Pending CA Legislation

AB 2188 (Quirk): Employment Rights for Cannabis Users: Support
Sponsored by CANORML

AB 2188 would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees who consume cannabis when they are off the job. Cannabis consumption is legal in California, and employees have a right to engage in legal behaviors when they are not at work, without fear of retaliation by their employers. The bill specifically bans urine and hair testing for inactive metabolites of THC that can linger for weeks after use, except where federal law requires otherwise.

AB 1954 (Quirk): Pain Patients’ Rights: Support
Sponsored by CANORML and Americans for Safe Access

AB 1954 would clarify that doctors can treat all patients who consume cannabis, including pain patients. Many doctors are currently under the misimpression that they cannot prescribe opioid-based pain medications for patients who consume cannabis. Many patients are able to reduce their use of opioids by augmenting their treatment with cannabis.

SB 1281 (Bradford): Cannabis Tax Reduction: Support

SB 1281 would expand consumer participation in the legal cannabis economy by lowering cannabis taxes. Two thirds of cannabis consumers still buy illegal, unlicensed and untested cannabis because taxes on legal cannabis are so high. By increasing consumer participation in the legal cannabis economy, SB 1281 will ultimately increase state cannabis tax receipts.

State Budget: Cannabis Tax Relief: Support

The Governor’s administration and the California legislature are currently reviewing budget proposals to reduce cannabis taxes. Reducing cannabis taxes is critical to protecting and growing the licensed and legal cannabis economy, and ultimately increasing state tax receipts from cannabis. At minimum, budget tax relief proposals for cannabis should zero out the cultivation tax, and reduce the excise tax.

AB 1706 (Bonta): Expedited Resentencing: Support
AB 1706 will provide relief to the tens of thousands of deserving Californians who are still waiting for resentencing of old cannabis convictions for actions which are no longer illegal. This is especially important for people of color who have been disproportionately targeted by the war on drugs and face hurdles to employment, education and housing due to criminal records.

SB 1186 (Wiener): Medical Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act: Support
This bill prohibits a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulation that prohibits, or imposes unreasonable restrictions on, the sale of medical cannabis to patients or their primary caregivers. Specifically, requires every jurisdiction to at least permit medical cannabis delivery.

AB 2595 (Jones-Sawyer): Parental Rights: Support
This bill would require the State Department of Social Services to update all instructions to clarify that, when a social worker is investigating an alleged case of child abuse or neglect, a parent’s use or possession of cannabis is treated in the same manner as their use or possession of alcohol and legally prescribed medication.

AB 1885 (Kalra): Veterinary Cannabis: Support
AB 1885 will allow veterinarians to recommend therapeutic cannabis for their patients, and allow consumers to access therapeutic pet cannabis in retail dispensaries. The bill is supported by the Veterinary Medical Board and the California Veterinary Medical Association, as well Best Friends and many other pet rescue and welfare groups.

SB 1293 (Bradford): Tax Credits for Equity Applicants and Licensees: Support
Creates a $10,000 tax credit, available for up to seven years, for equity cannabis license applicants.

AB 2691 (Wood): Temporary Event Cultivator Retail Licenses: Support
Allows licensed small cultivators (one acre or less) to sell directly to the public at special events up to eight times per year.

SB 1097 (Pan): Unnecessary Cannabis Warning Labels: OPPOSE
SB 1097 would require a complete overhaul of current cannabis packaging for licensed and legal products. The bill would require 1/3 of the product label be devoted to ten different, bright, rotating warnings at a cost of millions. The warnings, devised by critics of the industry, are ill-designed to help consumers make better informed decisions. Cannabis product labeling is already extensively regulated by the state, and consumers are already jaded by ubiquitous Prop. 65 warnings they are unlikely to read, much less attend to.