Laserfiche WebLink
SB 1262 Senate Bill-Bill Analysis Page 13 of 18 <br /> SB 1262 <br /> Page 17 <br /> 5)Arguments in Support . <br /> a) The California Police Chiefs Association , a co-sponsor <br /> of this bill, states, "Among the most troublesome issues <br /> with Proposition 215 includes the ability of virtually <br /> anyone to obtain a medical marijuana recommendation from a <br /> compliant doctor; unreliable quality control for consumers <br /> with respect to potency and the presence of carcinogenic <br /> pesticides or other contaminants, as well as retain outlets <br /> that often become magnets for criminal activity. <br /> "Senate Bill 1262 establishes an improved regulatory <br /> structure to ensure that Prop. 215 works as originally <br /> envisioned to assist patients with legitimate medical <br /> needs, in a manner that works for law enforcement, city and <br /> county governments, local community organizations, and <br /> medical professionals. <br /> "As police chiefs we believe it is time to address the flaws <br /> associated with the implementation of Proposition 215 in a <br /> responsible, realistic, and health-based fashion while also <br /> protecting the needs of legitimate medical patients." <br /> b) According to the League of Cities , the other co-sponsor <br /> of this bill, "This legislation, in contrast to nearly all <br /> previous attempts, acknowledges local regulatory authority <br /> by establishing a state licensing scheme that defers to <br /> local land use powers; under SB 1262, it will not be <br /> possible for a prospective operator to obtain a state <br /> license to operate a dispensary or other facility until and <br /> unless that operator can produce evidence of local <br /> permitting approval. This protects both the jurisdictions <br /> that have enacted bans on such facilities, as well as those <br /> that have elected to allow and actively regulate them. <br /> "SB 1262 squarely addresses the many public safety concerns <br /> that arise with a marijuana regulatory scheme by requiring <br /> minimum security requirements that must be observed at all <br /> dispensaries, as well as transport and inventorying <br /> procedures to minimize the possibility of diversion of <br /> marijuana for non-medical/recreational uses which could <br /> stimulate cartel activity. As proposed to be amended, it <br /> further requires a doctor-patient relationship in <br /> association with medical marijuana recommendations - a <br /> SB 1767 <br /> Page 18 <br /> standard that has been adopted by statute in all other <br /> states that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. <br /> Finally, SB 1262 addresses the significant public health <br /> concerns triggered by medical marijuana, by requiring for <br /> the first time the development of uniform testing standards <br /> to identify and eliminate contaminants and toxins injurious <br /> to human health." <br /> 6)Aroument in Opposition The Drug Policy Alliance writes, "We <br /> are supportive of establishing a state level program to <br /> regulate medical marijuana in California, and we applaud the <br /> League of Cities and Police Chiefs for recognizing the need <br /> for licensing at the state level. However, we have concerns <br /> over several provisions in this bill, particularly the lack of <br /> state level regulation and enforcement that we fear will deny <br /> safe access for countless patients in California, especially <br /> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_1251-I 300/sb_1262_cta_20140626_111950_asm_comm.html 7/3/2014 <br />