After 12 years of operating under little more legal guidance than an affirmative defense and a limited cooperative law with an iconic bill number, the workers of California’s booming medical marijuana industry appear poised to get their first set of comprehensive state regulations. Two regulating bills, AB 243 and SB 643, passed key committee votes in Sacramento over the past week, representing myriad efforts by state representatives to exercise what may be their last opportunity to influence state cannabis policy in advance of likely adult use legalization next year.
AB 243, introduced by Assemblymember Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg), passed a key vote of the Assembly Agriculture Committee on April 15th. The bill, which would create licensing requirements and water use regulations for medical marijuana farmers in the state, would represent the first time that Sacramento regulated cannabis under the Department of Agriculture like any other crop. Nevertheless, portions of the bill, especially a broadly-worded provision which could require individual patients and their caregivers to register with the state for permission to grow cannabis, have drawn opposition from groups such as Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and California NORML. At the April 15th hearing, Assemblymember Wood pledged to work with such groups on amending the controversial provisions of the bill. Dozens of concerned cannabis activists gave a strong showing of support at the bill’s hearing with all speakers expressing support for the basic idea of the bill, even while some expressed that they couldn’t support the specific language of the bill without amendments.
SB 643, introduced by Senator Mike McGuire (D-N. Coast), passed the Senate Business & Professions Committee by a 7-0 vote, with all seven Democratic members of the committee voting affirmatively and the committee’s sole Republican, Patricia Bates, expressing cautious support for the bill’s goals while abstaining from voting on its specific language. Like AB 243, SB 643 would create a comprehensive statewide licensing system for medical cannabis growers and providers — but unlike SB 243’s current wording, it would not impose the requirement on individual patients and caregivers. California NORML, ASA and the Emerald Growers Association all expressed support for the bill, provided that it were amended to ease certain restrictions for licensees.
The $64,000 question lurking behind these legislative successes is: will this time be different? After all, Sacramento also attempted to regulate the medical marijuana industry in its last session with SB 1262, a relatively restrictive bill endorsed by state police groups and the League of Cities which would have vested broad authority in local jurisdictions to limit dispensaries and farms within their city and county limits. 1262 died a narrow death, but the kinds of broad political coalitions now emerging behind 243 and 643 may lend a sense of hope; the AB 243 received endorsements from the Emerald Grower’s Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the League of Cities and (given amendments) California NORML.
These are strange political alliances forged, perhaps, by a sense of legislative urgency. Legalization is probably coming to the Golden State next year, so the 2015 legislative session may be the last chance the politicians of Sacramento will get to influence the state conversation over cannabis regulations in advance of what will likely be a big disruption to state policy. While no one knows what policy may ultimately prevail, it is looking likelier than ever that regulation is coming to the wild, wild west.