Bill Allowing Locals to Ban All Cannabis Deliveries Defeated in Committee

smokesacto.jpg

 A bill that would have allowed local jurisdictions to ban cannabis deliveries originating outside their jurisdictional borders, was defeated in its first committee hearing today after cannabis activists and industry representatives objected to the bill.

Cal NORML wrote to the committee and testified against the bill, and promulgated an Action Alert that generated hundreds of letters to lawmakers in opposition. Thanks to all of our members and supporters who took action!

In introducing the bill, Asm. Cooley noted that he has been involved in both cannabis and local control issues for many years, citing his success as mayor of Rancho Cordova in enacting a local tax on cannabis businesses (however, that tax is overly high and was objected to by Cal NORML). Several times he referred to locals getting past a "parade of horribles" and tried to argue that passing the bill would somehow encourage locals to license cannabis businesses. He conceded that Prop. 64 allowed locals to ban adult-use cannabis businesses, not medical ones.

Unsurprisingly, the League of Cities, Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), and California Association of Counties (CSAC) expressed support for the bill, as did the City of Santa Monica.

Amy Jenkins of the California Cannabis Industry Association testified that the CCIA must "sadly and regrettably" oppose. She gave statistics on the abysmal failure of local jurisdictions to license an adequate number of cannabis retail outlets as the reason that delivery access must be permitted.

Ellen Komp of Cal NORML and Sabrina Fendrick of Berkeley Patients' Group challenged Asm. Cooley's assertion that patients who required access would be able to grow their own, citing restrictive local cultivation ordinances, the lack of renters' rights, and the inability for disabled patients to grow their own.

Also opposing the bill were representatives from Epilepsy CA, the CA Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Weedmaps, and the city of St. Helena, as well as a score of veterans.

After the public testimony, Asm. Grayson (D-Concord) spoke first, saying that while he is in favor of local control, he wouldn't be able to support the bill because delivery is necessary for those who need cannabis. "No doubt that my mother would be alive today had she had access," he said. "I thought delivery allowed people to have access when locals banned storefronts."

Asm. Eggman (D-Stockton) then spoke up, saying, "I don’t think you can take something away from people after you have provided access." Noting she is also a veteran, she mentioned the opioid crisis as a consideration.

Asm. McCarty (D-Sacramento) then chimed in saying he could not vote for the bill, noting that while Sacramento was "killing it" bringing in tax revenue from licensed dispensaries, people were driving as much as 100 miles to those dispensaries, and many don’t have access to transportation. "By having more jurisdictions shut it down, it just means fewer tax dollars coming into California and perpetuates the illegal market," he said.

Committee chairman Evan Low (D-San Jose) announced that he would be voting in favor of the bill in order to keep the conversation going, but said he would vote against it in future if it was not amended.

The vote fell on bipartisan lines, with Republicans Bill Brough (Dana Point), Vince Fong (Bakersfield), and Jay Obernolte (Hesperia), and Democrats Jacqui Irwin (Oxnard), Jose Medina (Riverside) and Kevin Mullin (San Mateo) joining Low in voting Aye.

Voting No were Assembly members Bloom, Chen, Cunningham, Eggman, Gloria, McCarty, and Ting; Chiu, Dahle, Gipson, Grayson, Holden and Wood abstained. The final tally was 7 in favor and 7 against, with 6 members not voting.

In the meantime, 24 cities and the county of Santa Cruz have filed suit against the Bureau of Cannabis Control over its regulation allowing state-licensed delivery services to deliver cannabis statewide.