SB 439 Cleared the Senate

[mojave green]

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478

SB 439​

 ​

THIRD READING​

 ​

Bill No: SB 439
Author: Steinberg (D) and Leno (D)
Amended: 4/1/13
Vote: 21



SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/30/13
AYES: Hancock, Block, De León, Liu, Steinberg
NOES: Anderson, Knight



SUBJECT: Medical marijuana

SOURCE: Author



DIGEST: This bill provides that a cooperative, collective or other business entity that operates within the Attorney General’s “Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use” (guidelines) will not be subject to prosecution for marijuana possession or commerce, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, includes the following purposes:

A. To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where such use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician for treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.

B. To ensure that patients and primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution.

C. To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.

2. The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, also provides:

A. The act shall not be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, or to condone the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes.

B. No physician in California shall be punished or denied any right or privilege for recommending medical marijuana to a patient.

C. Penal laws relating to the possession of marijuana and the cultivation of marijuana shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.

3. Provides that qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under existing law.

4. Directs the Attorney General to develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of medical marijuana. Section IV of the guidelines concern collectives and cooperatives.

5. Prohibits any medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider who possess, cultivates, or distributes medical marijuana, as specified, from being located within 600 feet of a school. There are specified exceptions for medical or elder care facilities, local ordinances adopted prior to enactment of the state standard and for later adopted ordinances that are more restrictive than state law.

6. Allows cities or other local governing bodies to adopt and enforce local ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative or collective, as follows:

A. A local government entity may enforce a medical marijuana ordinance through civil or criminal remedies and actions.

B. A local government entity may enact other laws consistent with the Medical Marijuana Program, as specified.

This bill provides that for any medical marijuana collective, cooperative, or other business entities that comply with medical marijuana guidelines published by the Attorney General, the following shall apply:

1. The cooperative, collective or businesses entity, and the employees, officers and members thereof shall be exempt from criminal prosecution and nuisance abatement actions, as specified.

2. The fact that a cooperative, collective or businesses entity, including an employee, officer or member thereof, receives compensation for actual expenses for activities carried out within the guidelines published by the Attorney General shall not be subject to prosecution under Health and Safety Code Sections 11359 and 11360, relating to possessing, transporting or furnishing marijuana.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/3/13)

American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Norml
Drug Policy Alliance
Marijuana Policy Project
Mayor of Sacramento
Mayor of San Diego

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/3/13)

California Narcotics Officers’ Association
California Police Chiefs Association
International Faith Based Coalition

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:

The legality of medical marijuana collectives, cooperatives, and other related business entities is ambiguous under current state law, resulting in needless arrests and prosecutions. Local governments have banned collectives and cooperatives, rather than adopting reasonable regulations to protect public safety, prevent neighborhood nuisances, and provide for safe access for qualified patients and their primary caregivers.

Senate Bill 493 clarifies the legality of medical marijuana collectives, cooperatives, and other business entities that are organized and operated in compliance with the 2008 Attorney General “Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use.” Specifically, the bill provides that a cooperative, collective or other entity that operates within the Attorney General’s guidelines shall not be subject to prosecution for marijuana possession or commerce. Further, the entity and its employees, officers and members shall not be subject to prosecution 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 439 provides a focused solution that clarifies state law. This simple fix is compatible with, and may be enacted independently of, any other legislation that may provide a more comprehensive solution to state medical marijuana issues. While it is beyond our reach to resolve the conflict between federal and state law, we are still responsible for resolving existing ambiguities in state law that are within our power to fix.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Narcotic Officers Association and the California Police Chiefs Association state that this bill “will expand the distribution of what is classified under Proposition 215 as medical marijuana in California. Proposition 215 is very clear that marijuana may be cultivated or provided by qualified patients, or by caregivers. Proposition 215 did not authorize cultivation or distribution of marijuana by any other entities.

“Senate Bill 439 dramatically changes that state of affairs by evidently permitting ‘collectives, or cooperatives,’ which SB 439 permits to be ‘organized as any statutory business entity permitted under California law’ to engage in cultivation or distribution of so-called medical marijuana. The broad reference in Senate Bill 439 to ‘any statutory business entity’ carries with it the implication that medical marijuana may be cultivated and distributed for profit. This is a major expansion of Proposition 215 that is inconsistent with that original measure. In addition, state legislation permitting the sale of marijuana is in direct violation of federal law.

