Marijuana Regulation Bills Moving Through Legislature In California

Jacob Redmond

Well-Known Member
The two North Coast state legislators from the 2nd District - Sen. Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg) - have two medical marijuana bills under review by appropriations committees. These bills are independent from the five different marijuana ballot inititiatives currently plodding throught the state initiative process to qualify for the November 2016 election.

McGuire said the regulations included in his bill - Senate Bill 643 - should have been implemented by the state Legislature after medical marijuana was legalized in 1996 with the passage of Proposition 215.

“I’ve got to say, this legislation has been receiving significant support and we’re grateful for that,” McGuire said. “We’re working hard to ensure its success. ... This legislation is almost two decades too late, and we are grateful for everyone involved in these discussions.”

McGuire’s bill would create a Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation within a state department that would be charged with regulating dispensaries, cultivation sites, transportation, manufacturing, and environmental impacts relating to medical marijuana grows. The bill would require cultivators and medical marijuana facility owners to obtain conditional licenses that would include restrictions based on existing regulations within their local jurisdictions.

While McGuire’s original draft called for the bureau to be within the Department of Consumer Affairs, he said that the bill is being amended to have a different department house it.

“We need to make this as simple as possible and having one department overseeing the industry is critical to this legislation’s success,” McGuire said. “The Senate Business and Professions Committee has concerns about (the Department of Consumer Affairs) because they have a significant workload on their regulatory affairs side. We respect that. That’s why we’re currently working with all involved with this legislation to identify the most appropriate department to house this enforcement activity.”

McGuire’s bill would also set up a Medical Marijuana Regulation Fund where required fees would be deposited, which would be used by the bureau to enforce the provisions of the bill. The fund would also include a special account just for environmental enforcement that would collect fees from licensed cultivation sites.

“We believe this will be an expense-neutral bill, meaning that the fees associated with the enforcement will minus out any of the costs, which is extremely positive,” McGuire said. “The cost of regulating this growing industry is significant both on the local as well as on the statewide level. One of the areas of focus of this bill is ensuring that city, county and state governments can recoup the costs related to enforcement in the medical marijuana community.”

SB 643 is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee with McGuire expecting the bill to be on the Senate floor in the next week or two. As to how much the bill would cost to enforce will also be determined within the next week, according to McGuire.

A similar but separate bill authored by Wood - Assembly Bill 243 or the Marijuana Watershed Protection Act - is currently in review by the State Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 243 would require certain cultivators to obtain a permit from either their local jurisdiction or the state setting restrictions on both indoor and outdoor cultivation. Among the regulations the bill proposes are fencing requirements, plant count, distance from schools and residences, and zip tie identification of medical marijuana plants. The bill would also permanently implement a pilot project that gives the State Water Resources Control Board, along with its regional water boards, the authority to set and enforce regulations on medical marijuana cultivation practices that could impact water quality: such as erosion control, drainage, riparian and wetlands protection, water storage, and fertilizer and pesticide use. Wood’s spokesman Paul Ramey said that the bill has been amended to provide greater control to local jurisdictions on how they implement the state requirements.

“We want to make sure the local cities and counties have the authority to manage this industry,” Ramey said. “This one-size-fits-all approach really hurts rural counties because generally legislation gets written from an urban point of view.”

Ramey said that the state has determined enforcement of the bill would cost about $6 million annually, which is in the process of being “whittled down.”

“In comparison to what the other proposals have been tagged with, it’s palatable,” he said. “Anytime you propose a new program at $6 million, you’re going to raise some eyebrows. This is big issue and a huge industry and in this grand scheme of the California state budget it’s really not that much.”

AB 243 will got back before the State Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 28 for review. Should it pass, Ramey said the next hurdle is “just going to be convincing fellow colleagues it is worth the price tag.”

14663.jpg


News Moderator: Jacob Redmond 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Marijuana regulation bills moving through legislature
Author: Will Houston
Contact: whouston@times-standard.com
Photo Credit: None Found
Website: Willits News: Breaking News, Sports, Business, Entertainment & Willits News
 
Back
Top Bottom