LAST UPDATED 7/5/2026

AB 1826 (Lackey; Coauthors: Chen and Hadwick). To improve due process around the recall, embargo, and destruction of cannabis products. Sponsored by CCIA. Passed Assembly and Senate Com. on B. P. and E.D. Set FOR Hearing in Appropriations ON 03-AUG-26 10 a.m. Cal NORML has joined a sign-on letter in support of this bill.

AB 1965 (Sharp-Collins) Cannabis: testing: quality assurance. Passed Assembly and Senate Com. on B. P. and E.D. Set FOR Hearing in Appropriations ON 03-AUG-26 10 a.m. Cal NORML has sent a letter in support of this bill.

AB-2249 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing. Passed Assembly and Senate Com. on B. P. and E.D. Referred to Appropriations; hearing set for 6/22.
The Dept. of Cannabis Control (DCC) estimates annual costs of approximately $3 million to $4 million from the Cannabis Control Fund, explaining the majority of costs are associated with implementing a pre-approval process for cannabis labels and the expansion of prohibited imagery in advertising and marketing. A smaller portion of estimated costs are attributable to expansions of prohibited packaging design content.

AB-2532 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing (beverages). Passed Assembly and Senate Com. on B. P. and E.D. Referred to Appropriations.
An amendment added on 5/7 says, “If the cannabis product is a cannabis beverage containing more than one serving, the bill would require a consumer to be offered, at the time of purchase and at no additional charge, a measuring instrument or measuring device that allows the consumer to measure a single serving for consumption.”
Cal NORML has taken a neutral position on this bill following the news that amendments have been worked out with the cannabis industry removing the 10 mg cap on beverages and requiring industry-wide precision dosing and product identification features on all multi-serving cannabis beverages, warning label standards, child-resistant container requirements, while prohibiting single-serve marketing and supporting a funded, statewide campaign on responsible, informed cannabis beverage consumption, potentially modeled on alcohol responsibility campaigns. We will be continuing to follow this bill as amendments are published. Thanks to all who have taken our Beverage Safety survey; you can continue to provide input there. 

AB 2250 (Aguiar-Curry) Modify AB 8 to exclude CBN from the definition of cannabis concentrate. Passed Assembly and Senate Coms. on B. P. and E.D.;  REV. and TAX. Referred to Appropriations. Set FOR Hearing ON 03-AUG-26 10 a.m.

AB 2506 (Hart) Cannabis: tribal-state agreements. Passed Assembly and Senate Com. on B. P. and E.D. Set FOR Hearing in Appropriations ON 03-AUG-26 10 a.m.
Would allow the Governor to enter into agreements on behalf of tribes with CA licensees, other states authorizing medicinal or adult-use commercial cannabis activity, and foreign licensees, subject to “federal approval or toleration” of cross-border commerce. The amended language mimics SB 1326 (Caballero, 2021/22) which authorizes Gubernatorial agreements between other states and countries, should the US DOJ issue an opinion “allowing or tolerating interstate transfer of cannabis.”

AB 2537 (Chen) Cannabis Enforcement Accountability and Public Health Prioritization Act of 2026. Passed Assembly and Senate Com. on B. P. and E.D.; referred to Appropriations. Set FOR Hearing ON 03-AUG-26 10 a.m.
Would “require the DCC to prioritize its enforcement of MAUCRSA in a manner consistent with a risk-based enforcement framework that focuses on material threats while applying less intensive and less punitive measures on minor technical or administrative violations by licensees.” Sponsored by CaCOA.

AB 2697 (Pellerin) Cannabis drive-throughs. Passed Assembly and Senate Com. on B. P. and E.D. Referred to Appropriations.
Would authorize a local jurisdiction to allow a licensed cannabis retailer to conduct sales or deliveries at a drive-through, pass-out window, or slide-out tray, if the sales and deliveries are made through a fixed-pane security window with a security drawer.
TAKE ACTION: Write to your California Senator in support of AB 2697.

AB 2667 (Hadwick) Vape products: household hazardous waste: advertising. Passed Assembly and Senate Committees on E.Q., B. P. & E.D. and REV. and TAX. Set FOR Hearing in Appropriations ON 03-AUG-26 10 a.m.
Would allow authorize hazardous waste collection facilities to mechanically disassemble vape pens and devices, and prohibit nicotine or cannabis vapes using certain branding to appeal to minors, packaged to conceal the nature of their use, or including interactive videogame capabilities. 

AB 1884 (Hadwick/Sharp-Collins) Interscholastic athletics: drug testing: suspensions: nicotine use. Passed Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, & Tourism; hearing in Education committee cancelled at request of the author.
This bill has been amended to allow schools with drug testing programs to also test for nicotine, limit it to athletics, and require diversion instead of banning participation for a positive drug test. We will continue to watch.  

SB-1272 (Menjivar) – Local ordinances: administrative fines or penalties. Passed Senate and Assembly Com. on L. GOV. Referred to Appropriations.

BILLS NOT ADVANCING:

AB-2420 (Caloza) Cannabis: donations: seniors. Authorizes cannabis retailers to donate cannabis or cannabis products to persons 65 years of age and older. 14-APR-26 hearing in Asm. B & P cancelled at request of author.  

AB-2617 (Schiavo) NO LONGER A CANNABIS BILL. It’s now the Protecting Kids from Online Gambling Act.

AB-2246 (Wicks) NO LONGER A CANNABIS BILL. It’s now the Youth Social Media Protection Act: report.

UPDATE 6/25/2026 – KPFA radio in Berkeley ran a story on June 24 (at 33:20 in the broadcast) about Cal NORML’s action against Kaiser Healthcare over their discriminatory practices against medical marijuana patients. A Kaiser spokesperson claimed their doctors are making case-by-case decisions on providing healthcare. However, Cal NORML deputy director Ellen Komp was quoted saying patients are reporting that Kaiser doctors tell them their hands are tied by company policy when it comes to treating them. Kaiser patient Victor Pinho, who has been denied ADD medication at Kaiser, was also quoted, confirmed that his doctors have told him that Kaiser policy interferes with their prescribing options.

Cal NORML just added a 56th study to its partial list of studies that have found significant reductions in opioid use and/or fatalities in patients with access to medical cannabis. NORML has a web-based list of over 120 studies documenting therapeutic benefits of medicinal cannabis for reducing chronic pain and patient demand for opioids and other prescription drugs.

California NORML and our supporters worked hard in 2022 to sponsor and pass AB 1954, to protect medical marijuana patients against discrimination by their doctors. This was in response to numerous complaints we received from patients, particularly those in the Kaiser Healthcare system, telling us that their doctors were drug testing them and denying them care—including opioid prescriptions and other medicines—if they tested positive for cannabis.

Our bill became law on January 1, 2023 (BPC 2228.5), prohibiting physicians and health plans to have policies denying medical treatment to qualified patients with a recommendation to use medical marijuana. The only exception is if a clinical determination is made on a case-by-case basis that a “medically significant” contraindication exists. The law further states, “The use of medical cannabis that has been recommended by a licensed physician and surgeon shall not constitute the use of an illicit substance in the evaluation described.” See a Fact Sheet about the law.

Unfortunately, we have continued to receive complaints from Kaiser patients who are being denied health care for using cannabis since the law took effect. This seems to impact pain patients the most, despite numerous studies demonstrating that the use of cannabis can lessen a patient’s need for prescription painkillers, and that access to medical cannabis lessens the rate of opiate abuse and overdose. Kaiser continues to drug test pain patients and prohibit its doctors from prescribing certain medicines if a patient tests positive for cannabis as a blanket policy, in direct violation of the law. We are also hearing from patients who have been denied surgery due to a positive drug test for THC.

Cal NORML is working demanding Kaiser change its policy in accordance with state law, for which we need a critical mass of patients to tell us their stories. All information will be kept confidential and anonymous, unless you give us permission to share it. 

IF YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED MEDICAL CARE BY A KAISER DOCTOR DUE TO CANNABIS USE, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE YOU IN OUR EFFORT TO CHANGE KAISER’S POLICY. PLEASE WRITE TO ELLEN@CANORML.ORG WITH THE DATE AND OTHER DETAILS ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY KAISER. 

Learn how you can help sustain Cal NORML’s essential advocacy and lobbying efforts in the coming years, while providing a helpful needed service to your customers that will boost your sales.

California NORML is excited to announce a new partnership with Banking and Merchant Specialist, Ian Rassman of Rassman Payments. This new collaboration will benefit our business members while generating essential funds for Cal NORML with each tap of your customers’ payment cards.

You’ll enjoy all applicable processing services at extremely competitive rates alongside personalized service from a team that understands the cannabis industry. Cal NORML earns a small commission with each transaction, with no additional charge to you. To help you make the switch, we’ll provide some (or all) of your new hardware free of charge.

This is a fantastic opportunity for all cannabis businesses and ancillary companies, as well as those outside the industry to support cannabis consumers’ rights in California.

Cal NORML receives regular requests to partner with a variety of companies, due to our stellar reputation and vast network. We are pleased to have found a beneficial match with Ian, who you may know through his service as Executive Director of Los Angeles NORML. Ian offers 13 years’ experience in the Banking and Payments Industry and has enjoyed 35 years of involvement with the cannabis culture.

Learn how you can help sustain Cal NORML’s essential advocacy and lobbying efforts in the coming years, while providing a helpful needed service to your customers that will boost your sales.

Please contact kharla@canorml.org or 707-337-9747 for more information and questions.

Founded in 1972, California NORML is a non-profit, membership-supported organization dedicated to protecting and expanding the rights of California’s cannabis consumers. We lobby lawmakers, publish newsletters, sponsor events, and offer legal, educational, and consumer health advice. Current focuses include employment rights and medical marijuana patients’ rights. We are funded solely from donations from within California.

Starting on January 1, 2024, most Californians are now protected by a Cal NORML-sponsored bill which states that employers may not refuse to hire, fire, or penalize an employee based on the results of hair or urine tests for marijuana. A second law disallows asking about past marijuana use by prospective employees. 

Download a Fact Sheet for Employees

Download a Fact Sheet for Employers

The new law (AB 2188 – GC 12954) prohibits employers from discriminating against a person who has tested positive for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites in their urine, hair, or bodily fluids. It allows employees who have experienced discrimination to institute civil action for damages and other relief against their employers.

The law does not interfere with employers’ right to maintain a drug-free workplace. It allows for other kinds of tests that can indicate actual impairment on the job, such as computer-based performance tests, and chemical tests for active THC in oral fluid, breath or blood that are a better indicator of recent use. Many major drug testing providers are offering urine tests that do not detect marijuana, and oral swab or breathalyzer tests, which are less invasive than urine or hair tests.

Not protected by the law are workers in the building and construction trades, and employees subject to federal drug-testing rules, like commercial truck drivers. Companies that accept federal grants or funding are often required to follow the Drug-Free Workplace Act, but this does not require drug testing, only disallowing drug use on the job. The federal government has approved oral-swab testing to replace urine testing for truck drivers and other federal workers, but has not yet approved any labs to process oral swab tests.

