(1)Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), (MCRSA), enacted by the Legislature, establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Cannabis Regulation, and provides for the state licensure and regulation of certain commercial medical marijuana cannabis activities by the Department of Consumer Affairs, bureau, the Department of Food and Agriculture, or the State Department of Public Health, as specified. MMRSA MCRSA requires an applicant for state licensure to provide specified information and a statement, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that the information is complete, true, and accurate. MMRSA MCRSA authorizes a state licensing authority to deny an application if specified conditions are met, or issue a conditional license under certain conditions, and requires a state licensee, among other things, to obtain applicable local licenses prior to commencing commercial cannabis activity and to keep accurate records of commercial cannabis activity.

This bill would require a licensee to implement, as specified, an employee training program for the licensees employees regarding compliance with MMRSA, MCRSA, as specified. The bill would require an applicant with 20 or more employees to attest on the application that the applicant will implement an employee training program approved by the licensing authority within one year of licensure, as specified, thereby modifying the crime of perjury and imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the licensing authority to deny an application of an applicant with 20 or more employees unless the applicant makes the above-mentioned attestation on the application. The bill would require each licensing authority to adopt standards for the approval of employee training programs. The bill would prohibit the licensing authority from approving a program provided by or through certain apprenticeship programs. programs and programs provided by a licensee under MCRSA, except as specified. The bill would authorize the licensing authority to approve a workplace training organization, as defined, as a 3rd-party provider. The bill would require each licensing authority to charge a fee for approving an employee training program, as specified. The bill would require that the fees collected be deposited in the appropriate account within the Medical Marijuana Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund. The bill would authorize each licensing authority to adjust fees as needed once a year to cover the costs of employee training program approval. The bill would make these provisions operative on July 1, 2018.

(2)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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), enacted by the Legislature, establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, and provides for the state licensure and regulation of certain commercial medical marijuana activities by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, or the State Department of Public Health, as specified. MMRSA requires an applicant for state licensure to provide specified information and a statement, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that the information is complete, true, and accurate. MMRSA authorizes a state licensing authority to deny an application if specified conditions are met, and requires a state licensee, among other things, to obtain applicable local licenses prior to commencing commercial cannabis activity and to keep accurate records of commercial cannabis activity.

This bill would require a licensee to implement, as specified, an employee training program for the licensees employees regarding compliance with MMRSA, as specified. The bill would require an applicant with 20 or more employees to attest on the application that the applicant will implement an employee training program approved by the licensing authority within one year of licensure, as specified, thereby modifying the crime of perjury and imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the licensing authority to deny an application of an applicant with 20 or more employees unless the applicant makes the above-mentioned attestation on the application. The bill would require each licensing authority to adopt standards for the approval of employee training programs. The bill would prohibit the licensing authority from approving a program provided by or through certain apprenticeship programs. The bill would authorize the licensing authority to approve a workplace training organization, as defined, as a 3rd-party provider. The bill would require each licensing authority to charge a fee for approving an employee training program, as specified. The bill would require that the fees collected be deposited in the appropriate account within the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund. The bill would authorize each licensing authority to adjust fees as needed once a year to cover the costs of employee training program approval. The bill would make these provisions operative on July 1, 2018.

(2)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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), enacted by the Legislature, establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, and provides for the state licensure and regulation of certain commercial medical marijuana activities by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, or the State Department of Public Health, as specified. MMRSA requires an applicant for state licensure to provide specified information and a statement, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that the information is complete, true, and accurate. MMRSA authorizes a state licensing authority to deny an application if specified conditions are met, and requires a state licensee, among other things, to obtain applicable local licenses prior to commencing commercial cannabis activity and to keep accurate records of commercial cannabis activity.

This bill would require a state licensee to implement, as specified, a an employee training program for the licensees agents and employees regarding compliance with MMRSA, as specified. The bill would require an applicant with 20 or more employees to include in an attest on the application for state licensure a detailed description of the training program that the applicant has implemented or will implement, implement an employee training program approved by the licensing authority within one year of licensure, as specified, thereby modifying the crime of perjury and imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the licensing authority to deny an application of an applicant with 20 or more employees unless the applicant makes the above-mentioned attestation on the application. The bill would make the require each licensing authority responsible for approving and regulating the programs instituted and maintained by licensees and 3rd-party providers of the to adopt standards for the approval of employee training programs. The bill would prohibit the licensing authority from approving a program provided by or through certain apprenticeship programs. The bill would authorize the licensing authority to approve a workplace training organization, as defined, as a 3rd-party provider. The bill would require a state licensing authority to deny the application of an applicant that does not implement, or revoke the license of a state licensee that fails to implement within one year of obtaining a license, a program approved by the licensing authority or provided by an approved 3rd-party provider. The bill would require each state licensing authority to charge each training program instituted and maintained by a licensee a fee, as specified, to cover the costs for approving the training program. The bill would require each state licensing authority to charge each 3rd-party provider of a fee for approving an employee training programs a fee, as specified, to cover the costs for approving the 3rd-party provider. program, as specified. The bill would require that the fees collected be deposited in the appropriate account within the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund. The bill would authorize each licensing authority to adjust fees as needed once a year to cover the costs of employee training program and 3rd-party provider approval. The bill would make these provisions operative on July 1, 2018.

(2)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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), enacted by the Legislature, establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, and provides for the state licensure and regulation of certain commercial medical marijuana activities by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, or the State Department of Public Health, as specified. MMRSA requires an applicant for state licensure to provide specified information and a statement, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that the information is complete, true, and accurate. MMRSA authorizes a state licensing authority to deny an application if specified conditions are met, and requires a state licensee, among other things, to obtain applicable local licenses prior to commencing commercial cannabis activity and to keep accurate records of commercial cannabis activity.

This bill would require a state licensee to institute and maintain implement, as specified, a training program for the licensees agents and employees regarding compliance with MMRSA, as specified, and specified. The bill would require that an application for state licensure an applicant with 20 or more employees to include in an application for state licensure a detailed description of the applicants program, training program the applicant has implemented or will implement, thereby modifying the crime of perjury and imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the licensing authority responsible for approving and regulating the programs instituted and maintained by licensees and 3rd-party providers of the programs. The bill would prohibit the licensing authority from approving a program provided by or through certain apprenticeship programs. The bill would authorize the licensing authority to approve a workplace training organization, as defined, as a 3rd-party provider. The bill would require a state licensing authority to deny the application of an applicant that does not have, implement, or revoke the license of a state licensee that fails to institute or maintain, implement within one year of obtaining a license, a program approved by the licensing authority. This authority or provided by an approved 3rd-party provider. The bill would require each state licensing authority to charge each training program instituted and maintained by a licensee a fee, as specified, to cover the costs for approving the training program. This The bill would require each state licensing authority to charge each 3rd-party provider of training programs a fee, as specified, to cover the costs for approving the 3rd-party provider. The bill would require that the fees collected be deposited in the appropriate account within the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund. This The bill would authorize each licensing authority to adjust fees as needed once a year to cover the costs of training program and 3rd-party provider approval.

(2)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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), enacted by the Legislature, establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, and provides for the state licensure and regulation of certain commercial medical marijuana activities by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, or the State Department of Public Health, as specified. MMRSA requires an applicant for state licensure to provide specified information and a statement, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that the information is complete, true, and accurate. MMRSA authorizes a state licensing authority to deny an application if specified conditions are met, and requires a state licensee, among other things, to obtain applicable local licenses prior to commencing commercial cannabis activity and to keep accurate records of commercial cannabis activity.

This bill would require a state licensee to institute and maintain a training program for the licensees agents and employees regarding compliance with MMRSA, as specified, and would require that an application for state licensure include a detailed description of the applicants program, thereby modifying the crime of perjury and imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the bureau the sole state agency licensing authority responsible for approving and regulating the programs and would prohibit the bureau licensing authority from approving a program provided by or through certain apprenticeship programs. The bill would require a state licensing authority to deny the application of an applicant that does not have, or revoke the license of a state licensee that fails to institute or maintain, a program approved by the bureau. licensing authority. This bill would require each state licensing authority to charge each training program a fee, as specified, to cover the costs for approving the training program. This bill would require that the fees collected be deposited in the appropriate account within the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund. This bill would authorize each licensing authority to adjust fees as needed once a year to cover the costs of training program approval.

(2) 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), enacted by the Legislature, establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, and provides for the state licensure and regulation of certain commercial medical marijuana activities by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, or the State Department of Public Health, as specified. MMRSA requires an applicant for state licensure to provide specified information and a statement, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that the information is complete, true, and accurate. MMRSA authorizes a state licensing authority to deny an application if specified conditions are met, and requires a state licensee, among other things, to obtain applicable local licenses prior to commencing commercial cannabis activity and to keep accurate records of commercial cannabis activity.

This bill would require a state licensee to institute and maintain a training program for the licensees agents and employees regarding compliance with MMRSA, as specified, and would require that an application for state licensure include a detailed description of the applicants program, thereby modifying the crime of perjury and imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the bureau the sole state agency responsible for approving and regulating the programs and would prohibit the bureau from approving a program provided by or through certain apprenticeship programs. The bill would require a state licensing authority to deny the application of an applicant that does not have, or revoke the license of a state licensee that fails to institute or maintain, a program approved by the bureau.

(2) 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 6, 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature, commonly referred to as the Medical Marijuana Program Act, 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. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), enacted by the Legislature, establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, and provides for the state licensure and regulation of certain commercial medical marijuana activities by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, or the State Department of Public Health, as specified. MMRSA requires an applicant for state licensure to provide specified information and a statement, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that the information is complete, true, and accurate. MMRSA authorizes a state licensing authority to deny an application if specified conditions are met, and requires a state licensee, among other things, to obtain applicable local licenses prior to commencing commercial cannabis activity and to keep accurate records of commercial cannabis activity.

(2) 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(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, commonly referred to as the Medical Marijuana Program Act, 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.

The Medical Practice Act provides for the regulation and licensing of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California and requires the board to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of physicians and surgeons representing the greatest threat of harm, as specified. Existing law identifies the cases that are to be given priority, which include cases of repeated acts of excessively prescribing, furnishing, or administering controlled substances without a good faith prior examination of the patient. Existing law makes it unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to prescribe, dispense, or furnish dangerous drugs without an appropriate prior examination and medical indication. Existing law also makes it unprofessional conduct to employ, aid, or abet an unlicensed person in the practice of medicine. Existing law generally makes any person who violates these provisions guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would enact the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act and would create the Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation and Enforcement within the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, to be administered by a person exempt from civil service who is appointed by the Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The bill would grant the department the power to register persons for the cultivation, manufacture, testing, transportation, storage, distribution, and sale of medical cannabis within the state provided that the authority of a city or county to adopt ordinances inconsistent with the requirements of the act that ban, regulate, or tax medical cannabis activities, and to enforce those ordinances, would not be affected by the act. The bill would provide that the director and persons employed by the department to administer and enforce its provisions are peace officers. The bill would prescribe requirements for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of mandatory commercial registrations and fees in relation to these activities. The bill would permit the department to assist statewide taxation authorities in the development of uniform policies for state taxation of mandatory commercial medical cannabis registrants and to assist in the development of regulation in connection with work safety in this industry. The bill would authorize the division to establish a grant program for the purpose of funding medical cannabis regulation and enforcement.

The bill would establish the Medical Cannabis Regulation Fund and would require deposit of fees into the fund. The bill would continuously appropriate moneys within the fund to the division for the purposes of administering the program. The bill would require the deposit of penalty money into the General Fund.

The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2017, to issue regulations as necessary for the implementation and enforcement of mandatory commercial medical cannabis registration, as specified, including requirements analogous to statutory environmental, agricultural, consumer protection, and food and product safety requirements. The bill would require the department to administer and enforce these requirements. The bill would prescribe requirements for provisional registrations to be operative January 1, 2016. The bill would prohibit approval of a mandatory commercial registration for specified reasons, including if a licensed physician making patient recommendations for medical cannabis is an interested party in the proposed operation, and would prohibit a physician from recommending medical cannabis to a patient while he or she is a mandatory commercial registrant, or associated, as specified, with a mandatory commercial registrant. The bill would prohibit a registrant from holding a registration in more than one class of medical cannabis activities.

The bill would require a registrant to keep various records in connections with medical cannabis activities and would prescribe requirements for making records available to the department and any state or local agency. The bill would provide that certain patient and caregiver information is excluded from disclosure to the public. The bill would provide that the act does not apply to the protections granted to a patient or primary caregiver acting pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and would exempt these parties from the application of the act, provided they act consistently with specified requirements. The bill would provide that the actions of a mandatory commercial registrant or provisional registrant, its employees, and its agents that are permitted pursuant to a valid mandatory commercial registration issued by the division and that are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the act are not unlawful under state law, as specified. The bill would provide a similar state law immunity for a property owner who allows his or her property to be used by a mandatory commercial registrant or provisional registrant.

The bill would require the department to work in conjunction with law enforcement entities throughout the state to implement and enforce the rules and regulations regarding medical cannabis and to take appropriate action against businesses and individuals that fail to comply with the law. The bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2017, a person other than a mandatory commercial registrant from selling cannabis or cannabis products or performing other actions related to cannabis, except as specified. The bill would provide that its provisions do not prevent specified city or county actions, including zoning ordinances banning or regulating the location, operation, or establishment of a commercial registrant. The bill would make certain violations of its provisions a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would establish requirements for the transportation of medical cannabis. The bill would specify that its provisions are severable.

The bill would specify that recommending marijuana to patients without a good faith examination and medical reason or recommending marijuana for nonmedical purposes is unprofessional conduct. The bill would provide that specified acts of recommending marijuana without a good faith examination are among the types of cases that should be given priority for investigation and prosecution by the Medical Board of California, as described above. The bill would also specify that employment by, or an agreement with, a mandatory medical cannabis registrant to provide recommendations for medical marijuana constitutes unprofessional conduct. By broadening the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would repeal, 90 days after the department posts a specified notice on its Internet Web site, the provisions described above prohibiting prosecution of qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and designated primary caregivers who associate in California, collectively or cooperatively, to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.

(2)Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county and the governing body of a city to impose various taxes, including a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.25%, or a multiple thereof, if approved by the required vote of the board or governing body and the required vote of qualified voters, and limits the combined rate of transactions and use taxes within a city or county to 2%.

This bill would authorize the board of supervisors of a county to impose, by ordinance, a tax on the privilege of cultivating, dispensing, producing, processing, preparing, storing, providing, donating, selling, or distributing cannabis or cannabis products, including a transactions and use tax at any rate specified by the board. The bill would authorize the tax to be imposed for either general or specific governmental purposes. The bill would require a tax imposed pursuant to this authority to be subject to any applicable voter approval requirement.