“The public safety consequences of permitting entire new classes of businesses to engage in medical marijuana sales - for profit - are serious. Currently medical marijuana dispensaries are a blight on neighborhoods and have been magnets for criminal activity. Law enforcement, with the assistance of the US Attorneys, has been successful in closing these dispensaries, but Senate Bill 439 would be aimed at giving legitimacy to these operations.”


JG:nl 5/3/13 Senate Floor Analyses

[FONT=&quot]SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE[/FONT]​

**** END ****​

 

[mojave green]

We are going to have another chance to do something about medical cannabis in Sacramento this year. SB 439 by Senate President Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Senator Mark Leno (D-SF) was approved by the Senate on May 20. That bill will clarify the scope of protection offered by the state’s medical cannabis laws and codifies guidelines published by the Attorney General in 2008. SB 439 will formally recognize the right of patients’ cooperatives and collectives to maintain storefront facilities (dispensaries) to provide medicine for members, expands protections to employees of patients’ associations, and recognizes that members buy their medicine from the associations. Substantial amendments – good and bad – are likely as the bill moves through the Assembly.
Let’s learn our lessons from AB 473 and do a better job of shaping and adopting SB 439. Speak up to your lawmakers about this bill, insist that everyone is included in the debate, and be reasonable about compromises that may be necessary to get where we need to go.

http://www.thedailychronic.net/2013...uana-regulation-bill-falls-short-in-assembly/

 

[mojave green]

at least it's not dead yet. here is the part that will be used against patients:
(f) Consistent with Section 11362.83, this section shall not prevent a local government from adopting or enforcing local ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a medical marijuana collective or cooperative.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml
if you grow outdoors they are going to heavily regulate and harass you. unfortunate because when done responsibly, that is the most eco friendly way to grow medicine. low profile indoor in outbuildings. that's what i say. don't give em reason to knock and talk. the feds have have already taken any kind of traceable money transactions out of the picture. stay low and slow. that's what i say.
stay safe and secure!

 

[mojave green]

Committee Hearing Date: 08/13/13

 

[Seal-Clubber]

(f) Consistent with Section 11362.83, this section shall not prevent a local government from adopting or enforcing local ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a medical marijuana collective or cooperative.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml

This conflicts with Health and Safety code 11362.77. It will go to the Supreme court and "The People" will lose. Example, "The People vs Kelly", Jan21st 2010. This ruling decided the "6 plant" limit was unconstitutional do to the fact it was in conflict with existing Health and Safety code 11362.77. Local officials would have to pay you $10,000/s in damages if they illegally destroy medicine.

Good luck, though!

 

[mojave green]

