Jul 162014

Senate Bill 1262 is a cannabis regulation bill under consideration by the state Legislature. Although a final vote is not yet scheduled, some cannabis advocates believe it has a good chance for passage.

This brief survey does not cover every aspect of SB 1262 in detail, but it does present some of the key elements. The final question on the survey asks whether FCA should take a position on the bill.

  5 Responses to “Take the FCA survey on Senate Bill 1262”

  1. Mmj is medical relief

  2. All the statements in this questionnaire should be added to this section but on my phone I don’t have ability to do that please note my concerns!!!

  3. The survey isn’t working on my tablet. The bill is tiresome for me 2 read it all and it will take me some time. How about a briefing? What I understand so far is no change where it is banned except about the doctors. Is this bill saying to tax also the patients who are growing their own meds?

    • Sorry about the tablet, but mobile devices don’t always play nice with iframes. There’s probably a cleaner way to do things, but I wanted to get the survey up quickly.

      As for a briefing, there’s no real way to be brief. It’s a big bill, the biggest since Senate Bill 420 was enacted in 2003. Lots of pieces to the puzzle, and maybe some of the pieces are missing.

      Here’s just a little of what we know:

      The bill would create a state Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation. Previous bills would have put this under Alcoholic Beverage Control or the Health Department, but this bureau lands under the state Department of Consumer Affairs. DCA does a lot of licensing-type things, from nurses to auto mechanics, so it’s not necessarily a bad place to be. The BMMR would draft state-level regulations to issue licenses for commercial cannabis growers, processors and distributors. Personal use and cultivation would be exempt from licensing requirements, but what’s “personal” and what’s not would be for BMMR to decide.

      As for local government, nothing in SB 1262 would limit their current authority to regulate or ban cannabis businesses. That same limitation became the Achilles’ heel of SB 420, as the Cali Supreme Court ruled in the Riverside case. Rather than fix the problem, SB 1262 would give additional authority to enact zoning bans and basically ignore whatever regs the BMMR comes up with. The likely result, as we’ve seen for 10 years under SB 420, is a crazy-quilt of “wet” and “dry” cities and counties, with most of the Central Valley already established as “dry.”

      There’s some good stuff, like applying state food-handling requirements to edibles, and at least a token stab at random testing of flowers and other cannabis products. Less exciting is a provision allowing counties to impose a cannabis tax, including taxes that would apply in incorporated cities. It’s really worth reading all the fine details, if only to spot those things that got left out.

  4. I haven’t read it all yet but I like the idea of licensing and quality standards. I think that would help put a stop to the grows for profit problem. Sheriff mims’ argument will weaken.

    I don’t want any dry area to get any of the money from fees n taxes and it appears that the fees are spent by the bureau. I’m assuming that the taxes go into general fund so the dry profits some from the wet. That’s not fair.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.