not like this. Put it to the voters in 2016 and let us decide how we want it to be regulated!

Here is what this bill will do.

First of all anyone who has been an activist and subject to any city action will be barred from participating in the new scheme. Second Cities like San Bernardino are seeing the futility of stopping the opening of shops so instead they are considering adopting a scheme like Palm Springs. What caused that change of heart? Activist/ illegal collectives. So citizen activism is doing what is does best. This new law will put an end to that right quick with the potential for massive fines per violation. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of City actions knows they throw everything at you regardless of merit so you'd be looking at potentially massive ruinous claims for fines against an activist operator.

This is a bad bill from the start.

This is a bad bill for so many reasons, such as the attempt to intimidate doctors, but the primary reason is that is gives cities another tool, the 35k$ fine, in which to ban local access. Wolf in sheeps clothing...no wonder the league of cities and LEO are for it.

up to $35K

It does say "up to $35K" but yes, troubling, as are many other provisions that would need to be fixed before Cal NORML would support.

yes it does say 35K$

You want to split hairs the code allows fines up to 35K$ per violation. Next it has another proviso for 10K$ for each technical violation. Section 18130 section a, b. So anyone who has been on the receiving end of city lawsuits knows they just throw everything at you true or not they you're stuck with litigating and disproving them. So yeah they will just say true or not this guy violated here, here, here, and here we are asking 150k$ in fines and abatement. Nobody in favor of MMJ and in their right mind will support this travesty of a bill.

What is up with your Captcha for those of us with bad eyes it takes numerous attempts to make it work.

captcha

Really? I think our Captcha with the math question is easier to read that others that obscure the type.

Don't recreate the wheel.

I would like to know if anyone in the Californian government has looked at how other states like Colorado and Washington has structured their law and government office for oversight?
http://www.ladybud.com/2014/07/29/pa-senator-daylin-leach-what-i-learned...

As I've learned from 22 years of military service you take the best from established programs and make it specific and beneficial for all of California. This means the state, the independent and corporate growers, and the independent and corporate distributors. California is so far behind the power curve it is embarrassing. We should be setting the holistic standard for all states.

Other states laws

Yes, other states laws are being looked at. They are, however, heavily favoring centralized models, which isn't what most Californians want.