SB 439
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 13, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Richard Pan, Chair
SB 439 (Steinberg and Leno) – As Amended: August 5, 2013
SENATE VOTE: 22-12
SUBJECT: Medical marijuana.
SUMMARY: Exempts medical-marijuana (MM) collectives and cooperatives from criminal liability for possession, cultivation, possession for sale, sale, transport, importation, and furnishing marijuana, as well as, for maintaining a place, or knowingly providing a place for selling or furnishing marijuana. Clarifies Medical Board of California (MBC) enforcement of MM recommendations, what constitutes unprofessional conduct, and the bar on the corporate practice of medicine (CPM). Specifically, this bill:
1) Exempts MM collectives and cooperatives from criminal liability for possession, cultivation, possession for sale, sale, transport, importation, and furnishing marijuana. Also exempts collectives and cooperatives from criminal liability for maintaining a place, or knowingly providing a place for selling or furnishing marijuana.
2) Defines "collectives and cooperatives" as entities that operate within the terms of the Compassionate use Act of 1996 (also known as Proposition 215) and organized in compliance with the Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, issued by Attorney General (AG) Bill Lockyer in August 2008.
3) Authorizes a collective to be organized as any statutory business entity permitted under California law.
4) Specifies that collectives and cooperatives include the officers, members, and employees of those entities.
5) Clarifies that this bill does not prevent a local government from adopting or enforcing local ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a MM collective or cooperative.
6) Clarifies what constitutes professional misconduct on the part of a physician recommending marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
7) Clarifies that being employed by a cannabis clinic or dispensary to provide recommendations for MM would constitute CPM.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes the Compassionate Use Act, approved by voters as Proposition 215 of 1996, to provide the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician, and ensures that patients and their primary caregivers are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction. Protects
SB 439
Page 2
physicians from punishment for recommending marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
2) Prohibits 1) above from being construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, or to condone the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes.
3) Prohibits qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, from being solely on the basis of that fact subject to state criminal penalties under existing law.
4) Establishes the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) within the Department of Public Health (DPH) to provide a voluntary medical marijuana identification card (MMIC) issuance and registry program for qualified patients and their caregivers administered through a patient’s county of residence.
5) Prohibits any MM cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider who possesses, cultivates, or distributes MM, as specified, from being located within 600 feet of a school.
6) Authorizes MBC to ensure that physicians and surgeons representing the greatest threat are identified and disciplined expeditiously.
7) Provides that prescribing dispensing, or furnishing dangerous drugs without an appropriate prior examination and a medical indication, constitutes unprofessional conduct on the part of a physician.
8) Prohibits CPM.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill, as amended has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.
COMMENTS:
1) PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author there is currently no statewide oversight of the MM cooperatives or collectives in California and this has caused issues with the federal government and difficulties for local governments who may or may not want to have MM dispensaries in their communities. Patients and caregivers who obtain a state MMIC from their county health department are protected from state arrest and prosecution for possessing, transporting, delivering, or cultivating marijuana. But, patients and caregivers who engage in these activities remain liable for federal arrest and prosecution, and those who operate dispensaries face frequent federal enforcement actions.
2) BACKGROUND. The potential medicinal properties of marijuana have been the subject of substantive research and heated debate. Currently, marijuana is classified under the Federal Controlled Substances Act (FCSA) as a Schedule I controlled substance, meaning it is considered to have no medicinal value and high potential for abuse. According to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an evaluation by several federal agencies, including the FDA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, concluded that no sound scientific studies
SB 439
Page 3
supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the U.S. This finding conflicts with a review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which stated that scientists have confirmed that the cannabis plant contains active ingredients with therapeutic potential for relieving pain, controlling nausea, stimulating appetite, and decreasing ocular pressure. As a result, the IOM concluded that further clinical research on cannabinoid drugs and safe delivery systems was warranted. A 2008 position paper by the American College of Physicians (ACP) in support of research into the therapeutic role of marijuana states that a clear discord exists between the scientific community and federal legal and regulatory agencies over the medicinal value of marijuana, which impedes the expansion of research. The ACP maintains that the concern that marijuana is a “gateway” drug also hinders opportunities to evaluate its potential therapeutic benefits. However, the IOM review concluded that marijuana has not been proven to be the cause or even the most serious predictor of serious drug abuse. Additionally, the ACP points out that the data on marijuana’s role in illicit drug use progression only pertains to its nonmedical use.
3) PROPOSITION 215. In November 1996, Californians voted in favor of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, to ensure the right of patients to obtain and use marijuana in California to treat specified serious illnesses. Prop 215 protects physicians who appropriately recommend the use of marijuana to patients for medical purposes from criminal penalties; exempts qualified patients and their primary caregivers from state drug laws prohibiting possession and cultivation of marijuana; and, directs the state to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) specifically ruled on whether Prop 215 could decriminalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Gonzalez vs. Raich (2004) 125 S.Ct. 3195 held California could not exempt marijuana for medicinal use from the criminal possession statute and based its ruling on the idea that use of any commodity, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on the supply and demand in the national market for that commodity and, as a result, falls within interstate commerce. Additionally, SCOTUS ruled that the FCSA preempts any state attempt to decriminalize marijuana, meaning that federal agencies may enforce federal law in California, notwithstanding Proposition 215, but there is no requirement that state law enforcement assist in enforcement.
4) MMP. The MMP was authorized through SB 420 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 875, Statutes of 2003, to clarify provisions of Prop 215 and to create a MMIC program for medically qualified patients and their caregivers. The MMP began in May 2005 with three pilot counties and expanded statewide in August 2005. Currently, 56 of the state’s 58 counties participate. DPH reports that 6,194 cards have been issued in fiscal year (FY) 2012-13 (down from 7,801 in FY 2011-12), and the total number of cards issued to date is 69,030. The MMP allows law enforcement and the public to verify the validity of a qualified patient or caregiver’s card as authorization to possess, grow, transport, and/or use MM in California through a database of authorized cardholders available on DPH’s Internet Website.
Only patients or their legal representatives may apply for a card for themselves and/or their primary caregivers. The patient, or applicant, is a person diagnosed with a serious medical condition for which the medical use of marijuana is appropriate, including AIDS; anorexia; arthritis; cancer; chronic pain; glaucoma; migraine; spasms associated with multiple sclerosis; epileptic seizures; severe nausea; and, any other chronic or persistent medical condition that limits the ability of the patient to conduct one or more major life activities, or
SB 439
Page 4
if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient’s safety, physical, or mental health. When submitting an application for the MMIC, patients are responsible for providing proof of county residency, proof of identity, and a copy of written documentation from their physician stating that they have a serious medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana is appropriate, and for paying the requisite state and county administration fees. The MMIC is valid for one year, with certain exceptions.
5) MM DISPENSARIES. In August 2008, the AG issued guidelines for the security and non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use. The guidelines state that although MM dispensaries have been operating in California for years, dispensaries, as such, are not recognized under the law and the only recognized group entities are cooperatives and collectives that operate in accordance with the MMP and the AG guidelines. According to the guidelines, in order to operate legally, a collective or cooperative must show evidence that it is operating according to the following principles:
a) No individual or group may cultivate or distribute marijuana in a manner that generates profit;
b) Collectives should obtain all applicable local government permits and business license permits;
c) Collectives should maintain strict membership requirements and enforce the requirements using thorough applications and verification procedures;
d) Collectives should only possess and distribute marijuana that has been cultivated by patient or primary caregiver members;
e) Collectives must prohibit the sharing or sale of marijuana to non-members;
f) Collectives must operate securely and take measures to ensure the security of neighbors by taking care in the way marijuana and cash are handled and documented; and,
g) Collectives must ensure that primary caregivers are truly providing housing, health care, and other support indicating a relationship with a patient.
According to a 2010 report by the League of California Cities entitled “Medical Marijuana Facilities: Land Use Planning in a Sea of Uncertainty,” local governments throughout the state continue to struggle with public policy issues regarding the use, distribution, and regulation of marijuana. A number of cities and counties are embroiled in litigation. Some are engaged in philosophical debates involving the morality of drug availability and use, others are simply concerned about local land use controls. Some cities and counties have permanently banned dispensary operations in their communities, others have adopted temporary land use moratoria, and others, such as the City of Los Angeles, have adopted regulations permitting a limited number of dispensaries. Data from Americans for Safe Access indicate that a total of 193 cities and 20 counties in California have all banned MM dispensaries. An additional 72 cities and nine counties have imposed moratoriums while another 44 cities and 10 counties have passed ordinances to regulate them.
In October 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo announcing that it would no longer raid MM dispensaries that are established legally under state law. Specifically, the memo indicated that the prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks remained a core priority in the DOJ’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and that the DOJ’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be concentrated on these objectives.
SB 439
Page 5
6) SUPPORT. The American Civil Liberties Union of California (ACLU) supports this bill because under existing law, qualified patients, persons with a valid identification card, and primary care givers, are expressly exempted from criminal prosecution solely based on the possession or use of MM. (Health & Safety Code 11362.765 (a)). However, this section does not specify that collective, cooperatives, or other business entities operating in compliance with California law, are not subject to prosecution for sale or distribution of MM, often exposing these businesses to continued harassment by local officials. The ACLU states that this bill makes clear that collectives, cooperatives, or other lawfully operating business entities and their employees are not to be exposed to criminal penalties as a result of the sale or distribution of MM.
California NORML supports this bill because the lack of clarity in current law has been an ongoing cause of confusion for collectives and law enforcement alike, resulting in unnecessary litigation and conflict. In particular, federal authorities have cited California's lack of statewide rules to justify their disruptive and ill-targeted crackdown on some of the state's most reputable, locally regulated collectives.
Sacramento Mayor, Kevin Johnson, supports this bill, stating that it is critical that, 17 years after the passage of the Compassionate Use Act, the California Legislature resolve some of the biggest barriers to local implementation by establishing guidelines for MM.