(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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 26

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 7-1, 6/27/16

AYES: Hill, Block, Galgiani, Hernandez, Jackson, Mendoza, Wieckowski

NOES: Gaines

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-1, 1/27/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: United Food and Commercial Workers Union

DIGEST: This bill requires, after July 1, 2018, Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (Act) license applicants with 20 or more employees to implement an employee training program to educate, inform, and train the licensee’s agents and employees on compliance with the Act.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (Bureau) within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to oversee the licensing and regulation of medical marijuana. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 19300, et seq.)
2. Defines a “licensing authority” as the state agency responsible for the issuance, renewal, or reinstatement of the license, or the state agency authorized to take disciplinary action against the license. (BPC § 19300.5 (w))
3. Requires a license applicant with 20 or more employees to provide a statement that the applicant will enter into, or demonstrate that it has already entered into, and abide by the terms of a labor peace agreement, as a condition of state licensure under the Act. (BPC § 19322 (a)(6))

This bill:

1. Requires, beginning July 1, 2018, applicants with 20 or more employees to attest on an application that the applicant will implement an employee training program approved by the licensing authority within one year of licensure.
2. Requires, beginning July 1, 2018, the licensing authority to deny an application of an applicant with 20 or more employees unless the applicant attests that the applicant will implement an employee training program approved by the licensing authority within one year of licensure.
3. Requires a licensee to implement an employee training program, or contract with a third party to provide an employee program, to educate, inform, and train the licensee’s employees on compliance with the Act.
4. Requires an employee training program to include, but not be limited to, training on applicable statutory requirements, industry best practices, occupational health and safety standards, and workplace protections.
5. Requires each licensing authority to adopt standards for the approval of employee training programs. Such standards shall prohibit approval of an employee training program provided by or through an apprenticeship program approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards. Those standards shall also prohibit employee training programs provided by licensees except when a licensee provides a training program to its own employees.
6. Authorizes a licensing authority to approve a workplace training organization as a third-party provider of employee training programs. Defines a “workplace training organization” as a labor union organization representing wage earners or salaried employees for mutual aid and protection and for dealing collectively with cannabis employers.
7. States that a licensing authority shall not be limited to approving workplace training organizations as third-party providers of employee training programs, except that a licensing authority shall not approve a third party provider of an employee training program if the provider is a licensee, as specified.
8. Requires a licensing authority to revoke the license of any licensee with 20 or more employees that fails to implement an employee training program within one year of licensure.
9. Requires each licensing authority to charge a fee for approving a training program provided by workplace training organization. Total fees assessed shall not exceed the reasonable regulatory costs for training program. Each licensing authority may adjust fees as needed, but no more than once per year, to generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs of training program approval.
10. Requires revenues collected to be deposited in the appropriate fee account within the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund.
11. States that no reimbursement is required because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, or changes the definition of a crime.

Background

California began regulating medical marijuana with the passage of the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which exempted patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. In 2003, the Legislature authorized the formation of medical marijuana cooperatives—nonprofit organizations that cultivate and distribute marijuana for medical uses to their members through dispensaries. Most recently, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (Act) passed in 2015, which consisted of three separate bills enacted together to license and regulate medical marijuana AB 243 (Wood, Chapter 688, Statues of 2015); AB 266 (Bonta, Chapter 689, Statutes of 2015); and SB 643 (McGuire, Chapter 719, Statutes of 2015). These bills created a comprehensive state licensing system for the commercial cultivation, manufacture, retail sale, transport, distribution, delivery, and testing of medical cannabis. Medical marijuana cooperatives will be phased out under the Act and replaced by state licensed businesses.

The Act went into effect on January 1, 2016, and licensure requirements will follow when the regulatory entities responsible for implementation pass necessary regulations.

The Act distributes state responsibilities among six agencies:

• The Bureau: license and regulate dispensaries, transporters, and distributors.
• Department of Fish and Wildlife: monitor and reduce environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation.
• State Water Resources Control Board: regulate the environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation on water quality and instream flows.
• California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA): regulate medical marijuana cultivation and issue licenses to growers.
• Department of Public Health (DPH): develop and enforce regulations and standards for medical marijuana product manufacturers and testing laboratories.
• Department of Pesticide Regulation: develop pesticide use guidelines for the cultivation of medical marijuana.

This bill requires license applicants with 20 or more employees to implement a training program to educate, inform, and train the licensee’s agents and employees on compliance with the Act within one year of licensure. The licensee may either conduct the training by his or herself or hire a third party provider, which may be a union organization, but shall not be a separate licensee. However, this bill prohibits approval of employee training program provided by or through an apprenticeship program approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.

It is unclear why the exclusions from apprenticeship programs and other licensees exists; one would think that organizations and individuals that already provide training programs and are familiar with the cannabis business would be ideally suited for this new industry. The rationale for these provisions is unclear.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the fiscal estimates for this bill are subject to a good deal of uncertainty. Currently, none of the medical cannabis licensing authorities have begun issuing licenses. Thus, the number of entities that each licensing authority will ultimately license is unknown. Similarly, the number of providers of employee training programs required under the bill is unknown. Therefore, the cost estimates are subject to uncertainty. The costs to implement the bill’s requirements would ultimately be paid for by licensees or third-party training program providers. Currently, the start-up activities of licensing entities are being paid for out of a
$10 million loan from the General Fund, until licensing revenues are received.

• One-time costs of $540,000 and ongoing costs of $500,000 for the Bureau to establish regulations, review and approve employee training programs (either provided by the licensee directly or by a third-party provider), and audit dispensary, transporter, and testing laboratory licensees to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirement to provide an employee training program (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).
• Ongoing costs of $220,000 per year for DPH to establish regulations, review and approve employee training programs (either provided by the licensee directly or by a third-party provider), and audit manufacturer licensees to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirement to provide an employee training program (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).
• Ongoing costs up to $500,000 per year for the CDFA to establish regulations, review and approve employee training programs (either provided by the licensee directly or by a third-party provider), and audit cultivator licensees to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirement to provide an employee training program (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/16)

United Food and Commercial Workers Union (source)

California Labor Federation

Central Coast Forest Association

City of Santa Monica

League of California Cities

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/16)

California Cannabis Industry Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) writes, “With the passage of the Act, UFCW strongly supports the creation of a robust program to train cannabis workers in the industry at the California DCA.

“Professional licensing and safety standards are widely accepted norms throughout the State of California for a variety of occupations and we should do the same for workers employed in the cannabis industry. Cannabis workers need vital knowledge of their product and how best to serve the needs of people suffering from serious diseases.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA) writes, “The CCIA was supportive of AB 26 as amended in the Senate Business, Professions & Economic Development Committee, but strongly objects to more recent amendments taken in the Senate Appropriations Committee. These latest amendments intentionally and unfairly prohibit ALL licensed cannabis operators from applying to be third party training providers.

“AB 26 now limits business opportunities for legitimate licensees, and creates an unfair advantage for labor organizations and independent out-of-state training program providers. It also deprives students and cannabis employees, participating in third party training programs, of learning from the most experienced professionals within the industry.

“CCIA worked tirelessly last year to develop the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), which established a framework to regulate and license medical cannabis operations in California. Our support of this effort was driven by our members’ strong desire to be regulated like other industries in California and our stalwart commitment to ensuring the highest standards for our industry, including our workers.

“For these reasons, we strongly object to the recent amendments, which would deny a cannabis operator the ability to conduct third party training. The CCIA is aware of no other profession in which third party training is prohibited from being conducted by a licensee if authorized by the State. In fact, when AB 26 was introduced in January, the CCIA was reassured by the sponsors that the intent of the bill was to create a similar training standard to those required by the California State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology (see press release, dated January 14, 2016). In that field, neither licensed manufacturers of products, cosmetologists, barbers, nor salon operators are prohibited from opening a new school for barbering or cosmetology or applying for an apprenticeship.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-1, 1/27/16

AYES: Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, O'Donnell, Olsen, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Travis Allen

NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Bigelow, Brough, Cooper, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Melendez, Nazarian, Obernolte, Patterson

Prepared by:

8/15/16 20:33:17

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 26 (Jones-Sawyer) - Medical cannabis

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 11, 2016

Bill Summary:

AB 26 would require medical cannabis license applicants with 20 or more employees to implement an employee training program.

Fiscal Impact:

The fiscal estimates below are subject to a good deal of uncertainty. Currently, none of the medical cannabis licensing authorities have begun issuing licenses. Thus, the number of entities that each licensing authority will ultimately license is unknown. Similarly, the number of providers of employee training programs required under the bill is unknown. Therefore, the cost estimates are subject to uncertainty. The costs to implement the bill’s requirements would ultimately be paid for by licensees or third-party training program providers. Currently, the start-up activities of licensing entities are being paid for out of a $10 million loan from the General Fund, until licensing revenues are received.

• One-time costs of $540,000 and ongoing costs of $500,000 for the Bureau of Medical Cannabis to establish regulations, review and approve employee training programs (either provided by the licensee directly or by a third-party provider), and audit dispensary, transporter, and testing laboratory licensees to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirement to provide an employee training program (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).
• Ongoing costs of $220,000 per year for the Department of Public Health to establish regulations, review and approve employee training programs (either provided by the licensee directly or by a third-party provider), and audit manufacturer licensees to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirement to provide an employee training program (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).
• Ongoing costs up to $500,000 per year for the Department of Food and Agriculture to establish regulations, review and approve employee training programs (either provided by the licensee directly or by a third-party provider), and audit cultivator licensees to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirement to provide an employee training program (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).

Author Amendments:

Prohibit a licensee from being approved as a third-party provider of employee training.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 26 (Jones-Sawyer) - Medical cannabis

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 26 would require medical cannabis license applicants with 20 or more employees to implement an employee training program.

Fiscal Impact:

The fiscal estimates below are subject to a good deal of uncertainty. Currently, none of the medical cannabis licensing authorities have begun issuing licenses. Thus, the number of entities that each licensing authority will ultimately license is unknown. Similarly, the number of providers of employee training programs required under the bill is unknown. Therefore, the cost estimates to approve and oversee the employee training program providers authorized in the bill is subject to uncertainty. The costs to implement the bill’s requirements would ultimately be paid for by licensees or third-party training program providers. Currently, the start-up activities of licensing entities are being paid for out of a $10 million loan from the General Fund, until licensing revenues are received.

• One-time costs of $540,000 and ongoing costs of $500,000 for the Bureau of Medical Cannabis to establish regulations, review and approve employee training programs (either provided by the licensee directly or by a third-party provider), and audit dispensary, transporter, and testing laboratory licensees to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirement to provide an employee training program (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).
• Ongoing costs of $220,000 per year for the Department of Public Health to establish regulations, review and approve employee training programs (either provided by the licensee directly or by a third-party provider), and audit manufacturer licensees to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirement to provide an employee training program (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).
• Ongoing costs up to $500,000 per year for the Department of Food and Agriculture to establish regulations, review and approve employee training programs (either provided by the licensee directly or by a third-party provider), and audit cultivator licensees to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirement to provide an employee training program (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Fund).

Background:

Under recently enacted law, the state will begin licensing and regulating the medical cannabis industry for the first time. The Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation will license and regulate medical cannabis dispensaries, transporters, and testing laboratories. The Department of Public Health will begin licensing and regulating medical cannabis manufacturers. The Department of Food and Agriculture will begin licensing and testing cultivators. Each of those licensing entities is currently in the process of developing their respective licensing program and implementing regulations. Once regulations have been adopted, entities in each of those areas (dispensaries, cultivators, etc.) will be required to apply for and receive a permit from their respective licensing entity to remain in business.

Proposed Law:

AB 26 would require medical cannabis license applicants with 20 or more employees to implement an employee training program.

Specific provisions of the bill would:

• On or after July 1, 2018, require any medical cannabis license applicant with 20 or more employees to attest that the applicant will implement an employee training program approved by the licensing authority;
• On or after July 1, 2018, require a licensing entity to deny an application if an applicant with 20 or more employees does not attest that the applicant will implement an employee training program approved by the licensing authority;
• Require a licensee to implement an employee training program that includes information on compliance with the requirements of current law regarding medical cannabis regulation;
• Authorize a licensee to employ or contract with a third-party provider to provide the employee training program;
• Require each licensing entity to establish standards for the approval of employee training programs;
• Require the standards to prohibit the approval of an employee training program provided by or through an apprenticeship program approved by the Division of Apprenticeship standards;
• Authorize a licensing entity to approve a labor union as a third-party provider, but not limit licensing entities to approving only labor unions as third-party providers;
• Require a licensing entity to revoke the license of a licensee with more than 20 employees that does not implement an employee training program within one year of licensure;
• Require licensing entities to charge a fee to approve an employee training program.

Related Legislation:

AB 266 (Bonta, Cooley, Jones-Sawyer, Lacky, and Wood, Statutes of 2015), AB 243 (Wood, Statutes of 2015), and SB 643 (McGuire, Statutes of 2015) established the Medical Marijuana (now Cannabis) Regulation and Safety Act, which provides for the licensure and regulation of commercial medical marijuana in the state.

There are several followup bills to the legislation from last year, including this bill, AB 1575 (Bonta), AB 2385 (Jones-Sawyer), AB 2672 (Bonilla), and SB 837 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review).

Staff Comments:

As noted above, the number of overall licensees under the state’s new system for resulting medical cannabis is unknown. In addition, it is unknown how many licensees would elect to create their own employee training program and go through the process of having that program approved by a licensing entity, versus simply contracting with a third-party provider to provide the employee training.

The only costs that may be incurred by a local agency relate to crimes and infractions. Under the California Constitution, such costs are not reimbursable by the state.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Senator Jerry Hill, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 26 Hearing Date: June 27, 2016

Subject: Medical cannabis

SUMMARY:

Requires, after July 1, 2018, Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (Act) license applicants with 20 or more employees to implement an employee training program to educate, inform, and train the licensee’s agents and employees on compliance with the Act.

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (Bureau) within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to oversee the licensing and regulation of medical marijuana. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 19300, et seq.)
2. Defines a “licensing authority” as the state agency responsible for the issuance, renewal, or reinstatement of the license, or the state agency authorized to take disciplinary action against the license. (BPC § 19300.5 (w))
3. Requires a license applicant with 20 or more employees to provide a statement that the applicant will enter into, or demonstrate that it has already entered into, and abide by the terms of a labor peace agreement, as a condition of state licensure under the Act. (BPC § 19322 (a)(6))
4. States that “employee” does not include a supervisor, and “supervisor” means an individual having authority, in the interest of the licensee, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibility to direct them or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. (BPC § 19322 (a)(6))

This bill:

1. Beginning July 1, 2018, requires applicants with 20 or more employees to attest on an application that the applicant will implement an employee training program approved by the licensing authority within one year of licensure.
2. Beginning July 1, 2018, requires the licensing authority to deny an application of an applicant with 20 or more employees unless the applicant attests that the applicant will implement an employee training program approved by the licensing authority within one year of licensure.
3. Requires a licensee to implement an employee training program, or contract with a third party to provide an employee program, to educate, inform, and train the licensee’s employees on compliance with the Act.
4. Requires an employee training program to include, but not be limited to, training on applicable statutory requirements, industry best practices, occupational health and safety standards, and workplace protections.
5. Requires each licensing authority to adopt standards for the approval of employee training programs. Such standards shall prohibit approval of an employee training program provided by a third party provider who operates an apprenticeship program approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.
6. Authorizes a licensing authority to approve a workplace training organization as a third-party provider of employee training programs. Defines a “workplace training organization” as a labor union organization representing wage earners or salaried employees for mutual aid and protection and for dealing collectively with cannabis employers.
7. Requires a licensing authority to revoke the license of any licensee with 20 or more employees that fails to implement an employee training program within one year of licensure.
8. Requires each licensing authority to charge a fee for approving a training program provided by workplace training organization. Total fees assessed shall not exceed the reasonable regulatory costs for training program. Each licensing authority may adjust fees as needed, but no more than once per year, to generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs of training program approval.
9. Requires revenues collected to be deposited in the appropriate fee account within the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund.
10. States that no reimbursement is required because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, or changes the definition of a crime.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This bill is keyed “fiscal” by the Legislative Counsel. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis dated January 21, 2016:

