Proposed New Rules for Medical Pot in California

  • Thread starter Ladyv
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Ladyv

Ladyv

315
93
By The Times editorial board
March 12, 2014


Although it was the first state to legalize medical marijuana, California is way behind other states in regulating it. The 1996 Compassionate Use Act provided little guidance on how the state could help ailing patients get the drug — or how to keep it out of the hands of those who weren't entitled to it. In the absence of clear rules, medical marijuana has been haphazardly managed through local regulations, and has become relatively easy to obtain, with few safety strictures, by sick and healthy people alike.

Now, after years of fighting efforts to legitimize the cannabis industry, the League of California Cities and Police Chiefs Assn. have sponsored a bill designed to regulate marijuana more like a medicine.

SB 1262, introduced by Sen. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), has some common-sense provisions. It would require the state Department of Public Health to license growers and dispensaries, and to develop standards to ensure that products aren't contaminated with bacteria, mold or chemicals. County health departments would ensure compliance, much as they do with businesses that make and sell food. The bill would allow local jurisdictions to permit or ban dispensaries.

The bill runs into trouble, however, when it tries to regulate doctors. The sponsors want to shut down "doctor mills," where any walk-in who can concoct a medical excuse can walk out with a recommendation for marijuana. To tighten up, the bill would allow only a person's primary care doctor or a specialist referred by that doctor to make a recommendation. The recommendation would be reported to the state Medical Board and would specify the strain of marijuana, the strength and the method of ingestion.

In theory these seem like logical steps. But marijuana is still designated a Schedule 1 controlled substance by the federal government, which does not recognize medical uses. Already some doctors refuse to recommend it because of the conflict with federal law and the lack of research on dosage and use; the bill's requirement that recommendations or referrals be made by primary care doctors could make it harder for some legitimate patients to obtain it. What's more, courts have ruled that physicians have a 1st Amendment right to recommend marijuana, but they could run afoul of the law if they were to give detailed instructions on its use.

The bill also would require any doctor who wrote more than 100 recommendations in a year to be audited by the state Medical Board. Why 100? An oncologist could reasonably issue two recommendations a week. State law says no doctor can be punished for recommending marijuana to a patient, so the audit seems more like an intimidation tactic than a legitimate enforcement measure.

Correa's bill has problems, but it's a start. Working with doctors and patient advocates, the sponsors should be able to develop a regulatory scheme that upholds the goals of the Compassionate Use Act while cracking down on abuses. Ultimately, though, it would be best if the federal government reclassified medical marijuana so it could be treated more like a prescription drug, complete with Food and Drug Administration oversight.
 
Ladyv

Ladyv

315
93
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2013–2014 REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILLNo. 1262

Introduced by Senator Correa

February 21, 2014

An act to add Article 25 (commencing with Section 2525) to Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, and to add Article 7 (commencing with Section 111657) to Chapter 6 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to medical marijuana.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1262, as introduced, Correa. Medical marijuana: regulation of physicians, dispensaries, and cultivation sites.
(1) Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 6, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature requires the establishment of a program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients so that they may lawfully use marijuana for medical purposes, and requires the establishment of guidelines for the lawful cultivation of marijuana grown for medical use.
This bill would require the State Department of Public Health to license dispensing facilities and cultivation sites that provide, process, and grow marijuana for medical use, as specified, and would make these licenses subject to the restrictions of the local jurisdiction in which the facility operates or proposes to operate. The bill would require the department to establish standards for quality assurance testing of medical marijuana and would prohibit the use of nonorganic pesticides in any marijuana cultivation site. The bill would require licensed dispensing facilities and licensed cultivation sites to implement sufficient security measures to both deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into areas containing marijuana and theft of marijuana at those facilities, including establishing limited access areas accessible only to authorized facility personnel, and would require these facilities to notify appropriate law enforcement authorities within 24 hours after discovering specified breaches in security. The bill would make enforcement of these provisions the responsibility of the county health departments, with oversight by the department. Violation of these provisions would be punishable by a civil fine of up to $35,000 for each individual violation. By expanding the duties of local health officers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, provides for licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California.
This bill would establish requirements for a physician and surgeon to recommend medical marijuana, including prescribed procedural and recordkeeping requirements, and would require a recommendation for medical marijuana for a minor to include a specific justification for the recommendation and why the benefit of use is more important than the possible neurological damage that could be caused by the minor using marijuana and to be approved by a board certified pediatrician. The bill would require a physician and surgeon that recommends medical marijuana to report to the board the number of recommendations issued, with supporting documentation on patient medical need.
This bill would require the board to audit a physician and surgeon who recommends medical marijuana more than 100 times in a year to ensure compliance with existing law and would require the board to establish a certification process for physicians who wish to issue medical marijuana recommendations, including a mandatory training in identifying signs of addiction and ongoing substance abuse.
Violation of these provisions would be punishable by a civil fine not to exceed $5,000.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes
 
Ladyv

Ladyv

315
93
BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) The California Constitution grants cities and counties the authority to make and enforce, within their borders, “all local police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with the general laws.” This inherent local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within the local jurisdiction’s borders. The police power, therefore, allows each city and county to determine whether or not a medical marijuana dispensary or other facility that makes medical marijuana available may operate within its borders. This authority has been upheld by City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 and County of Los Angeles v. Hill (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 861.
(b) If, pursuant to this authority, a city or county determines that a dispensary or other facility that makes medical marijuana available may operate within its borders, then there is a need for the state to license these dispensaries and other facilities for the purpose of adopting and enforcing protocols for training and certification of physicians who recommend the use of medical marijuana and for agricultural cultivation practices. This licensing requirement is not intended in any way nor shall it be construed to preempt local ordinances regarding the sale and use of medical marijuana, including, but not limited to, security, signage, lighting, and inspections.
(c) Given that the current system of all-cash transactions within the medical marijuana industry is unsustainable in the long term, there is a need to provide a monetary structure, as an alternative to the federal banking system, for the operation, regulation, and taxation of medical marijuana dispensaries.
(d) All of the following elements are necessary to uphold important state goals:
(1) Strict provisions to prevent the potential diversion of marijuana for recreational use.
(2) Audits to accurately track the volume of both product movement and sales.
(3) An effective means of restricting access to medical marijuana by minors, given the medical studies documenting marijuana’s harmful and permanent effects on the brain development of youth.
(4) Stricter provisions relating to physicians and their recommendation procedures in order to address widespread problems of questionable medical marijuana recommendations by physicians without a bona-fide doctor-patient relationship with the person to whom they are issuing the recommendation.
(e) Nothing in this act shall be construed to promote or facilitate the nonmedical, recreational possession, sale, or use of marijuana.


SEC. 2.
Article 25 (commencing with Section 2525) is added to Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:



Article 25. Recommending Medical Marijuana



2525.
(a) Prior to recommending marijuana to a patient pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) of Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, a physician and surgeon shall meet all of the following requirements:

(1) Have a bona fide doctor-patient relationship, with medical marijuana recommendations to be made by a patient’s primary care physician or by a physician and surgeon to whom the patient is referred by their primary care physician.
(2) Conduct an in-person examination to establish the patient’s need for medical marijuana.
(3) Consult with the patient as necessary and periodically review the treatment’s efficacy.
(b) A physician and surgeon that recommends medical marijuana shall do all of the following:
(1) Address, in the recommendation, the quantity of use and method of delivery, including a discussion of side effects. If the recommended method of delivery is smoking, the recommendation shall state the reasons for selecting this method of delivery in the context of health issues created by smoking.
(2) Address, in the recommendation, what kind of marijuana to obtain, including high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels, low THC levels, high cannabidiol (CBD) levels, low CBD levels, and explain the reason for recommending the particular strain. Under no circumstances shall a physician and surgeon recommend butane hash oil.
(3) Maintain a system of recordkeeping that supports the decision to recommend the use of medical marijuana for individual patients.
(c) A recommendation for medical marijuana provided to a minor shall include a specific justification for the recommendation and why the benefit of use is more important than the possible neurological damage that could be caused by the minor using marijuana. A recommendation for a minor shall be approved by a board certified pediatrician. A recommendation for a minor shall be for high CBD marijuana and all recommendations for minors must be for nonsmoking delivery.




2525.1.
(a) A physician and surgeon who recommends medical marijuana shall report to the California Medical Board the number of recommendations issued, with supporting documentation on patient medical need. The board shall forward these reports to the State Department of Public Health.

(b) A physician and surgeon who makes more than 100 recommendations in a calendar year shall be audited by the California Medical Board to determine compliance with Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) of Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code.




2525.2.
The California Medical Board shall establish a certification process for physicians who wish to issue medical marijuana recommendations, including a mandatory training in identifying signs of addiction and ongoing substance abuse.





2525.3.
In addition to all other remedies available pursuant to this chapter, violation of any provision of this article shall be punishable by a civil fine of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000).
 
Ladyv

Ladyv

315
93
SEC. 3.
Article 7 (commencing with Section 111657) is added to Chapter 6 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:



Article 7. Medical Marijuana



111657.
For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) “Department” means the State Department of Public Health.
(b) “Licensed cultivation site” means a facility that grows or grows and processes marijuana for medical use and that is licensed pursuant to Section 111657.1.
(c) “Licensed dispensing facility” means a dispensary, mobile dispensary, marijuana processing facility, or other facility that provides marijuana for medical use that is licensed pursuant to Section 111657.1.




111657.1.
(a) Except as provided in Section 11362.5 of, and Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) of Chapter 6 of Division 10 of, the Health and Safety Code, a person shall not sell or provide marijuana other than at a licensed dispensing facility.

(b) Except as provided in Section 11362.5 of, and Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) of Chapter 6 of Division 10 of, the Health and Safety Code, a person shall not grow or process marijuana other than at a licensed cultivation site.
(c) The department shall require, prior to issuing a license to a dispensing facility or a cultivation site, all of the following:
(1) The name of the owner or owners of the proposed facility.
(2) The address and telephone number of the proposed facility.
(3) A description of the scope of business of the proposed facility.
(4) A certified copy of the local jurisdiction’s approval to operate within its borders.
(5) A completed application, as required by the department.
(6) Payment of a fee, in an amount to be determined by the department not to exceed the amount necessary, but that is sufficient to cover, the actual costs of the administration of this article.
(7) Any other information as required by the department.




111657.2.
The department shall, after consulting with outside entities as needed, establish standards for quality assurance testing of medical marijuana, to ensure protection against microbiological contaminants. Nonorganic pesticides shall not be used in any marijuana cultivation site, irrespective of size or location.





111657.3.
(a) A licensed dispensing facility shall not acquire, possess, cultivate, deliver, transfer, transport, or dispense marijuana for any purpose other than those authorized by Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) of Chapter 6 of Division 10.

(b) A licensed dispensing facility shall not acquire marijuana plants or products except through the cultivation of marijuana by that facility, if the facility is a licensed cultivation site, or another licensed cultivation site.




111657.4.
(a) A facility licensed pursuant to this article shall implement sufficient security measures to both deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into areas containing marijuana and theft of marijuana at those facilities. These security measures shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

(1) Allow only registered qualifying patients, personal caregivers, and facility agents access to the facility.
(2) Prevent individuals from remaining on the premises of the facility if they are not engaging in activity expressly related to the operations of the facility.
(3) Establish limited access areas accessible only to authorized facility personnel.
(4) Store all finished marijuana in a secure, locked safe or vault and in a manner as to prevent diversion, theft, and loss.
(b) A facility licensed pursuant to this article shall notify appropriate law enforcement authorities within 24 hours after discovering any of the following:
(1) Discrepancies identified during inventory.
(2) Diversion, theft, loss, or any criminal activity involving the facility or a facility agent.
(3) The loss or unauthorized alteration of records related to marijuana, registered qualifying patients, personal caregivers, or facility agents.
(4) Any other breach of security.
(c) A licensed cultivation site shall weigh, inventory, and account for on video, all medical marijuana to be transported prior to its leaving its origination location. Within eight hours after arrival at the destination, the licensed dispensing facility shall re-weigh, re-inventory, and account for on video, all transported marijuana.




111657.5.
(a) Enforcement of this article shall be the responsibility of the county health departments, with oversight by the department.

(b) An enforcement officer may enter a facility licensed pursuant to this article during the facility’s hours of operation and other reasonable times to do either of the following:
(1) Conduct inspections, issue citations, and secure samples, photographs, or other evidence from the facility, or a facility suspected of being a dispensing facility or cultivation site.
(2) Secure as evidence documents, or copies of documents, including inventories required pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 111657.4, or any record, file, paper, process, invoice, video, or receipt for the purpose of determining compliance with this chapter.
(c) A written report shall be made and a copy shall be supplied or mailed to the owner of the facility at the completion of an inspection or investigation.
(d) Upon request by the department, local governments shall provide the department with reports on the number and types of facilities operating within their jurisdiction.




