Pubdate: Tue, 28 May 2013
Source: Los Angeles Daily News (CA)
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
Contact: http://www.dailynews.com/writealetter
Website: http://www.dailynews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/246
Author: Andrew Edwards

CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS CONSIDERING NEW RULES FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom