Existing law requires a local government body, when submitting for voter approval a bond measure the security for which constitutes a lien on the property for ad valorem taxes, to provide the voters a statement that includes estimates of tax rates and debt service in connection with the measure. This statement is required to be included in any voter information guide for the bond measure, as specified.

Existing law requires that the ballots used when voting on a measure proposed by a local governing body or submitted to the voters as an initiative or referendum measure have printed on them specified information, including a statement describing the measure. If the proposed measure imposes a tax or raises the rate of a tax, existing law requires that the statement of the measure include the amount of money to be raised annually and the rate and duration of the tax to be levied.

This bill would instead require that the statement for a bond measure include the best estimate from official sources of the average annual tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund the bond issue over the entire duration of the bond debt service, as specified. By imposing new duties on local elections officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law specifies the duties and powers of the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol.

This bill would require the commissioner to appoint, and serve as the chairperson of, a drugged driving task force, with specified membership, to develop recommendations for best practices, protocols, proposed legislation, and other policies that will address the issue of driving under the influence of drugs, including prescription drugs. The bill would also require the task force to examine the use of technology, including field testing technologies, to identify drivers under the influence of drugs. The bill would require the task force to report to the Legislature its policy recommendations and the steps that state agencies are taking regarding drugged driving. The bill would require these provisions to be implemented to the extent specified funding is made available.

Existing law specifies the duties and powers of the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol.

This bill would require the commissioner to appoint, and serve as the chair chairperson of, a drugged driving task force, with specified membership, to develop recommendations for best practices, protocols, proposed legislation, and other policies that will address the issue of driving under the influence of drugs, including prescription drugs. The bill would also require the task force to examine the use of technology, including field testing technologies, to identify drivers under the influence of drugs, and would authorize the task force to conduct pilot programs using those technologies. drugs. The bill would require the task force to report to the Legislature its policy recommendations and the steps that state agencies are taking regarding drugged driving.

Existing law provides that a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood for the purpose of determining the drug content of his or her blood if lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Existing law provides that if a blood test is unavailable, the person shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her urine and shall submit to a urine test. Existing law authorizes an officer to use a preliminary alcohol screening test that indicates the presence or concentration of alcohol based on a breath sample as a further investigatory tool in order to establish reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a vehicle in violation of certain prohibitions against driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

This bill would authorize an officer to use a preliminary oral fluid screening test that indicates the presence or concentration of a drug or controlled substance as a further investigatory tool in order to establish reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a vehicle in violation of certain prohibitions against driving under the influence of drugs.

Date of Hearing: April 5, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 6

Author:(Lackey) – As Amended Ver:March 21, 2017

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

SUMMARY:

This bill, to the extent funding is provided, requires the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Commissioner to appoint a drugged driving task force, with specified membership, to develop recommendations for best practices, protocols, proposed legislation, and other policies to address the issue of driving under the influence of drugs, including prescription drugs.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Minor additional CHP costs for the Commissioner to establish the task force.
2. The activities required of the task force would not result in additional costs if the provisions of the bill are delayed until June 2018. An appropriation for these purposes was included in Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act), beginning in fiscal year 2018-19. The provisions of this bill are contingent CHP receiving funding the Budget Act or Proposition 64.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Proposition 64 provides a couple of funding streams for CHP to address driving under the influence, including driving under the influence of marijuana. The source of the revenue stream is the money that will be generated by taxing marijuana (The Marijuana Tax Fund). One revenue stream is a fixed amount of $3,000,000 a year for four years starting in fiscal year 2018-2019. That money is for CHP “to establish and adopt protocols to determine whether a driver is operating a vehicle while impaired, including impairment by the use of marijuana or marijuana products, and to establish and adopt protocols setting forth best practices to assist law enforcement agencies.”
2. Purpose. According to the author, "Proposition 64, California’s initiative to legalize recreational use of marijuana, included a substantial amount of funding for the CHP to develop best practices to assist law enforcement in detecting drug-impaired drivers. It also included funding for enforcement, training and grants to local agencies by CHP."

AB 6 will require CHP to serve as the lead agency in forming a taskforce made of appropriate agencies, law enforcement and subject matter experts, including the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, to develop a comprehensive approach to the growing problem of drugged driving which includes both illicit drugs and prescription medications.