111657.6.
In addition to the provisions of this article, a license granted pursuant to this article shall be subject to the restrictions of the local jurisdiction in which the facility operates or proposes to operate. Even if a license has been granted pursuant to this article, a facility shall not operate in a local jurisdiction that prohibits the establishment of that type of business.





111657.7.
Violation of this provision shall be punishable by a civil fine of up to thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) for each individual violation.






SEC. 4.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
 
mastacheeser

mastacheeser

2,126
263
reads alot like colorados medical program?

seems like theirs still alot to be worked out, but with how broke local governments are in cali, id think something like this would have at least some bipartisan support

also getting my rec for $40 on a doctor over skype is a joke. i dont like shutting down all the doctors but something needs done
 
Ladyv

Ladyv

315
93
Um.....enter a facility suspected of being a dispensing facility or cultivation site??
Repeat after me....."Do you have a warrant? "

This seems to imply they wouldn't need one....


111657.5.

(a) Enforcement of this article shall be the responsibility of the county health departments, with oversight by the department.

(b) An enforcement officer may enter a facility licensed pursuant to this article during the facility’s hours of operation and other reasonable times to do either of the following:
(1) Conduct inspections, issue citations, and secure samples, photographs, or other evidence from the facility, or a facility suspected of being a dispensing facility or cultivation site.
(2) Secure as evidence documents, or copies of documents, including inventories required pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 111657.4, or any record, file, paper, process, invoice, video, or receipt for the purpose of determining compliance with this chapter.
(c) A written report shall be made and a copy shall be supplied or mailed to the owner of the facility at the completion of an inspection or investigation.
(d) Upon request by the department, local governments shall provide the department with reports on the number and types of facilities operating within their jurisdiction.
 
mastacheeser

mastacheeser

2,126
263
Um.....enter a facility suspected of being a dispensing facility or cultivation site??
Repeat after me....."Do you have a warrant? "

This seems to imply they wouldn't need one....


111657.5.

(a) Enforcement of this article shall be the responsibility of the county health departments, with oversight by the department.

(b) An enforcement officer may enter a facility licensed pursuant to this article during the facility’s hours of operation and other reasonable times to do either of the following:
(1) Conduct inspections, issue citations, and secure samples, photographs, or other evidence from the facility, or a facility suspected of being a dispensing facility or cultivation site.
(2) Secure as evidence documents, or copies of documents, including inventories required pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 111657.4, or any record, file, paper, process, invoice, video, or receipt for the purpose of determining compliance with this chapter.
(c) A written report shall be made and a copy shall be supplied or mailed to the owner of the facility at the completion of an inspection or investigation.
(d) Upon request by the department, local governments shall provide the department with reports on the number and types of facilities operating within their jurisdiction.
This sounds like they wanna take it out of the hands of law enforcement and put it in the health departments hands

As I read it "enforcement officer" doesn't mean law enforcement, it means a health inspector

The police fall under the "local governments" part of section (d)
 
Ladyv

Ladyv

315
93
I read it like that too @mastacheeser
My thought was if they have "enforcement officers" who are allowed to inspect, what is to stop them from immediately calling in "illegal activity" from the site which makes grounds for LEO entry, doesn't it?
 
KitsapGrapeApe

KitsapGrapeApe

464
93
This sounds like they wanna take it out of the hands of law enforcement and put it in the health departments hands

As I read it "enforcement officer" doesn't mean law enforcement, it means a health inspector

The police fall under the "local governments" part of section (d)
A health inspector with a gun. You seriously trust government to look out for us?


I don't know about in Cali but in washington primary care docs don't write authorizations for cannabis. There's ducking doctors that only write scrips for viner pills or suboxone so why the fuck can't there be docs who just write for weed?

One more thing. Cannabis should be the firsts divine tried in place of most other drugs for most alignments.
 
reloader

reloader

448
93
Even though I grow for medicinal purposes and realize that got the foot in the door. I think the whole medicine aspect is out of context. I truly believe that marijuana can help sick people, but I firmly believe that it should be available to anyone to grow, smoke or sell, without any regulation. Let the free market decide, it is a plant, a beautiful plant with so many uses, the (lawmakers) want more oversight then prescription drugs which kills thousands per year, Stupid.
Remember marijuana is not illegal for rational reasons, it is illegal for political reasons, which make no sense when logic is applied. Still these old codgers from the 40's and 50's think they still know what is best for everyone.
Nixon dialed up the war on pot because he was trying to stamp out the hippies, who were in defiance of Vietnam, that's when it went schedule 1.
 
Last edited:
mastacheeser

mastacheeser

2,126
263
I read it like that too @mastacheeser
My thought was if they have "enforcement officers" who are allowed to inspect, what is to stop them from immediately calling in "illegal activity" from the site which makes grounds for LEO entry, doesn't it?

The point of using health inspectors vs police is to stop the police from being involved. the inspectors would issue tickets.

as somebody that would be willing to jump through some hoops to get legal, i welcome regulation.

theres another bill going through right now banning concentrates that really blows compared to this one
 
mastacheeser

mastacheeser

2,126
263
A health inspector with a gun. You seriously trust government to look out for us?


I don't know about in Cali but in washington primary care docs don't write authorizations for cannabis. There's ducking doctors that only write scrips for viner pills or suboxone so why the fuck can't there be docs who just write for weed?

One more thing. Cannabis should be the firsts divine tried in place of most other drugs for most alignments.

for me its less about trusting the government, and more about wanting some guidelines
its really still the wild west. maybe one day ill be able to leave buds on consignment somewhere

it totally understand people being sketch about this kinda thing but the current set of laws in cali just doesnt cut it for me
 
3

3grambowl

75
18
Well welcome back to the real world California! Don't want to be a hater it's my home, but that place is so fucked the weed laws were the last thing on my mind. SoCal used to be a good spot. Good to raise kids all that, now I wouldn't raise my kids there if it was a choice of there or the Middle East. It's sketch as fuck everywhere unless you're making some bank or had an in on a good deal and house. Drought, over population, you know one year of taxes on a house in California pays for 10 years of taxes here in Colorado? If you don't hit the beach on the regs or speak Spanish fluent, or are addicted to cactus cooler, I don't know why any of you are still there.
However, all I see is them trying to make something medical fall under the lines of everything else. They want to make it a drug. Plain and simple. No more yo boy surfer crowd cool kid scene but for patients. You think people will stop cropping because the govt wants control? Look at canada. They don't give a fuck still cropping dank. Scare tactics, weeding out the weak. If you have serious ailments I see no reason how this bill affects you to the point of stressing about it.
 
K

kolah

4,829
263
Typical gestapo tactics.

The 2nd amendment wan't written for duck hunting or target shooting, it was primarily laid down for the peoples protection against government tyranny. Now all's we have to do is awaken the masses and make them aware that we now live in a tyrannical regime....a Police State....which I talked about 20 years ago..only to be laughed at. But here we are ladies and gents, Welcome to the UPSA, the United Police States of AmeriKa.
 
3

3grambowl

75
18
Yeah I tried to join the crips but they said the police took their colors, I guess they rock pink now. Biggest gang in the world wears badges and blue.
3gb
 
Kitsune Nyx

Kitsune Nyx

188
63
Not to shake the banner of the aggravated people... but...

*grabs banner*

Doesn't it seem a little obvious?
Governments (local & federal) act more like little emperors than regulatory agencies, set to improve American life. They see that glowing dollar sign & figure, "meh, we'll just tackle that law business after dinner".

*your tax dollars at work*

BUT...
we are entering an era of counter programming. A looooong long, "mine is bigger than yours", legal battle with a building full of the children from a generation of blamers. These guys grew up hearing horror stories about how pot makes for a loss of quality in life, pot creates loose women with disease, pot is the devil's work... blaaaah blaaaah blahhhhhh.
The misinformation & cold war era propaganda soaked PSAs sure did make for more brain damage than any little plant could have, on a bad day.


But hey, look on the bright side:
This debate, with all its collective aggravations, has done the one thing no politician could do:
It brought together amazing volumes of citizen based cooperation. That's right, this struggle is proving a more uniting force than any war, holiday, or bar ever could.
Congratulate yourself. You are all part of a new mindset & from this point on...

...there's no turning back.
Well done.
:cat:
 
surfguitar

surfguitar

268
63
This bill outlaws bho, that would hurt a lot of people.

How is a primary care doctor supposed to know what specific strain is gonna treat your ailment? Whole thing seems absolutely retarded.

The regulations on growing and dispensaries could be kinda legit if they made it easier to rent commercial properties for marijuana use but I doubt that. What will probably happen is the state will choose a select few, who probably either lucked out or have millions of dollars to buy and setup elaborate grow facilities. Basically the little guy is cut out and it's gonna be impossible to become one of the "big guys"
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom