UPDATE May 19: Reacting to fears of litigation costs, the Assembly Committee on Appropriations placed AB 2650 in suspense today – a status for bills which may have a significant fiscal impact. The committee could hear the bill again, along with other suspense bills, next week. The staff report published by committee staff referred to litigation by ASA in Los Angeles as an example of fiscal impact of the bill.
I testified that AB 2650 was unnecessary and did nothing to protect public safety. I urged the committee to leave local land use decision with cities and counties where they belong. Aaron smith from Marijuana Policy Project and a patient from a Sacramento collective also spoke in opposition to the bill. The bill’s author, law enforcement lobbyists, and Republicans on the committee argued that collectives “targeted” children with flyers promoting medical cannabis and were opening near schools.
On Tuesday, the California Assembly Committee on Public Health will discuss AB 2650, bill that would require that medical cannabis collectives, cooperatives, and growers be located at least 1,000 feet away from a laundry list of “sensitive uses” everywhere in the state. The bill was introduced unexpectedly this week by Assembly Member Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo). AB 2650 is sponsored by the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORCA), a law enforcement lobby organization that opposes medical cannabis, and mirrors a controversial ordinance recently adopted in the City of Los Angeles.
ASA opposes AB 2650, and we are calling on our members in California to tell their Assembly representatives on the committee to vote no. Find out if your Assembly representative is on the Public Health Committee, and tell him or her to oppose AB 2650!