A pair of bills that would
enhance the legal standing of medical marijuana providers have advanced
in the Legislature following this month’s landmark court ruling that
affirmed the rights of local governments to ban dispensaries.
The bills are two components of the ongoing and often passionate
arguments between Californians who support brick-and-mortar marijuana
dispensaries and those who oppose such storefront operations as "pot
shops" that often provide marijuana to people lacking serious medical
problems.
On one side, two of the Legislature’s leading Democrats are backing
the bills in the face of opposition from Republicans and law enforcement
leaders. The California Police Chief’s Association has pledged to
oppose the bills, which would create new regulations and protections for
medical marijuana providers within state law. The federal government’s
ban on marijuana would remain in force.
The more ambitious of the two bills, from San Francisco Assemblyman
Tom Ammiano, passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Friday.
Ammiano’s bill would establish Division of Medical Marijuana Regulation
within the state’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The new
bureaucracy would have power to set standards for growing, transporting
and selling medical marijuana. Providers would be able to register with
the state and marijuana products would be required to meet labeling and
quality standards.
The bill, A.B. 473, can now be considered by the entire Assembly.
"I think we’re turning a corner on marijuana regulation," Ammiano said in a statement Friday.
The second bill, from Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg,
would give marijuana collectives that operate according to the state
Attorney General’s guidelines immunity from prosecution for selling or
possessing marijuana. The bill would also allow dispensary operators and
employees to receive "reasonable compensation," but would not overturn
local governments’ power to ban dispensaries.
Steinberg’s bill, S.B. 439, passed a Senate floor vote on Monday over
opposition from the chamber’s Republican minority. A hearing date has
yet be scheduled in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, which Ammiano
chairs.
The California Police Chiefs Association will lobby against both
bills as they continue to move through the Legislature, said Kim Raney,
the group’s president.
Raney, chief of the Covina Police Department since 2001, said he and
other chiefs are concerned by the lack of clarity between the state law
and the federal prohibition of marijuana, as well as the ease of which
some people can obtain medical marijuana recommendations without
necessarily having serious medical conditions.
"If you’re going to have serious conversation about marijuana, in a
medical forum, it needs to be done through a legitimate medical
process," Raney said.
As opposed to Alcoholic Beverage Control, Raney said medical
marijuana policies could be better overseen by the state’s medical or
pharmacy boards, which respectively bear the responsibilities to license
and regulate physicians and pharmacists who practice in California.
Americans for Safe Access, which lobbies in support of medical
marijuana, is supporting both bills. The group would also prefer that
Alcoholic Beverage Control would not be the agency placed in charge of
medical marijuana regulation, although its reasons are different from
those of police chiefs.
Don Duncan, California director for Americans for Safe Access, said
Alcoholic Beverage Control is perceived as an enforcement-focused
agency. He suggested the state departments of Public Health or Consumer
Affairs as superior options.
"We don’t want to see it regulated like alcohol, or tobacco, because there are issues like patient rights," he said.
Although Duncan acknowledged he was unsure if the Legislature would
accept such a major amendment to Ammiano’s bill, he said he is
optimistic both bills will become law.
California’s medical marijuana laws have beset law enforcement and
patient advocates alike with several uncertainties since voters approved
Proposition. 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act in 1996.
That law exempted medical marijuana patients and their doctors from
punishment, and campaign supporters advocated for medicinal marijuana
use as a way to relieve the sufferings of patients suffering from
diseases like cancer, AIDS and glaucoma.
The 2004 Medical Marijuana Program made it possible for patients to
obtain identification cards and collectively grow marijuana with other
patients and caregivers for medical purposes.
But state laws, however, did not provide a crystal clear definition
of what a proper medical marijuana collective would be. Confusion over
the law allowed numerous storefront dispensaries to establish themselves
over the past few years and even operate openly in cities where their
existence is illegal under local ordinances.
The state Supreme Court ruled early this month in a unanimous
decision that cities have an absolute right under existing law to forbid
dispensaries. In San Bernardino, for example, officials quickly
followed the ruling raiding and shutting down dispensaries.
In Los Angeles, by contrast, city voters decided in the May 21
election to allow the city to regulate and tax as many as 135
dispensaries. Although the measure would allow dispensaries to exist in
the state’s largest city, there are hundreds of other marijuana
providers who could be shuttered as a result of the ballot measure.