A second law, SB 700 (Bradford), amended GC 12954 to disallow employers from asking about past marijuana use. SB 700 also took effect on January 1, 2024 (along with AB 2188). There are exceptions in the law for employers who may ask about an applicant’s conviction history under  information under GC  12952 (the Fair Chance Act) or other state or federal law.

The reforms are the result of a multi-year effort by California NORML, the state chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Cal NORML director Dale Gieringer commented, “Testing or threatening to test bodily fluids for cannabis metabolites has been the most common way that employers harass and discriminate against employees who lawfully use cannabis in the privacy of their own homes. These new laws will end that practice without impacting workplace safety. Numerous studies have found that workers who test positive for cannabis metabolites have no higher risk of workplace accidents.”

Californians who have been discriminated against due to off-the-job cannabis use, whether via pre-employment screening or being disciplined or fired as an employee, can file a complaint with the CA Civil Rights Department, and contact Cal NORML to make a complaint and possibly be connected with a private attorney who could help file a claim, once administrative remedies have been exhausted and a right to sue has been established with the CRD.

Read background on the law

Now is the time to build on the progress we made in 2023! Please support Cal NORML with a membership donation. Click Here to Donate or see our Cal NORML store and purchase merchandise.

Giving Tuesday / End of Year Special: Get a Free Gift with Your Cal NORML membership through 12/31/23.

LEGISLATIVE GAINS

Once again this year, Cal NORML and its supporters actively lobbied on 40-50 bills affecting California cannabis consumers and the industry. We generated over 3500 letters from supporters to lawmakers though our Action Alert network, and scheduled 200 constituent meetings with lawmakers at our annual Lobby Day in May (pictured).

Among bills signed into law are:

SB 700 (Bradford) strengthens the employment rights bill Cal NORML sponsored last year to add, “It is unlawful for an employer to request information from an applicant for employment relating to the applicant’s prior use of cannabis.”

SB 302 (Stern) extends Ryan’s Law, which requires specified health-care facilities to allow terminally ill patients to use nonsmoked (or vaped) forms of cannabis. SB 302 will now protect all patients 65 and over with chronic diseases.

SB 51 (Bradford) allows the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) to continue issuing provisional licenses to local equity applicants for retailer activities, indefinitely, if the applicant meets specified requirements. Without the bill, many equity applicants would have lost their provisional permits, which were set to expire this year. The Governor signed the bill while calling for greater support for equity businesses, something Cal NORML supports.

SB 540 (Laird) directs the DCC and CA Dept. of Public Health to develop a one-page educational brochure to instruct consumers on the safe use of cannabis. The bill was backed by the industry and Cal NORML as an alternative to stricter labeling requirements or potency limits in order to address growing public concern over an increase in emergency room visits due to cannabis overdoses from edibles and high-potency products. At Cal NORML’s urging, the bill was amended to require that dispensaries offer all first-time customers the printed brochure.

GOOD AND BAD RESULTS
We were disappointed that SB 512, a bill by Senator Bradford (D-LA) that sought to end double taxation on cannabis at the state and local levels, delivering much-needed relief to what is currently an unfairly overtaxed industry, did not advance this year in the legislature. Cal NORML supporters sent in nearly 1000 letters in support of the bill and we testified in its favor. We will continue to work for tax fairness for cannabis from a consumers’ perspective in 2024. Read more.

Cannabis advocates were pleasantly surprised by Gov. Newsom’s veto of a controversial labeling bill by Asm. Jacqui Irwin, AB 1207, ostensibly aimed at ensuring cannabis products aren’t attractive to children. As originally filed, AB 1207 proposed several new, overreaching restrictions: requiring individual packaging of edible servings, prohibiting food coloring in edibles and flavorings in inhaled concentrates, and banning images of real or fictitious human beings, fruits and vegetables in packaging or advertising. Newsom’s veto statement echoed the same concerns that Cal NORML raised about the bill.

In a more disappointing move, the Governor also vetoed AB 374 (Haney) to allow preparing and selling non-cannabis-infused food, nonalcoholic beverages, and tickets for live performances at licensed cannabis consumption lounges. At present, lounges can serve only prepackaged snacks. Cal NORML supported this bill to expand the opportunities for social consumption and attract canna-tourist revenue, and released a white paper addressing concerns raised by anti-tobacco forces opposed to the bill, who complained that it would expose lounge workers to unacceptable health hazards. On that basis, Gov. Newsom vetoed the bill, but invited Asm. Haney to re-introduce it next year. Cal NORML will continue to work towards its passage by responding with sound science to exaggerated public health claims about the dangers of cannabis smoke.

ENFORCEMENT BILLS IMPROVED
Cal NORML worked to mitigate the impact of new enforcement bills aimed at cracking down on the illicit market so as to not unduly harm personal-use growers and minor offenders. It is generally better to lower barriers to licensure and lessen taxes and regulation rather than spend endless dollars in enforcement, which has never worked well in all the decades of cannabis prohibition.

READ MORE ABOUT BILLS THAT CAL NORML WORKED ON IN 2023.

CONSUMPTION SPACES

Under California state law, cannabis retailers can open on-site cannabis consumption spaces, with local approval. Some are moving forward (see list below) while others, like Los Angeles and Berkeley, have resisted consumption rooms altogether, as anti-tobacco forces have falsely conflate cannabis smoke with tobacco and show up at local meetings to fight off our rights. Help us make cannabis consumption allowed across California!

EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AWARENESS CAMPAIGN

California workers will be protected from employment discrimination for off-the-job use of marijuana under a new law sponsored by Cal NORML—Government Code 12954—taking effect January 1, 2024. Enacted last year under bill AB 2188 by Asm. Bill Quirk, the new law bans employers from firing or refusing to hire workers based on drug tests that detect inactive cannabis metabolites—in particular, urine and hair tests, which can detect marijuana residues days or weeks after last use and have no relation to on-the-job impairment.

Complaints about illegal discrimination for off-the-job marijuana use are to be handled by the California Civil Rights Department. Cal NORML has met with the CRD, and has posted information about complaint resolution and securing a “right to sue” once administrative remedies are exhausted.

Cal NORML has been reaching out to unions, businesses and human rights groups to help raise awareness of workers’ rights under AB 2188 and SB 700. We have developed flyers and Fact Sheets for Employers and Employees in both English and Spanish about the new laws. Read more.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS’ PROTECTIONS

Another bill from last year that Cal NORML supported, SB 1186 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), preempts local bans on medicinal cannabis delivery, expanding patients’ access to legal, regulated cannabis products. This law will also take effect on 1/1/2024. Local jurisdictions that ban all cannabis delivery are in the process of changing their ordinances to comply with the new state law, with some confusion about what it requires. Cal NORML Legal Committee member Lauren Mendelsohn will be giving a presentation about SB 1186 at the Cal NORML Legal Seminar on January 20, 2024.

We are also working to raise awareness about a 2022 Cal NORML-sponsored bill, AB 1954 (Quirk), which is now law and protects the right of patients to medical treatment if they use marijuana, and the right of physicians and clinics to treat them. Many physicians are under the mistaken impression that they can’t prescribe medication to patients who test positive for cannabis. In California, many health plans, health systems, and hospitals require patients to sign agreements not to use illicit or controlled substances for the duration of their prescribed opioid treatment and agree to drug testing.

AB 1954 specifies that a positive drug test for cannabis should not in itself be the sole basis for denying medical treatment to a patient absent a medically significant reason. It became law on January 1, 2023. Read more.

Cal NORML has also been watchdogging implementation of these bills:

• AB 1706 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Oakland), ensuring that Californians with old cannabis-related convictions will finally have those convictions sealed. DOJ reports that while 212,344 of eligible past cannabis convictions have been cleared by county courts, 8% of cases eligible for resentencing—numbering 15,306—still have not been cleared at the local level, as was required by July 1. DOJ says it will continue to work towards compliance at the county level. Read more.

• AB 2595 by Asm. Reggie Jones-Sawyer (Los Angeles) to require the State Department of Social Services to treat a parent’s use of cannabis in the same manner as alcohol or legally prescribed medication. As of this writing, DHS still has not issued instructions to case workers, as required by the law. We will continue to press for this to happen and hope to support further legislation in this area next year.

CAL NORML’S PRIORITIES FOR 2024

• Advocate for lowering cannabis taxes in California, especially for medical users.
• Inform workers and employers about their rights under AB 2188 to off-the-job use of cannnabis.
• Support opening more cannabis consumption lounges and allow them to serve food and beverages.
• Advocate for extending SB 34, allowing compassionate donations of medical cannabis.
• Support better consumer education on cannabis dosage and high-potency products.
• Support more accurate / improved product testing and labeling.
• Support parental rights for cannabis users, and end drug testing of newborns and their mothers.
• Oppose policies that would unduly limit consumer choice or restrict personal use and cultivation.
• Lobby Congress for federal descheduling, the SAFER banking act, and other reforms.

PLEASE SUPPORT CAL NORML IN 2024

Now is the time to build on the progress we made in 2023! Please support Cal NORML with a membership donation. Click Here to Donate or see our Cal NORML store and purchase merchandise.

Giving Tuesday / End of Year Special: Get a Free Gift with Your Cal NORML membership through 12/31/23.

DOWNLOAD A FLYER ABOUT CANNABIS CONSUMPTION LOUNGES IN CALIFORNIA.

See a List of Cannabis Consumption Lounges in California. 

Also see: Cannabis Consumption Lounges: Mitigating Risks
Information about opening and operating a consumption lounge from Cal NORML board member and attorney Lauren Mendelsohn.

CANNABIS CONSUMPTION SPACES ARE NEEDED IN CALIFORNIA 

While it’s legal for adults and medical patients to possess and grow marijuana in California, using it can be a problem.  Unlike tobacco or alcohol, cannabis is illegal to consume in any public place – even in edible form.  That leaves only private establishments and residences as places to enjoy a product made legal by California voters in 2016.

Smoking and vaping are even more problematic. Under current law, they are legal only where tobacco smoking is permitted.  That rules out all private indoor meeting rooms, restaurants, clubs, hotels, convention centers, etc.;  also any businesses with liquor permits.  Some California cities have even gone so far as to pass “no-smoking” bans in multi-unit dwellings, effectively depriving private apartment residents of any legal place to inhale, even for medical purposes.

California cannabis consumers are accordingly in need of more legal spaces where they can socialize and partake.  To this end, state law allows local governments to let licensed dispensaries open “consumption lounges,” where patrons can smoke or otherwise consume marijuana as in Amsterdam’s famous coffee shops. A score of such establishments have opened across California, with local approval and public safety measures in place.

Under current law, such lounges can only serve cannabis and pre-packaged foods.  In 2023 AB 374 by Asm. Matt Haney (San Francisco), which would have authorize local governments to let licensed consumption lounges prepare and sell fresh food and beverages, as well as tickets for events, was vetoed by Gov. Newsom, who invited the author to re-submit it next year with protections for workers against second-hand smoke. Public health groups voiced opposition on the spurious grounds that secondhand marijuana smoke is as dangerous as tobacco smoke, and would therefore expose workers to unacceptable health risks. Of course, it might well be asked why workers at cannabis lounges would object to smelling marijuana smoke in the first place; many might well welcome the opportunity. As in the case of commercial kitchens, workers can be protected by reasonable ventilation measures.

CANNABIS SMOKE IS NOT TOBACCO SMOKE

The scientific evidence is clear that marijuana smoke is not as dangerous as tobacco smoke.  This might seem surprising, since marijuana and tobacco smoke share chemical similarities.  Both are produced by the combustion of dried leaf,  which produces numerous known carcinogens and toxins,  such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, et al.    Yet longitudinal studies of human subjects have found that marijuana smoking, unlike tobacco, does NOT cause lung or respiratory cancers, even in long-term heavy users.  [“Cannabis Exposure and Lung Health”].

There are various explanations as to why this is so.  First of all, marijuana users typically smoke far less than cigarette smokers  – on the order of a half gram or two per day,  versus twenty grams for one pack of cigarettes.  Secondly, there are significant chemical differences between cannabinoids and nicotine:  tobacco contains potent nicotine-related carcinogens not found in cannabis, while cannabinoids have distinctive anti-carcinogenic properties.[1]  There may also be differences in how the two kinds of smoke are absorbed by the lungs.  It is notable that the odor of marijuana typically clears the room the next day, while nicotine leaves a lingering, stale odor.

An exhaustive review of the health effects of marijuana by the National Academy of Sciences,  accordingly found “no statistical association between cannabis smoking and the incidence of lung cancer.”[2] Other studies have failed to find evidence that cannabis smoking is a significant risk factor in emphysema[3] or cardiovascular disease.[4]

Given that first-hand smoking of marijuana doesn’t cause lung cancer or other serious tobacco-related diseases,  it’s all the less likely that second-hand smoking does.   This is not to deny that marijuana smoke can be irritating, especially to asthmatics and smoke-sensitive subjects.  Chronic pot smoking has been linked to increased risk of bronchitis and infections.   It’s therefore essential that non-smokers have the right to be protected from second-hand smoke of all kinds, and that consumption spaces be well insulated from neighbors.

Some anti-smoking purists have suggested that consumption lounges only serve edibles.  However, edibles are not conducive to social use, since they require a lengthy time to take effect, and they are particularly likely to invite overdoses.

VAPORIZATION IS HARM REDUCTION

On the other hand, the hazards of smoke inhalation can be virtually eliminated by smokeless vaporizers and e-cigarettes.   Vaporizers heat cannabis to a temperature below the point of combustion where smoke toxins and carcinogens form, producing an effectively smokeless stream of cannabinoid and terpenoid vapors.   This effectively eliminates toxic particulates and gases, which derive from the 80% of the plant which doesn’t consist of active ingredients (THC and terpenoids).

Vaporizers come in two types.  Herbal vaporizers heat raw leaf and buds to the point where they produce vapor but don’t burn and produce toxic compounds (about 180-200° C).  Herbal vaporizers have been shown to eliminate virtually all of the carcinogens produced in marijuana smoke,[5] and have proven to be a “safe and effective” delivery method in medical cannabis studies.[6]

Vape pens or e-cigs produce vapor from concentrated cannabis oils, which are distilled to eliminate non-active constituents of the plant.  Vape cartridges typically contain very high concentrations of THC (~80%+),  but are designed to deliver it in modest dosages per puff like a regular joint.   As a result, users obtain a moderate dose of THC and terpenoids with virtually no smoke contaminants. Vaping THC concentrate was shown to eliminate over 99.9% of the cancer risk of smoking in a lab study of e-cigs,[7]

It is important to note that the safety of vape concentrates depends on their purity.  An epidemic of fatal EVALI lung disease was caused in 2019-20 by vape concentrates from the underground market which contained a toxic additive to make them vaporize better.  No problems were reported with California-regulated vapes.  Subsequent improvements in technology have since eliminated the need for additives. Most vape concentrates now consist of virtually pure cannabinoids and terpenoids.

Vaporizers have further advantages in reducing second-hand smoke.   Unlike cigarettes and pipes, they emit vapor only while users inhale, eliminating the sidestream smoke generated by burning cigarettes.  They likewise eliminate the need for lighters, matches, and ashtrays.

CONCLUSIONS

State-funded anti-tobacco groups have misinformed Californians that second-hand marijuana smoke and vapes pose the same harms as tobacco cigarettes.   This notion is false.  The scientific evidence clearly shows that marijuana is safer than tobacco, and vaporization is safer than smoking.  Not a single epidemiological study has shown that second-hand marijuana smoke, much less vapor, is a workplace exposure hazard.

There is no reason that California cannot accommodate safe social consumption spaces for marijuana use while protecting non-users from unwanted smoke exposure.   As in the case of commercial kitchens, which also produce smoke, workers can be protected by reasonable ventilation measures.  Consumption lounges have a long history in Amsterdam as well as San Francisco, where the S.F. Cannabis Buyers’ Club offered over 10,000 medical patients a safe place to medicate and socialize in the days before Prop. 64.[8]

California NORML advocates the expansion of consumption spaces not only for consumers and medical users, but also visitors in search of a safe and friendly place to inhale.

See a List of Cannabis Consumption Lounges in California. 

Also see: Cannabis Consumption Lounges: Mitigating Risks
Information about opening and operating a consumption lounge from Cal NORML board member and attorney Lauren Mendelsohn.

REFERENCES

[1] Melamede R. “Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic,” Harm Reduction Journal 21  (2005).

[2] National Academy of Sciences,  The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids (2017), p. 143.

[3] Ware, M. “Cannabis and the Lung: No More Smoking Gun?” and Tashkin DP “Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung.” Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013; Vol. 10, Issue 3.

[4] Theerasuwipakorn N et al, “Cannabis and adverse cardiovascular events,” Toxicol Rep. 2023; 10: 537-43 10.1016/j.toxrep.2023.04.011;

Ravi D et al. “Association Between Marijuana Use and Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Outcomes,” Ann Intern Med. 2018 Feb 168(3): 187-94 10.7326/M17-1548.

[5] Gieringer D et al:  “Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds,” Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 4 (1) 2004.

[6] Abrams D et al, “Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study,”  Clin. Pharm. & Ther. April 2007.

[7] Meehan-Atrash J et al., “Aerosol Gas-Phase Components from Cannabis E-Cigarettes and Dabbing: Mechanistic Insight and Quantitative Risk Analysis,” ACS Omega Sept 16, 2019.

[8] Feldman HW, Mandel J, “Providing medical marijuana: the importance of cannabis clubs,” J Psychoactive Drugs 1998 30(2) 179-86.

UPDATES

2/11/2024: We would like to hear from people who have benefited—e.g. gotten a job or qualified for education or housing—because their marijuana criminal records have been expunged​. A journalist has contacted us who is trying to measure the impact expungement has had. Anonymity guaranteed if requested. Reply here.​

10/4/2023: A new report from the Last Prisoner Project gives A grades to only two states, California and Minnesota, judging from their legalization laws and resentencing policies on past marijuana crimes.

The LPP report notes that CA has failed to meet its expungement/resentencing deadline of July 1, 2023. Indeed, according to the latest DOJ report issued on July 10, while 212,344 of eligible past cannabis convictions have been cleared by county courts, 8% of cases eligible for resentencing, numbering 15,306, still have not been cleared at the local level.

An additional 6,292 cannabis cases were cleared since the DOJ’s last quarterly report in April, notably in Alameda county, which cleared 2,028 cases by July 10, leaving only 52 cases unaddressed. San Bernardino county cleared an additional 2,806 cases to bring its percentage cleared up to 92%, with an additional 911 cases yet to be addressed. Orange County also made progress since April, clearing 841 additional cases, leaving a gap of 3,211 cases.

Kern county is making steady progress, clearing another 213 cases by July with 95% of cases cleared. Amador and Humboldt cleared 116 and 164 cases respectively, but their percentages cleared remain at 70%. Several counties cleared no cases or very few since April, with Imperial county remaining the biggest offender with only 14.6% of its cases cleared, Marin at only 38.8%, Trinity at 51.8% and San Joaquin at 59.5%. Los Angeles has cleared over 65,000 convictions, with 2,232 yet to be cleared.

The DOJ report says the agency will continue to work with California’s counties towards compliance.

7/5/23: Thanks to the excellent (as always) reporting by Marijuana Moment, some of these figures and tables have been revised from an earlier release.

California’s Attorney General has issued a second report on statewide expungements for marijuana crimes, reporting on county compliance through April 6, 2023 and finding that 206,052 of an estimated 227,650 potential resentencing/dismissals have happened statewide. That number is up from 197,205 in the March report, with 8,847 convictions sealed in 2023 and 21,598 still waiting to be sealed as of April.

Six counties (Alpine, Lake, Mono, San Luis Obispo, Siskiyou, and Shasta) were in full compliance as of April, according to the DOJ, with San Francisco and a few others nearly in compliance with only a few outstanding cases. San Diego brought its compliance rate up to 99.3% by sealing 1,506 cases this year so far; a remaining 190 have not been reported sealed. Los Angeles county had no reported sealed cases in 2023; it has 2,226 yet to be acted on.

Some other counties aren’t making much progress this year, notably Orange County with 4,052 convictions yet to be addressed by April, San Bernardino with 3,717, and Alameda with 2,080. Marked progress was seen in El Dorado, Kern, Madera, Napa, Riverside, Sacramento, and Sutter counties, with small gains in other counties. Imperial County brings up the rear with only 14.6% compliance, clearing only 258 of its potential 1,767 convictions, followed by Amador (31.1%), Marin (38.8%), Trinity (47.6%), San Joaquin (59.1%). Humboldt was only at 61% compliance, but has cleared 272 convictions this year. (See Table below).

Under state law, all counties must comply fully by July 1, 2023. The next quarterly AG’s report on compliance is due in September. The AG is also charged with informing the public about the new law and its progress.

Beginning July 1, 2023, California Senate Bill 731 (SB 731) makes criminal record sealing available for a defendant convicted of a felony on or after January 1, 2005, if the defendant completes all terms of incarceration, probation, supervision, and parole and is not convicted of a new felony offense for four years.

4/23: As mandated by last year’s bill AB 1706 (Bonta), the DOJ has issued its first report on county-by-county compliance with sending their expungement data to DOJ.

The report is current through January 1 and shows that many counties still had not complied with the law by that date, or had only partially done so. The Last Prisoner Project has produced a map of the counties and their compliance rates, based on the DOJ report. It shows for example that as of January 1, Orange County was only 48% compliant, Alameda County only 56%, Marin 15%, and Humboldt only 14%. See LPP’s landing page on expungement

Under AB 1706, counties had until March 1, 2023 to send in their cases to be resentenced or cleared, but this is not reflected in the DOJ report, which only goes through January 1. The next DOJ report on county compliance is due in June, and DOJ has until July to actually clear past marijuana convictions, based on county data.

9/22: Asm. Mia Bonta’s bill AB 1706 to expedite clearing of marijuana records in California has been signed into law.

12/21: AG Bonta Pledges DOJ Help to Clear Past Marijuana Convictions in California

1/22: LA Times: California was supposed to clear cannabis convictions. Tens of thousands are still languishing

10/21: Why Is California Failing Thousands of People With Cannabis Records?
(The lede seems to say that a deadline has passed to clear records; in fact, as the article says further down, the courts still have no deadline to act.)

Marin County DA drops, reduces 500 cannabis cases
People with past marijuana convictions in Marin County can check their eligibility for expungement by reaching Marin’s Assistant District Attorney Otis Bruce at (415) 473-6450.

9/21: Los Angeles District Attorney to Vacate Some 60,000 Marijuana Convictions

6/21: California’s Expungement Battle: What’s Working & What’s Not in the Fight for Cannabis Record Clearance
In a statement provided to Ember, Attorney General Bonta noted that “too many Californians have been treated unfairly as a result of the many broken parts of our criminal justice system. They deserve more justice, more humanity, and a second chance.” He added that AB-1793 “is a bill that seeks to right a historic wrong,” and that he is “excited to play a role in seeing through as Attorney General.”

“The California Department of Justice and local agencies have been hard at work since the law’s passage in 2018, but there’s much still to be done,” he added. “As the People’s Attorney, I will do all I can to ensure all those with qualifying cannabis-related convictions have their records dismissed, sealed, or redesignated.”

Watch Cal NORML’s April 7, 2021 Zoom meeting with Alia Toran-Burrell, Associate Program Director, Criminal Justice at Code for America.

UPDATE 3/21: Code for America reports that half of California counties have used their Clear My Record tool, resulting in 140,000 past marijuana convictions identified as qualifying for being reduced or dismissed. In addition to the government-facing application, Clear My Record has also created a user-facing app that helps residents in 14 California counties find attorneys to help with the petition process to clear records. (Those counties are: Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Marin, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Ventura & Yolo. Cal NORML’s legal committee attorneys can also help with expungement processes.

Code for America recommends that someone who thinks they have an eligible conviction (to be automatically cleared) contact the DA or public defender in the county in which their conviction is to see whether their conviction has been identified by the DA to be automatically cleared. They’ll then have to confirm with that county court the status of that cleared conviction (i.e. has it already been cleared by the court, is it in the process of being cleared, etc.)

Thousand of marijuana convictions officially reduced, others dismissed in San Diego County
Excerpt: With the wave of a pen by a Superior Court judge, nearly 26,000 people with felony marijuana convictions on their records had them reduced to less-onerous misdemeanor convictions last month. In addition some 1,000 people with misdemeanor marijuana convictions had those cases completely dismissed. The moves came in a three-page order signed by San Diego Superior Court Judge Eugenia Eyherabide on Feb. 5. 

While the charges have been altered it may take some time to update individual court records to reflect the changes and the court system is now working through those logistics. The Public Defender’s Office through its Fresh Start program can help people clearing their records, said Deputy Public Defender Kate Braner. Though Eyherabide’s order took effect immediately, the lag time to update individual records could cause problems for people who undergo background checks or license or checks for certain licenses that rely on scouring court records. That program can be contacted at Fresh.Start@sdcounty.gov.

A follow-up story from the same reporter found that of the 5000 cases eligible for resentencing or dismissal announced by the San Diego city attorney, only 500 have qualified for action. 

UPDATE 1/21: Four years later, California courts are failing on key promise of marijuana legalization – Sacramento Bee Editorial Board
Excerpt: Today, thousands of Californians could still be rejected by an employer, denied a loan, disqualified from housing or deemed ineligible for public benefits because of marijuana convictions that remain on their records. Under state law, such convictions should have been removed.

Assembly Bill 1793, authored by Democrat Rob Bonta of Alameda, was designed to help affected Californians clear their records. The bill created an automatic expungement process that gave the state Department of Justice and local prosecutors until last July to reduce, dismiss or contest marijuana convictions.

Unfortunately, courts in most of California’s 58 counties — which must take the step of clearing old convictions before the process is complete — were given no such deadline and have not prioritized the issue. Now, as many as 113,000 residents may still have marijuana convictions on their record in the court system. This is an inexcusable failure by California’s justice system.

June 28, 2020 – Proposition 64 (the Adult Use of Marijuana Act or AUMA), which California voters passed in November 2016, allowed people with past marijuana convictions to petition the court for expungement or resentencing. AB 1793 (Bonta), to automatically expunge or resentence certain past marijuana crimes without requiring the filing of a petition, passed and was signed into law in 2018, and is codified as Ca Health & Safety Code 11361.9.

Under the new state law, the state Department of Justice identified past convictions that are potentially eligible for recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation pursuant to Section 11361.8. The DOJ notified county District Attorneys of all cases in their jurisdiction that are eligible, and the prosecutors had until July 1, 2020 to review all cases and inform the court and the public defender’s office in their county that they are challenging a particular case.

The law states, “If the prosecution does not challenge the recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation by July 1, 2020, the court shall reduce or dismiss the conviction pursuant to Section 11361.8. The court shall notify the DOJ and the department shall modify the state summary criminal history information database accordingly….The DOJ shall post general information on its Internet Web site about the recall or dismissal of sentences, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation authorized in this section.”

HOW ARE COUNTIES COMPLYING?

Even before the state law took effect, SF District Attorney George Gascon announced in February 2019 he would release over 9,000 past marijuana convictions for resentencing or expungement. After Gascon challenged Los Angeles DA Jackie Lacey for re-election, she announced LA will move to expunge 66,000 past convictions.

In Santa Clara County, a judge has already signed off on more than 13,000 marijuana convictions, affecting more than 9,000 people, well more than the 3,068 cases released by DOJ. Santa Cruz county’s DA announced he would release 1,169 marijuana cases involving 1,085 defendants, fewer than the 2,187 DOJ-released number.

Cal NORML legal committee attorneys Bill Panzer and Omar Figueroa point out that some marijuana crimes are still being charged as felonies, or not expunged, under Health and Safety Codes 11366 [maintaining a place] & § 11366.5 [storing], along with Penal Code Sections 182 [conspiracy], and 32 [accessory after the fact], not to mention civil asset forfeiture over marijuana. The DOJ sent a supplemental list of marijuana cases under these codes plus PC 644 [attempted crime], citing People v. Medina, which says a court has discretion in resentencing  marijuana conspiracy crimes (while refusing to do so for defendant Medina, who had prior convictions and pleaded guilty to possession 35 pounds for sale). Another case, People v. Boatright allowed resentencing for marijuana cultivation despite 4 grams of methamphetamine being found on the site.

Humboldt County‘s DA chose to include H&SC 11366 & 11366.5 violations in releasing cases to the court; however, she released only half the number cases identified by DOJ. By contrast, Mendocino‘s DA released three times as many cases as DOJ found, using his own computer program to find eligible cases.

The Orange County Register reported that the LA DA’s is challenging 2,142 convictions flagged by the DOJ. Under the law, the public defender’s office, upon receiving notice from the DA, shall “make a reasonable effort to notify the person whose resentencing or dismissal is being challenged.” If the prosecution does not challenge the recall or dismissal of sentence, “the court shall notify the department [of justice],” which “shall post general information on its Internet Web site about the recall or dismissal of sentences, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation authorized in this section.”

Contra Costa County, which released cases for resentencing in January, has set up an email address where people may write to find out if their case is among those sent to the court. Sonoma County says, “To find out if your record has been cleared, contact the Law Offices of the Sonoma County Public Defender or the Sonoma County Superior Court.” The DOJ says, “If you are looking for information regarding a past conviction and want to know if the prosecuting agency is reviewing your case, please contact either the district attorney’s office or the public defender’s office in the county of conviction.” You can also request your own criminal record.

Below is a table with the number of past convictions released to each county by the DOJ, with links to their status (as we know it).

View and Download this information as a Fact Sheet

Download a Fact Sheet for Employers

Starting on January 1, 2024, most Californians are protected by a Cal NORML-sponsored bill (AB 2188 – GC 12954) which states that employers may not refuse to hire, fire, or penalize an employee based on the results of hair or urine tests for marijuana. Employees may not be impaired by cannabis on the job, and may be subject to an oral swab or blood test. Federal employees and those in the construction trades are not protected.

The law prohibits employers from discriminating against hiring, or terminating, a person who has tested positive for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites in their urine, hair, or bodily fluids. It also allows employees who have experienced discrimination on the basis of testing positive for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites, to institute civil action for damages and other relief against their employers.

The law does not interfere with employers’ right to maintain a drug-free workplace. It allows for other kinds of tests that can indicate actual impairment on the job, such as computer-based performance tests, and chemical tests for active THC in oral fluid or blood that are a better indicator of recent use. Not protected by the law are workers in the construction trades, and employees subject to federal drug-testing rules, like commercial truck drivers.

Companies (e.g. hospitals) that accept federal grants or funding are often required to follow the Drug-Free Workplace Act, but this does not require drug testing, only disallowing drug use on the job. The federal government has approved oral swab testing to replace urine testing for truck drivers and other federal workers, but has not yet approved any labs to process oral swab tests. Many major-drug testing companies are offering oral swab tests, which are less invasive than urine or hair tests.

Metabolite tests don’t detect actual impairment, but rather the presence of non-psychoactive cannabis residues that stay in the system days and weeks after use, long after effects have faded. Numerous studies have found that workers who test positive for metabolites have no higher risk of workplace accidents. Depending on their sensitivity, oral fluid and blood tests detect the presence of THC for only a few hours, or possibly up to one day. While they still don’t prove impairment, by detecting cannabis use within a more narrow window, they are a more reasonable and useful alternative to metabolite testing.

Testing or threatening to test bodily fluids for cannabis metabolites has been the most common way that employers harass and discriminate against employees who lawfully use cannabis in the privacy of their own homes. Studies have shown that black people are over twice as likely as white people to be reprimanded or fired for failing drug tests.

A 2023 bill, SB 700 (Bradford), has been signed into law also took effect on January 1, 2024. It bars most employers from from asking job applicants about their past marijuana use. An exception in the law allows employer is permitted to consider or inquire about that information as part of a criminal background check under Govt Code Section 12952, or other state or federal law.

Those who have been discriminated against due to off-the-job cannabis use, whether via pre-employment screening, or being disciplined or fired as an employee, can complain to the CA Civil Rights Department, and should also contact Cal NORML to make a complaint and possibly be connected with a private attorney who could help file a claim

DOWNLOAD A FLYER ABOUT CANNABIS CONSUMERS’ EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA

ALSO SEE:

9/18/2022 – Gov. Newsom Signs Bill to Protect Employment Rights of Cannabis Consumers, Other Reform Measures

9/1/2022 – California Legislature Passes Bill to Protect Rights of Workers Who Use Cannabis Off the Job

11/9/2021 – Oakland Public Safety Committee Votes to Prohibit Cannabis Metabolites Testing of City Employees

10/12/21 – LA COUNCILMEMBER RAMAN INTRODUCES RESOLUTION SUPPORTING EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOR CANNABIS USERS

7/6/2021 – Oakland City Council and SF Board of Supervisors Approve Resolutions to Support Employment Rights for Cannabis Users