7) OPPOSITION. The California Narcotic Officers' Association opposes this bill stating, there is a reason that over 200 cities have taken action to impose outright bans on marijuana dispensaries – they create significant public safety and quality of life problems in communities. Dispensaries have marijuana with high Tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana) content and cash on their premises (it's an all cash business). As such, they are magnets for robberies – which not infrequently turn violent. The California Police Chiefs Association also opposes this bill writing that there are many medical conditions for which marijuana is contra-indicated. For example, articles in peer reviewed medical publications have linked marijuana use to mental health issues such as schizophrenia, psychosis, depression, and anxiety. The California State Sheriffs' Association opposes this bill because they are concerned that the effect of this bill will be to expand the distribution of marijuana without providing sufficient safeguards against abuse.
The League of California Cities opposes this bill and is deeply concerned about any effort to limit local governments from bringing nuisance abatement actions, which are an indispensable tool of local land use authority. They state that in certain instances, nuisance abatement actions represent the only avenue available to locals to remedy or remove threats to public health and safety.
8) RELATED LEGISLATION. AB 473 (Ammiano) would have created the Division of Medical Marijuana Regulation and Enforcement in order to regulate the cultivation, manufacture, testing, transportation, distribution, and sale of MM. AB 473 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.
9) PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
a) AB 2312 (Ammiano), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have established the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Control Act, authorizing local taxes on medical
SB 439
Page 6
cannabis and would have created a board to regulate the medical cannabis industry. AB 2312 was referred to but never heard by the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development.
b) SB 1182 (Leno) of 2012 provided that a cooperative or collective and its operators and employees, operating within the AG's guidelines was not subject to prosecution for marijuana possession or commerce. SB 1182 failed passage on the Senate Floor.
c) AB 1300 (Blumenfield), Chapter 196, Statutes of 2011, allows a local government entity to enact an ordinance regulating the location, operation, or establishment of a MM cooperative or collective; authorizes local government entity to enforce such ordinances through civil or criminal remedies and actions; and authorizes a local government entity to enact any ordinance that is consistent with the MMP. AB 1300 did not directly regulate MM facilities.
d) SB 626 (Calderon), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, 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 marijuana and ensure proper regulation of the cultivation, transportation, and distribution of marijuana and marijuana products. SB 626 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee's Suspense File.
e) AB 390 (Ammiano), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, would have legalized the possession, sale, cultivation and other conduct relating to marijuana and required the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to administer and enforce the terms of legalized marijuana. AB 390 passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee, but was never heard by the Assembly Committee on Health.
f) SB 1098 (Migden), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, would have required the BOE to administer a tax amnesty program, as specified, for MM dispensaries, as defined. SB 1098 was never voted on by the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee.
g) SB 420 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 875, Statutes of 2003, established the MMP Act, a statewide, voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to identify persons authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana under the Compassionate Use Act.
h) Proposition 215, of the November 1996 General Election, prohibits prosecution for the possession and cultivation of cannabis by a patient or a patient's primary caregiver with a physician's written or oral recommendation or approval.
10) DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee on June 18, 2013, with a vote of 5-1.
11) SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS. In order to better clarify that the bar on CPM applies to physicians who are employed by cannabis clinics and dispensaries the author may wish to consider the following amendments:
a. On page 5, line 17 strike "including, but not limited to, engaging in the practice"
b. On page 5, strike line 18,
SB 439
Page 7
c. On page 5, line 19 strike, "clinic or dispensary,"
d. On page 5, between lines 21 and 22 insert: 2265. Entering into an agreement with a cannabis clinic or dispensary to provide recommendations for medical marijuana in violation of Section 2264 constitutes unprofessional conduct.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Kevin Johnson, Mayor, City of Sacramento
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California NORML
Crusaders for Patient's Rights
Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Marijuana Policy Project
Opposition
Patrick J. Kennedy, Member of Congress, Retired
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
City of Adelanto
City of Bakersfield
City of Clayton
City of Glendora
City of Highland
City of Ontario
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Mirage
City of South San Francisco
City of Upland
Inglewood Police Department
International Faith Based Coalition
Kevin A. Sabet, Drug Policy Advisor, Administration of President Barak Obama, Retired
League of California Cities
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office
Analysis Prepared by: Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097

 

[mojave green]

1. The cooperative, collective or businesses entity, and the employees, officers and members thereof shall be exempt from criminal prosecution and nuisance abatement actions, as specified.

as amended fuckers took out the nuisance abatement actions leaving redneck city/county governments to freely civil code your ass out of existence.

1) Exempts MM collectives and cooperatives from criminal liability for possession, cultivation, possession for sale, sale, transport, importation, and furnishing marijuana. Also exempts collectives and cooperatives from criminal liability for maintaining a place, or knowingly providing a place for selling or furnishing marijuana.

 

[mojave green]

withdrawn???

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

What ya mean withdrawn?

 

[mojave green]

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg’s SB 439, which would better regulate medical cannabis patients’ associations, has been withdrawn and its future is uncertain. The bill faced tough opposition from law enforcement lobbyists before a key committee hearing this week.

http://org.salsalabs.com/o/182/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1280833

 

[Seal-Clubber]

Fuck collectives and their 10,000 plants they want to charge 200$ per ounce!!!!... You CANT prevent a patient from growing their own medicine. The local laws for limiting personal grows and not collective grows is a fuck up the arse. Hell NO! they tried this shit last year and FAILED!

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

http://org.salsalabs.com/o/182/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1280833

Withdrawn/killed. Gotcha