This estimate is subject to significant uncertainty, as the number of licensees, the number of training programs, the complexity of the training, and numerous operational decisions are all unknown at this time. Staff estimates the Bureau may incur the following costs (funded through a previously authorized GF loan to the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund, to be repaid through licensure fee revenue):

1. Developing training program standards and developing processes for application and review of training programs, would likely result in contract or staff costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The bill requires approved training on substantive legal requirements, industry best practices, and occupational health and safety standards for numerous types of industries.
2. Costs for initial verification of training programs could range from minor too significant, depending on how many training programs apply for approval. If only a few larger training programs apply, costs would be lower because one approved training program would serve multiple licensees. If more licensees develop their own training programs, approval costs could be much more significant. If a large number of training programs apply, it may also require a more sophisticated Information Technology (IT) solution to track applicants.
3. To verify licensees are implementing training programs should be fairly minor and absorbable, assuming the check is paper-based. If on-site visits are required, costs would increase. Any ongoing costs for this activity will be recovered through license fees.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. According to the Author’s office, “There is currently no training program for employees in the medical marijuana industry. Even though these employees work with ill patients, deal with environmental impacts of cultivation, security issues, and manufacturing and processing of edible products for consumption. The employees need to be trained in dealing with patients, security and state and federal laws.”
2. California’s Medical Marijuana Regulatory Background. California began regulating medical marijuana with the passage of the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which exempted patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. In 2003, the Legislature authorized the formation of medical marijuana cooperatives—nonprofit organizations that cultivate and distribute marijuana for medical uses to their members through dispensaries. Most recently, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (Act) passed in 2015, which consisted of three separate bills enacted together to license and regulate medical marijuana AB 243 (Wood, Chapter 688, Statues of 2015); AB 266 (Bonta, Chapter 689, Statutes of 2015); and SB 643 (McGuire, Chapter 719, Statutes of 2015). These bills created a comprehensive state licensing system for the commercial cultivation, manufacture, retail sale, transport, distribution, delivery, and testing of medical cannabis. Medical marijuana cooperatives will be phased out under the Act and replaced by state licensed businesses.

The Act went into effect on January 1, 2016, and licensure requirements will follow when the regulatory entities responsible for implementation pass necessary regulations.

The Act distributes state responsibilities among six agencies:

• The Bureau: license and regulate dispensaries, transporters, and distributors.
• Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW): monitor and reduce environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation.
• State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): regulate the environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation on water quality and instream flows.
• California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA): regulate medical marijuana cultivation and issue licenses to growers.
• Department of Public Health (DPH): develop and enforce regulations and standards for medical marijuana product manufacturers and testing laboratories.
• Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR): develop pesticide use guidelines for the cultivation of medical marijuana.

This bill requires license applicants with 20 or more employees to implement a training program to educate, inform, and train the licensee’s agents and employees on compliance with the Act within one year of licensure. The licensee may either conduct the training by his or herself or hire a third party provider, which may be a union organization. However, this bill prohibits any third party provider of employee training programs from engaging in apprenticeship programs regulated by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.

It is unclear why this exclusion from apprenticeship programs exists; one would think that organizations that already provide training programs would be ideally suited for this new industry. The rationale for these provisions is unclear.

1. Related Legislation. AB 1575 (Bonta) of 2016 amends various provisions of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. (Status: This bill is currently pending in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.)

SB 837 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) of 2016 makes a number of changes to the Act. Some changes are inconsistent with AB 1575, and some duplicate. (Status: This bill is currently pending in the Assembly Budget Committee.)

1. Previous Legislation. AB 266 (Bonta, Cooley, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, and Wood, Chapter 689, Statutes of 2015) enacted the Act for the licensure and regulation of medical marijuana, established the Bureau within the DCA, required the CDFA to administer the provisions of the act related to cultivation, required the DPH to administer the provisions of the Act related to manufacturing and testing of medical cannabis and required BOE to adopt a system for reporting the movement of commercial cannabis and cannabis products.

AB 243 (Wood, Chapter 688, Statutes of 2015) required the CDFA, the DPR, the DPH, the DFW, and the SWRCB to promulgate regulations relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation, as specified, required various state agencies to take specified actions to mitigate the impact that marijuana cultivation has on the environment, and established the Act Fund.

SB 643 (McGuire, Chapter 719, Statutes of 2015) established standards for the prescription of medical cannabis, required the Medical Board of California to prioritize its investigative and prosecutorial resources to identify and discipline physicians and surgeons that have repeatedly recommended excessive cannabis to patients for medical purposes or repeatedly recommended cannabis to patients for medical purposes without a good faith examination, as specified, authorized counties to impose a tax upon specified cannabis-related activity, and set forth standards for the licensed cultivation of medical cannabis.

1. Arguments in Support. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) writes, “With the passage of the Act, UFCW strongly supports the creation of a robust program to train cannabis workers in the industry at the California DCA.

Professional licensing and safety standards are widely accepted norms throughout the State of California for a variety of occupations and we should do the same for workers employed in the cannabis industry. Cannabis workers need vital knowledge of their product and how best to serve the needs of people suffering from serious diseases.”

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support:

United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Sponsor)

(1/25/2016 version):

California Labor Federation

Central Coast Forest Association

City of Santa Monica

League of California Cities

Opposition:

None on file as of June 22, 2016.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 26

Author:(Jones-Sawyer)

As Amended Ver:January 25, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires a licensee under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) to institute and maintain a training program to educate, inform, and train the licensee's agents and employees regarding compliance with the MMRSA, and requires the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (Bureau) to approve and regulate the training programs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a licensee to institute and maintain a training program to educate, inform, and train the licensee's agents and employees regarding compliance with the MMRSA.
2. Requires the Bureau to adopt standards for the approval of training programs and to be the sole state agency responsible for approving and regulating the training programs.
3. Prohibits the Bureau from approving a training program provided or proposed to be provided by or through an apprenticeship program approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.
4. Requires an application for state licensure to include a detailed description of the applicant's training program.
5. Requires a state licensing authority to deny the application of an applicant that does not have or revoke the license of a state licensee that fails to institute or maintain a program approved by the licensing authority.
6. Requires the state licensing authority to charge each training program a fee to cover costs incurred for approving the training program, but limits the total fees to no more than reasonable regulatory costs for the approval.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this estimate is subject to significant uncertainty, as the number of licensees, the number of training programs, the complexity of the training, and numerous operational decisions are all unknown at this time. Staff estimates California Department of Public Health (CDPH), California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and the Bureau may incur the following total costs (funded through an already authorized General Fund (GF) loan to the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund, paid back through training program approval fee revenue):

1) Developing training program standards, and developing processes for application and review of training programs, would likely result in contract or staff costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

2) Costs for initial verification of training programs could range from minor to significant, depending on how many training programs apply for approval.

3) Unknown costs to verify licensees are implementing training programs in. If on-site visits are required, costs could be significant. Any ongoing costs for this activity will be recovered through training approval fees.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council (UFCW). According to the author, "It is essential that everyone working in the medical marijuana industry be trained. Whether they are working with patients in a dispensary, cultivating at farms or assisting in the manufacture and processing of products for consumption, they must be given training. These workers, patients and the public need to know that those in the medical marijuana industry are educated in the health, safety and security standards set by the state."

The MMRSA. The MMRSA consisted of three separate bills which were enacted together on Sept 11, 2015, to bring licensure and regulation to the medical marijuana industry nearly 20 years after the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, which legalized the use of medical marijuana. The bills created a comprehensive state licensing system for the commercial cultivation, manufacture, retail sale, transport, distribution, delivery, and testing of medical cannabis. In addition, the bills affirm local control and require licensure by both a local government and the state in order for a licensee to operate. The MMRSA went into effect on January 1, 2016, although licensure requirements will not go into effect until the regulatory entities responsible for implementing the act pass necessary regulations.

Among other things, the MMRSA establishes the new Bureau under the Department of Consumer Affairs, which is responsible for licensing and regulating dispensaries, transporters, and distributors. In addition, the CDPH is responsible for regulating manufacturers, testing laboratories, and the production and labeling of edible medical marijuana products. The CDFA is responsible for regulating cultivation, and other state agencies, such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Resources Control Board, are responsible for developing environmental standards.

Under the MMRSA, applicants seeking licensure to cultivate, distribute, or manufacture medical cannabis are required to include a detailed description of the applicant's operating procedures for cultivation, extraction and infusion methods, transportation process, inventory procedures, and quality control procedures. This bill would additionally require all applicants, including dispensaries and testing laboratories, to include a detailed description of a training program for its agents and employees, to be approved by the Bureau, as a condition of licensure. Under the bill, the licensee would institute and maintain the training program for its agents and employees on compliance with the MMRSA. The training program must also include training on legal requirements, best industry practices, occupational health and safety standards, and company policies. The Bureau would be required to adopt standards to approve these training programs, and to regulate these training programs.

Medical Marijuana Training and Education. Currently, there is a small offering of voluntary education and training for persons in the medical marijuana industry, ranging from schools that provide a complete curriculum and certification program on cannabis, to individual seminars and courses about the industry. However, because this industry has not previously been regulated, there are no statewide standards for what this type of training should include.

While this bill would impose mandatory training for a licensee's employees and agents, at least one state, Colorado, has adopted a similar albeit voluntary approach to training. Under Colorado's Responsible Vendor Training Program, a licensee may receive a responsible vendor designation if all of its employees who sell or handle medical marijuana, managers, and resident owners complete a medical marijuana training program offered by a state approved provider. While the program is voluntary, the benefit of such designation is that if a local or state licensing authority initiates an administrative action against a designated licensee, the licensing authority may consider the designation as a mitigating factor when imposing sanctions or penalties on the licensee. The training programs are required to be at least two hours long, and must have a core curriculum of relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, including information on proper identification of patients, age requirements, record maintenance, liability, and enforcement. The training is also required to include information about marijuana's effects on the human body based on type of marijuana product, the amount of time to feel impairment, and health and safety standards. Currently, Colorado has four state approved responsible vendor training programs, with training programs costing roughly $150 per person per course.

Analysis Prepared by: Gabby Nepomuceno / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0002590

Date of Hearing: January 21, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 26

Author:(Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended Ver:January 13, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires applicants for medical marijuana licenses to institute training programs as a condition of licensure. It also:

1. Requires licensing authorities, including the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (Bureau), the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to deny license applications or revoke licenses if an applicant or licensee fails to institute approved training programs.
2. Requires the Bureau to adopt standards for the approval of training programs, and to be the sole state agency responsible for approving and regulating training programs.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This estimate is subject to significant uncertainty, as the number of licensees, the number of training programs, the complexity of the training, and numerous operational decisions are all unknown at this time. Staff estimates the Bureau may incur the following costs (funded through a previously authorized GF loan to the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund, to be repaid through licensure fee revenue):

1. Developing training program standards and developing processes for application and review of training programs, would likely result in contract or staff costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The bill requires approved training on substantive legal requirements, industry best practices, and occupational health and safety standards for numerous types of industries.
2. Costs for initial verification of training programs could range from minor to significant, depending on how many training programs apply for approval. If only a few larger training programs apply, costs would be lower because one approved training program would serve multiple licensees. If more licensees develop their own training programs, approval costs could be much more significant. If a large number of training programs apply, it may also require a more sophisticated Information Technology (IT) solution to track applicants.
3. To verify licensees are implementing training programs should be fairly minor and absorbable, assuming the check is paper-based. If on-site visits are required, costs would increase. Any ongoing costs for this activity will be recovered through license fees.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill, sponsored by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council (UFCW), is intended to ensure workers in the medical cannabis industry are well-trained on safety rules, industry best practices, and legal compliance.
2. Background. Medical marijuana, though illegal under federal law, has been legal under state law since the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996. The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) was a package of three bills enacted together in 2015 to regulate the medical marijuana industry and license its participants. The bills created a comprehensive state regulatory system for the commercial cultivation, manufacture, retail sale, transport, distribution, delivery, and testing of medical cannabis. Among other things, the MMRSA establishes the new Bureau under the Department of Consumer Affairs, which is responsible for licensing and regulating dispensaries, transporters, and distributors. The MMRSA charges CDPH with regulating manufacturers, testing laboratories, and the production and labeling of edible medical marijuana products, and CDFA with regulating cultivation. Other state agencies, such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Resources Control Board, are responsible for developing environmental standards. The MMRSA went into effect on January 1, 2016, though licensure will not be required until the responsible licensing authorities pass regulations.
3. Marijuana Regulation Startup Costs and Fees. Among other provisions, AB 243 (Wood), Chapter 688, Statutes of 2015, one of the bills establishing MMRSA, appropriated $10 million to the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund for start-up activities. MMRSA requires each licensing authority for medical marijuana, including the Bureau, CDPH, and CDFA, to charge fees commensurate with regulatory costs.  Further, each licensing authority is required to generate sufficient fee revenue to cover the specific licensure program administered by that authority. The Governor's 2016-17 budget requests positions and between $3-$4 million (for a total of $10.5 million in 2016-17) for startup activities of each licensing authority.
4. Prior Legislation. AB 266 (Bonta, Cooley, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, and Wood), Chapter 689, Statutes of 2015; SB 643 (McGuire), Chapter 719, Statutes of 2015; and AB 243, described above, were companion bills that formed the MMRSA.
5. Related Legislation. AB 567 (Gipson) limits third-party marijuana delivery services, restricts licensed dispensaries from employing persons under age 21, and requires tax penalty amnesty programs for medical cannabis-related businesses.
   
   AB 1548 (Wood) imposes a marijuana distribution tax to be deposited into the Marijuana Production and Environment Mitigation Fund.
6. Staff Comments.
7. Lack of Clarity on Reimbursements for Work Done by the Bureau on Behalf of a Different Department.  Current law related to fees could be clarified to ensure the regulatory entity performing the activity can be compensated. Business and Professions Code 19350 provides only for licensure and renewal fees to support activities of the licensing authority.  Given current law requires the regulatory programs be fee-supported, it appears the Bureau could recover costs through licensure and renewal fees, for their licensees.   However, although the law allows fees to “vary depending upon the varying costs associated with administering the various regulatory requirements,” current law limits fees to the “reasonable regulatory costs to the licensing authority.”  For laboratories, for example, the licensing authority is CDPH.  If the bureau is approving laboratory training programs on behalf of CDPH, it appears unclear whether CDPH can charge laboratories to support the Bureau’s workload costs.  In order to ensure transparency and accurately account for costs and revenues, it appears advisable to clarify current law to ensure the Bureau can, for example, be reimbursed for any costs related to approval of training programs for entities regulated by CDPH or CDFA.  A similar allocation will assumedly be made to the Bureau for shared, centralized activities such as IT infrastructure required by MMRSA, so clarifying allowable funding flows would appear to form a firmer and more transparent legal basis for such transfers in cases where centralized work is performed.  

Alternatively, the task of approving training programs could be assigned to the appropriate licensing authority, such that CPDH would approve training for laboratories and manufacturers, and CDFA would approve training for cultivators. Even if this is done, it may still make sense on principle to clarify allowable transfers of funds based on centralized work.

1. Cost Recovery Through Licensure Fees? Because this bill requires a license applicant to institute a bureau-approved training program as a condition of licensure, this approval must happen before a potential licensee even applies for licensure.  This means the standards, and a significant number of training programs, must be approved before any license fees are collected, and thus that revenue recovery for this purpose may initially be limited, similar to many other start-up activities of the bureau.  On an ongoing basis, all regulatory costs are recoverable through licensure fees. However, it is worth considering charging the training programs directly for the approval. The bill does not currently specify such a fee. Authorizing training program approval fees would allow cost recovery for the activity directly. It would also ensure any third-party training programs that are not licensees pay for the cost of their training program approval. Such third-party entity would likely charge fees to licensees to train their employees. In this context, a fee for training program approval would appropriately be a cost of doing business for the third-party entity instead of for the licensee.

Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: January 12, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

Susan Bonilla, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 26

Author:Jones-Sawyer – As Amended Ver:January 4, 2016

SUBJECT: Medical cannabis.

SUMMARY: Requires a licensee under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) to institute and maintain a training program to educate, inform, and train the licensee's agents and employees regarding compliance with the MMRSA, and requires the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (Bureau) to approve and regulate the training programs.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits the possession, possession with intent to sell, cultivation, sale, transportation, importation, or furnishing of marijuana, except as otherwise provided by law. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 11357, 11358, 11359, and 11360)
2. Prohibits prosecution of a patient or a patient’s primary caregiver, under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA), an initiative measure, for possessing or cultivating marijuana for personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. (HSC Section 11362.5)
3. Provides that qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and their designated primary caregivers who associate in order to collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana, are not subject to criminal liability solely on that basis, until one year after the Bureau begins issuing licenses under the MMRSA. (HSC Section 11362.775)
4. Enacts the MMRSA, which provides for the state licensure and regulation of commercial cannabis activities, including cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, and sale of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section 19300 et seq.)
   
5. Establishes the Bureau within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), and requires the Bureau, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to administer the MMRSA and promulgate regulations for implementation of the act. (BPC Section 19300 et seq.)
   
6. Vests in the DCA the sole authority to create, issue, renew, discipline, suspend, or revoke licenses for medical marijuana activities, including licenses for dispensaries, distributors, and transporters. Prohibits a licensee from holding more than one license except as specified. (BPC Sections 19302.1, 19328)
   
7. Allows the Bureau to convene an advisory committee to advise the Bureau and licensing authorities on the development of standards and regulations, including best practices and guidelines to ensure qualified patients have adequate access to MM and MM products. (BPC Section 19306)
8. Provides that the actions of a licensee permitted pursuant to both a state license and a license or permit issued by the local jurisdiction following the requirements of the applicable local ordinances, and conducted in accordance with the MMRSA are not unlawful under state law. (BPC Section 19317)
9. Prohibits a person from engaging in commercial cannabis activity without possessing both a state license and a local permit or other authorization upon the date of implementation of regulations by the licensing authority. (BPC Section 19320)
   
10. Requires an applicant for a state license to, among other things, submit fingerprints to the Department of Justice, and provide documentation, issued by the local jurisdiction, certifying that the applicant is in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations; evidence of the legal right to occupy the proposed location; for applicants with 20 or more employees, provide a statement that the applicant will enter into, or already has entered into, a labor peace agreement; a seller's permit number; and other specified information. (BPC Section 19322)
    
11. Requires applicants seeking licensure to cultivate, distribute, or manufacture medical cannabis, to include a detailed description of the applicant's operating procedures for all of the following as required by the licensing authority: 1) cultivation; 2) extraction and infusion methods; 3) transportation procedures; 4) inventory procedures; and 5) quality control procedures. (BPC Section 19322)
    
12. Requires the Bureau to deny an application if the applicant or the premises do not qualify for licensure or fail to comply with the MMRSA. (BPC Section 19323)
    
13. Allows licensing authorities to take disciplinary action against a licensee for any violation of any provision in this bill, and requires a licensing authority to inform the Bureau upon suspension or revocation of a license. (BPC Sections 19313, 19313.5)
    
14. Provides that nothing shall be interpreted to supersede or limit existing local authority for law enforcement activity, enforcement of local zoning requirements or local ordinances, or enforcement of local permit or licensing requirements. (BPC Section 19315)
    
15. Requires the CDPH to administer the provisions of the Act related to the manufacturing and testing of medical cannabis and to promulgate regulations governing the licensing of manufacturers and testing laboratories. Requires the CDPH to develop standards for the production and labeling of all edible medical cannabis products. (BPC Sections 19332, 19341)
    
16. Requires all licensed cultivators and manufacturers to package all medical cannabis and medical cannabis products in tamper-evident packaging and to use a unique identifier to identify and track the product, and requires the product to be labeled as specified. (BPC Section 19326)
    
17. Requires all licensees holding cultivation or manufacturing licensees to send all medical cannabis and medical cannabis products to a distributor for quality assurance and inspection by the distribution licensee and for batch testing by a testing licensee prior to distribution to a dispensary. (BPC Section 19326)
    
18. Requires the CDFA to administer the provisions of the MMRSA related to the cultivation of medical cannabis; to create, issue, and suspend or revoke cultivation licenses for violations of the Act; and to promulgate regulations governing the licensing of indoor and outdoor cultivation sites. (BPC Sections 19302.1, 19332)
    
19. Requires the CDFA, in consultation with the Bureau, to establish a track and trace program for reporting the movement of medical marijuana items throughout the distribution chain that use a unique identifier and secure packaging, and is capable of providing specified information, including the licensee receiving the product, the transaction date, and the cultivator from which the product originates. (BPC Section 19335)
    
20. Requires the CDFA to create an electronic database containing the electronic shipping manifests which shall include the quantity, or weight, and variety of products shipped and received; estimated and actual times of departure and arrival; and license number and unique identifiers issued by the licensing authority for all licensees involved in the shipping process. (BPC Section 19335)
    
21. Requires the Bureau to establish minimum security requirements for the commercial transportation and delivery of medical cannabis and products. (BPC Section 19334)
    
22. Authorizes a county to impose a tax on the privilege of cultivating, dispensing, producing, processing, preparing, storing, providing, donating, selling, or distributing medical cannabis or medical cannabis products by a licensee operating pursuant to the MMRSA, as specified. (BPC Section 19348)
    
23. Provides for a General Fund or special fund loan, including up to $10 million from the General Fund, to the Bureau to support the initial regulatory activities authorized by MMRSA. (BPC Section 19351)
    
24. Requires the Bureau to establish a grant program to fund activities by state and local law enforcement to remedy the environmental effects of cannabis cultivation, payable from fines and penalties charged pursuant to the MMRSA after all outstanding loans for the program are repaid. (BPC Section 19351)
    
25. Directs the State Board of Equalization (BOE) to adopt a system, in consultation with the CDFA, to report the movement of commercial cannabis and cannabis products throughout the distribution chain, which must not duplicate CDFA's track and trace program. (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 31020)
    
26. Requires, beginning March 1, 2023, and on or before March 1 of each following year, each licensing authority to prepare and submit to the Legislature an annual report on the authority's activities and post it on its Internet Web site, as specified. (BPC Section 19353)
    
27. By January 1, 2017, requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to convene an advisory committee to evaluate whether there is a need to develop industry-specific regulations related to the activities of licensed facilities. (Labor Code Section 147.5)

THIS BILL:

1. Requires a licensee to institute and maintain a training program to educate, inform, and train the licensee's agents and employees regarding compliance with the MMRSA.
2. Requires the Bureau to adopt standards for the approval of training programs and to be the sole state agency responsible for approving and regulating the training programs.
3. Prohibits the Bureau from approving a training program provided or proposed to be provided by or through an apprenticeship program approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.
4. Requires an application for state licensure to include a detailed description of the applicant's training program.
5. Requires a state licensing authority to deny the application of an applicant that does not have or revoke the license of a state licensee that fails to institute or maintain a program approved by the Bureau.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council (UFCW). According to the author, "It is essential that everyone working in the medical marijuana industry be trained. Whether they are working with patients in a dispensary, cultivating at farms or assisting in the manufacture and processing of products for consumption, they must be given training. These workers, patients and the public need to know that those in the medical marijuana industry are educated in the health, safety and security standards set by the state."

The MMRSA. The MMRSA consisted of three separate bills which were enacted together on Sept 11, 2015, to bring licensure and regulation to the medical marijuana industry nearly 20 years after the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, which legalized the use of medical marijuana. The bills created a comprehensive state licensing system for the commercial cultivation, manufacture, retail sale, transport, distribution, delivery, and testing of medical cannabis. In addition, the bills affirm local control and require licensure by both a local government and the state in order for a licensee to operate. The MMRSA went into effect on January 1, 2016, although licensure requirements will not go into effect until the regulatory entities responsible for implementing the act pass necessary regulations.

Among other things, the MMRSA establishes the new Bureau under the DCA, which is responsible for licensing and regulating dispensaries, transporters, and distributors. In addition, the CDPH is responsible for regulating manufacturers, testing laboratories, and the production and labeling of edible medical marijuana products. The CDFA is responsible for regulating cultivation, and other state agencies, such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Resources Control Board, are responsible for developing environmental standards.

Under the MMRSA, applicants seeking licensure to cultivate, distribute, or manufacture medical cannabis are required to include a detailed description of the applicant's operating procedures for cultivation, extraction and infusion methods, transportation process, inventory procedures, and quality control procedures. This bill would additionally require all applicants, including dispensaries and testing laboratories, to include a detailed description of a training program for its agents and employees, to be approved by the Bureau, as a condition of licensure. Under the bill, the licensee would institute and maintain the training program for its agents and employees on compliance with the MMRSA. The training program must also include training on legal requirements, best industry practices, occupational health and safety standards, and company policies. The Bureau would be required to adopt standards to approve these training programs, and to regulate these training programs.

Medical Marijuana Training and Education. Currently, there is a small offering of voluntary education and training for persons in the medical marijuana industry, ranging from schools that provide a complete curriculum and certification program on cannabis, to individual seminars and courses about the industry. However, because this industry has not previously been regulated, there are no statewide standards for what this type of training should include.

While this bill would impose mandatory training for a licensee's employees and agents, at least one state, Colorado, has adopted a similar albeit voluntary approach to training. Under Colorado's Responsible Vendor Training Program, a licensee may receive a responsible vendor designation if all of its employees who sell or handle medical marijuana, managers, and resident owners complete a medical marijuana training program offered by a state approved provider. While the program is voluntary, the benefit of such designation is that if a local or state licensing authority initiates an administrative action against a designated licensee, the licensing authority may consider the designation as a mitigating factor when imposing sanctions or penalties on the licensee. The training programs are required to be at least two hours long, and must have a core curriculum of relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, including information on proper identification of patients, age requirements, record maintenance, liability, and enforcement. The training is also required to include information about marijuana's effects on the human body based on type of marijuana product, the amount of time to feel impairment, and health and safety standards. Currently, Colorado has approved four state approved responsible vendor training programs, with training programs costing roughly $150 per person per course.

Current Related Legislation. AB 567 (Gipson) of the current legislative session would prohibit mobile, vehicular, or technology platforms that enable qualified patients or primary caregivers to arrange for any delivery with a third party; would provide that a dispensary that employs or uses the services of any person under 21 years of age for the sale or delivery of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products is subject to suspension or revocation of certain state or local licenses; and would require tax penalty amnesty programs, for medical cannabis-related businesses, as provided.

AB 1548 (Wood) of the current legislative session would impose a tax in specified amounts on the distribution in this state by a cultivator of marijuana to a licensed distributor, as specified; require the licensed distributor to collect the tax from the cultivator and remit it to the BOE; and require all moneys, less refunds and costs of administration, to be deposited into the Marijuana Production and Environment Mitigation Fund, as specified.

Prior Related Legislation. AB 266 (Bonta, Cooley, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, and Wood), Chapter 689, Statutes of 2015, enacted the MMRSA for the licensure and regulation of medical marijuana and established the Bureau within the DCA, under the supervision and control of the Director of the DCA, and required the Director to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act. AB 266 also required the CDFA to administer the provisions of the act related to cultivation, and required the CDPH to administer the provisions of the Act related to manufacturing and testing of medical cannabis. The bill also required the BOE, in consultation with the CDFA, to adopt a system for reporting the movement of commercial cannabis and cannabis products.

AB 243 (Wood), Chapter 688, Statutes of 2015, required the CDFA, the DPR, the CDPH, the DFW, and the SWRCB to promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation, as specified, required various state agencies to take specified actions to mitigate the impact that marijuana cultivation has on the environment, and established the MMRSA Fund.

SB 643 (McGuire), Chapter 719, Statutes of 2015, set forth standards for a physician and surgeon prescribing medical cannabis, required the Medical Board of California to prioritize its investigative and prosecutorial resources to identify and discipline physicians and surgeons that have repeatedly recommended excessive cannabis to patients for medical purposes or repeatedly recommended cannabis to patients for medical purposes without a good faith examination, as specified, authorized counties to impose a tax upon specified cannabis-related activity, and set forth standards for the licensed cultivation of medical cannabis.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council (UFCW) writes in support, "With the passage of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, UFCW strongly supports the creation of a robust program to train cannabis workers in the industry at the [DCA]. Professional licensing and safety standards are widely accepted norms throughout the State of California for a variety of occupations and we should do the same for workers employed in the cannabis industry. Cannabis workers need vital knowledge of their product and how best to serve the needs of people suffering from serious diseases. UFCW Western States Council is committed to support a regulatory framework that will protect and enhance cannabis workers and consumers….Moreover, a “Cannabis Worker Training Certification Program” will ensure the rights of workers are protected, health and safety standards are maintained and ongoing product knowledge and skills development are sustained with consistency throughout the cannabis industry similar to pharmacy laboratory technicians, nurse assistants, dental hygienists, physical therapists and cosmetologists."

POLICY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: California has only recently enacted the MMRSA, which goes into effect January 1, 2016. Because there were previously no requirements for the population to be licensed under the Act, no statewide standards have been developed regarding compliance with the MMRSA, or best practices for various parts of the industry. While this bill would require licensees to develop and have training programs for their employees, it is unclear exactly what that training would consist of, or how each licensee would be able to determine what type of training would meet this requirement. And, while the Bureau would be required to develop standards to approve these training programs, this approval process may be onerous for the Bureau.

As a result, the author may wish to consider specifying that the Bureau work to develop minimum standards for training programs, taking into account various license types. For example, dispensary licensees and employees may benefit from information regarding the various types and amounts of active ingredients in medical marijuana and how those ingredients affect patients, while manufacturers may benefit from specialized information on health and safety standards relating to production of edible products. The author may also wish to consider requiring the Bureau to approve training course providers, as state regulatory entities typically do for trainings and required courses in other licensed categories, and authorizing licensees to incorporate the use of training providers so that licensees do not have to develop or provide their own training and curriculum, and can instead rely on a third party to provide such training. In addition, while the bill currently requires the Bureau to approve all training programs, the author may wish to clarify that the Bureau or the appropriate licensing authority, e.g., the CDFA or the CDPH, may also adopt standards for and approve training programs in order to take advantage of a licensing authority's expertise with regards to licensees and standards under their jurisdiction. Lastly, the author may wish to specify which types of employees and agents are required to complete this training, and include a timeframe for new hires to complete this training.

AMENDMENTS:

The author has agreed to the following technical amendments:

On page 10, line 4, strike "must" and insert "shall".

On page 10, line 4, after "and" strike "must" and insert "shall".

Add a coauthor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT:

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council (sponsor)

REGISTERED OPPOSITION:

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Eunie Linden / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301