California delves into details of regulating recreational marijuana
Should police officers be able to use a controversial spit test to see if they believe drivers are high?
Should billboards advertising pot shops be allowed on state highways?
Should marijuana business owners have to drive hundreds of miles with their trunks full of cash to pay their tax bills?
These are a few of the questions California legislators are attempting to tackle through an ever-increasing number of bills proposed since voters legalized recreational marijuana with Proposition 64 in November.
Prop. 64 was 62 pages long. And it combined elements of three lengthy bills approved in 2015 to start to overhaul Californias loosely regulated medical marijuana program. But state leaders say there are still too many conflicts between those two systems, too many loopholes left open, too many protections missing and too many details left vague.
Thats where clean-up legislation comes into play.
With the state aiming to issue licenses for both medical and recreational marijuana businesses by Jan. 1, 2018, expect much more of it to come over the next 11 months.
Heres a roundup of key cannabis-related legislation now pending before the California Senate and Assembly.
Whos behind it: Assemblyman Marc Steinorth, R-Rancho Cucamonga
What it would do: Make it illegal for anyone with a state license to distribute marijuana transporting it from growers and manufacturers to retailers to turn someone down for a job because they arent part of a union. The bill also states entrepreneurs applying for a business license cant be denied simply because they employ people who arent unionized.
The bill is aimed at preventing groups like the Teamsters, who represent much of the trucking world, from getting a monopoly on the industry, according to Brandon Ebeck, legislative director for Steinorth.
The Teamsters initially opposed Prop. 64, donating $25,000 to fight the initiative. But they soon changed their tune and opted to remain neutral, with one leader saying they were optimistic they could lobby legislators after the bill was passed to give their members a place in the regulated market.
Where it stands: Introduced Jan. 30; may be heard in committee March 2
Read the full bill and track it:leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Whos behind it: Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, with support from Board of Equalization Chair Fiona Ma
What it would do: Allow cannabis businesses to pay state taxes and fees in cash at multiple designated locations throughout the state, including county offices.
Major banks and credit card companies still wont service the industry since marijuana remains federally illegal. Cannabis business owners are then left dealing largely in cash, which means they often have to travel long distances carrying that cash to make payments to the Board of Equalization and other state agencies.
Under this bill, counties could opt to collect payments and forward them along to the appropriate state agency. And it would let the state tax collector also accept payments for other state agencies, expanding options for where business owners can settle their bills.
We need to make it as easy and safe as possible for cannabis business owners to pay their taxes and fees, and we should not force them to drive hundreds of miles with a trunkful of cash just to comply with the law, Wiener said in a statement.
Where it stands: Introduced Jan. 17; referred to the Committee on Governance and Finance
Read the full bill and track it:leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Whos behind it: Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg
What it would do: Prohibit marijuana businesses from using both the name of a California county or any name that appears similar to it unless their cannabis is produced in that county.
State law already says its illegal for marijuana products to use the name of a California county in the products labeling, marketing or packaging if the marijuana was not grown in that county. McGuires bill expands those prohibitions to include any similar sounding name that is likely to mislead consumers as to the origin of the product.
A similar battle was fought several years ago by the wine industry and it was resolved by legislation that prevented individuals and corporations from making marketing claims that werent true, or what we call alternative facts these days, McGuire said. This legislation is all about truth in labeling.
Where it stands: Introduced Jan. 23; waiting to be assigned to a committee, with action expected on or after Feb. 23
Read the full bill and track it:leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Whos behind it: Assemblymen Rob Bonta, D-Oakland; Ken Cooley, D-Rancho Cordova; Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles; Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale; and Jim Wood, D-Healdsburg
What it would do: Reconcile some of the differences between the states medical marijuana reform signed into law in 2015 and Prop. 64. Here are the key changes proposed.
Where it stands: Introduced Dec. 12; waiting to be assigned to a committee
Read the full bill and track it:leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Whos behind it: Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park
What it would do: Give leaders a path to introduce legislation that strengthens prohibitions on marketing recreational marijuana to children.
Where it stands: Introduced Jan. 4; waiting on referral to a committee
Read the full bill and track it:leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Whos behind it: Assemblyman Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale
What it would do: Add some accountability to annual state reports on cannabis licenses.
State law already requires every state agency issuing licenses to cannabis businesses to file an annual report thats posted online, listing information such as the number of licenses issued that year. This bill would require them to also include those reports the number of conditional licenses issued.
Where it stands: Introduced Jan. 17; waiting on referral to a committee
Read the full bill and track it:leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Whos behind it: Assemblyman Ed Chau ...