Analysis Prepared by: Pedro Reyes / APPR. / 916-319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 6

Author:(Lackey) – As Amended Ver:February 22, 2017

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Directs California Highway Patrol (CHP) to establish a task force to develop recommendations on driving under the influence of drugs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the CHP commissioner to appoint a drugged driving task force to develop recommendations for best practices, protocols, proposed legislation, and other policies that will address the issue of driving under the influence of drugs, including prescription drugs.
   
2. Provides that the task force shall consist of the commissioner as the Chairperson and at least one member from each of the following:
   
   1. The Office of Traffic Safety;
      
   2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;
      
   3. Local law enforcement;
      
   4. District attorneys;
      
   5. California Attorneys for Criminal Justice;
      
   6. Local government representatives;
      
   7. The California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research;
      
   8. The medical cannabis industry;
      
   9. The pharmaceutical industry;
      
   10. Licensed physicians; and
       
   11. Non-governmental organizations that focus on improving roadway safety.
       
3. Specifies that members of the task force shall serve at the pleasure of the commissioner and without compensation.
   
4. Requires the task force to report its policy recommendations and what steps state agencies are taking regarding drugged driving to the Legislature, as specified.
   

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies that the Controller shall disburse the sum of $3,000,000 annually to CHP beginning fiscal year 2018–2019 until fiscal year 2022–2023 to establish and adopt protocols to determine whether a driver is operating a vehicle while impaired, including impairment by the use of marijuana or marijuana products, and to establish and adopt protocols setting forth best practices to assist law enforcement agencies. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (c).)
   
2. States that CHP may use those funds to hire personnel to establish the protocols, as specified. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (c).)
   
3. Provides that CHP may make grants to public and private research institutions for the purpose of developing technology for determining when a driver is operating a vehicle while impaired, including impairment by the use of marijuana or marijuana products. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (c).)
   
4. Requires the Controller to disburse the sum of $10,000,000 to a public university or universities in California annually beginning with fiscal year 2018–2019 until fiscal year 2028–2029 to research and evaluate the implementation and effect of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, and shall, if appropriate, make recommendations to the Legislature and Governor regarding possible amendments to the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (b).)
   
5. Requires the universities that receive these funds to publish reports on their findings at a minimum of every two years and shall make the reports available to the public. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (b).)
   
6. Specifies that the funded research of the universities include, among other priorities:
   
   1. Impacts on public health, including health costs associated with marijuana use, as well as whether marijuana use is associated with an increase or decrease in use of alcohol or other drugs; (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (b)(1).)
      
   2. Public safety issues related to marijuana use, including studying the effectiveness of the packaging and labeling requirements and advertising and marketing restrictions contained in the act at preventing underage access to and use of marijuana and marijuana products, and studying the health-related effects among users of varying potency levels of marijuana and marijuana products; and (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (b)(3).)
      
   3. Marijuana use rates, maladaptive use rates for adults and youth, and diagnosis rates of marijuana-related substance use disorders. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (b)(4).)
      
   4. The outcomes achieved by the changes in criminal penalties made under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act for marijuana-related offenses, and the outcomes of the juvenile justice system, in particular, probation-based treatments and the frequency of upcharging illegal possession of marijuana or marijuana products to a more serious offense. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (b)(11).)
      
7. States that by July 15 of each fiscal year beginning in fiscal year 2018–2019, the Controller shall, after disbursing funds as specified, disburse funds deposited in the Marijuana Tax Fund during the prior fiscal year into sub-trust accounts, which includes the State and Local Government Law Enforcement Account:
   
   1. Twenty percent shall be deposited into the State and Local Government Law Enforcement Account and disbursed by the Controller as follows:
      
      1. To CHP for conducting training programs for detecting, testing and enforcing laws against driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including driving under the influence of marijuana. The department may hire personnel to conduct the specified training programs. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (f)(3)(A).)
         
      2. To CHP to fund internal California Highway Patrol programs and grants to qualified nonprofit organizations and local governments for education, prevention and enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including marijuana; programs that help enforce traffic laws, educate the public in traffic safety, provide varied and effective means of reducing fatalities, injuries and economic losses from collisions; and for the purchase of equipment related to enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including marijuana. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (f)(3)(B).)
         
      3. To the Board of State and Community Corrections for making grants to local governments to assist with law enforcement, fire protection, or other local programs addressing public health and safety associated with the implementation of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The board shall not make any grants to local governments which have banned the cultivation, including personal cultivation, or retail sale of marijuana or marijuana products as specified, or as otherwise provided by law. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34018, subd. (f)(3)(C).)
         
      4. For purposes of this paragraph, the Department of Finance shall determine the allocation of revenues between the agencies, with certain specifications. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (f)(3)(D).)
         
   2. Specifies that 80% of the money will be disbursed by the Controller to other accounts and organizations as specified by Proposition 64.
      
8. Specifies that the Controller shall disburse $2,000,000 annual to the University of California San Diego Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research to further the objectives of the Center including the enhanced understanding of the efficacy and adverse effects of marijuana. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (e).)
   
9. Requires the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation contract with the California Marijuana Research Program, known as the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research to develop a study that identifies the impact that cannabis has on motor skills. (Business and Prof. Code, § 19354.)
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Proposition 64, California’s initiative to legalize recreational use of marijuana, included a substantial amount of funding for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to develop best practices to assist law enforcement in detecting drug-impaired drivers. It also included funding for enforcement, training and grants to local agencies by CHP.

“According to DMV in 2012 and 2013, the number of fatal crashes involving drugs or the combination of drugs and alcohol exceed those involving solely alcohol. Current law enforcement practices have been effective at reducing the prevalence of drunk driving, however drugged driving enforcement has been more difficult. The nature of drug-impairment makes enforcing existing drugged driving laws a major challenge because standards for objectively identifying a drug-impaired driver have not been fully developed. Currently, the most effective tool for law enforcement are drug recognition experts who must undergo extensive training that is too costly and time-consuming for all peace officers to receive.

“AB 6 will require CHP to serve as the lead agency in forming a taskforce made of appropriate state and federal agencies, law enforcement and subject matter experts, including the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, to develop a comprehensive approach to the growing problem of drugged driving which includes both illicit drugs and prescription medications.

“The taskforce will examine new technologies that could be tools for identifying drug-impaired drivers on the road. It will also have authority to conduct pilot programs in partnership with local agencies to further refine its enforcement recommendations.

“A successful strategy for California will require the cooperation of many stakeholders from all levels of government. CHP’s experience and expertise in roadway safety along with the funding provided to them by Proposition 64 makes CHP the ideal state agency to coordinate a comprehensive approach to California’s drugged driving enforcement efforts.”

1. Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act) was passed by the voters on November 8, 2016: As a result of the passage of Proposition 64, adults, aged 21 years or older, are allowed to possess and use marijuana for recreational purposes. The measure created two new taxes, one levied on cultivation and the other on retail price. Revenue from the taxes will be spent on drug research, treatment, and enforcement, health and safety grants addressing marijuana, youth programs, and preventing environmental damage resulting from illegal marijuana production.
   
   Proposition 64 allows adults to possess up to an ounce of marijuana.  Adults are also allowed to cultivate up to six marijuana plants inside their homes. Marijuana packaging is now required to provide the net weight, origin, age, and type of the product, as well as the milligram amount per serving of tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids.
   
   Driving under the influence of marijuana was illegal prior to the passage of Proposition 64 and the Proposition 64 did nothing to change that.
   
2. The Effect of Drugs On an Individual’s Ability to Drive is Not Well Understood: Research has established that there is a close relationship between blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level and impairment. Some effects are detectable at very low BACs (e.g., .02 grams per deciliter, or g/dL) and as BAC rises, the types and severity of impairment increase. (Drug Impaired Driving Understanding the Problem & Ways to Reduce It (2009), National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, pp. 2-3.)
   
   The behavioral effects of other drugs are not as well understood compared to the behavioral effects of alcohol. Certain generalizations can be made: high doses generally have a larger effect than small doses; well-learned tasks are less affected than novel tasks; and certain variables, such as prior exposure to a drug, can either reduce or accentuate expected effects, depending on circumstances. However, the ability to predict an individual’s performance at a specific dosage of drugs other than alcohol is limited. Most psychoactive drugs are chemically complex molecules whose absorption, action, and elimination from the body are difficult to predict. Further, there are considerable differences between individuals with regard to the rates with which these processes occur. (Drug Impaired Driving Understanding the Problem & Ways to Reduce It (2009), National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, pp. 2-3.)
   
   The presence of a drug in a person’s blood sample might indicate a drug that was affecting the individual at the time the sample was taken, or it might indicate a drug that was consumed at some point in the past and was no longer affecting the individual at the time the sample was taken. The length of time that a drug or its metabolite is present in a given biological sample is often called its detection time. This may vary depending on the dose (amount), route of administration (injected, inhaled etc.) and elimination rate (how long it takes the body to get rid of the substance). The presence of a drug metabolite in a biological fluid may or may not reflect consumption of the drug recently enough to impair driving performance. (Drug Toxicology for Prosecutors, American Prosecutors Research Institute (2004), p. 8.)
   
   There are additional factors that complicate the determination of the effects on drugs on driving impairment. There are individual differences in absorption, distribution, and metabolism. Some individuals will show evidence of impairment at drug concentrations that are not associated with impairment in others. Wide ranges of drug concentrations in different individuals have been associated with equivalent levels of impairment. In certain instances drugs can be detected in the blood because of accumulation. Blood levels of some drugs or their metabolites may accumulate with repeated administrations if the time-course of elimination is insufficient. (Drug Impaired Driving Understanding the Problem & Ways to Reduce It (2009), National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, p. 3.) Because of these factors, specific drug concentration levels cannot be reliably equated with effects on driver performance.
   
3. Current Study on Interaction of Marijuana and Driving: The University of California, San Diego houses the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. AB 266 (Bonta), Chapter 689, Statutes of 2014, required the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation to contract with the California Marijuana Research Program, known as the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, to develop a study that identifies the impact that cannabis has on motor skills. The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research is currently engaged in that clinical study. The title of the study is “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cannabis in Healthy Volunteers Evaluating Simulated Driving, Field Performance Tests and Cannabinoid Levels.”
   
   As part of the study, volunteers will inhale smoked cannabis with either 0% (placebo), 6.7%, or 12.6% Δ9-THC at the beginning of the day, and then complete driving simulations, iPad-based performance assessments, and bodily fluid draws (e.g., blood, saliva, breath) before the cannabis smoking and hourly over the subsequent 7 hours after cannabis smoking. (http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php/2015-11-20-20-52-15/active-studies/62-ab266)
   
   The purpose of the study is to determine (1) the relationship of the dose of Δ9-THC on driving performance and (2) the duration of driving impairment in terms of hours from initial use, (3) if saliva or expired air can serve as a useful substitute for blood sampling of Δ9-THC in judicial hearings and (4) if testing using an iPad can serve as a useful adjunct to the standardized field sobriety test in identifying acute impairment from cannabis. (Id.)
   
   Proposition 64 provides the University of California San Diego Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research will continue to receive $2,000,000 annually for research on understanding the efficacy and adverse effects of marijuana.
   
4. Proposition 64 Provides Financial Resources for CHP to Study Drugged Driving, Including Marijuana: Proposition 64 provides a couple of funding streams for CHP to address driving under the influence, including driving under the influence of marijuana. The source of the revenue streams is the money that will be generated by taxing marijuana (The Marijuana Tax Fund). One revenue stream is a fixed amount of $3,000,000 a year for four years starting in fiscal year 2018-2019. That money is for CHP “to establish and adopt protocols to determine whether a driver is operating a vehicle while impaired, including impairment by the use of marijuana or marijuana products, and to establish and adopt protocols setting forth best practices to assist law enforcement agencies.” (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (c).) The language of Proposition 64 allows CHP to use those funds to hire personnel to establish the protocols for driving under the influence. In addition, the department may make grants to public and private research institutions for the purpose of developing technology for determining when a driver is operating a vehicle while impaired, including impairment by the use of marijuana or marijuana products. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34019, subd. (c).)
   
   Proposition 64 provides a second funding stream to CHP from the Marijuana Tax Fund. The money generated by taxing marijuana will go to a variety of entities to ensure effective implementation of the Proposition 64 and to address policy concerns surrounding the use of marijuana. After the mandatory disbursals from the Marijuana Tax Fund are made each year, the remaining money will be disbursed to specified entities on a percentage basis. Of the remaining money, CHP will receive 20%. That money is provided to CHP for the following purposes:
   
   1. . . . for conducting training programs for detecting, testing and enforcing laws against driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including driving under the influence of marijuana. The department may hire personnel to conduct the training programs specified in this subparagraph. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34018, subd. (f)(3)(A).)
      
   2. . . . to fund internal CHP programs and grants to qualified nonprofit organizations and local governments for education, prevention and enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including marijuana; programs that help enforce traffic laws, educate the public in traffic safety, provide varied and effective means of reducing fatalities, injuries and economic losses from collisions; and for the purchase of equipment related to enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including marijuana. (Health and Saf. Code, § 34018, subd. (f)(3)(B).)
      
5. Amendments Proposed by Committee: The Committee has proposed amendments which:
   
   1. Delete language related to pilot programs.
      
   2. Add a representative from California Attorneys for Criminal Justice to the task force.
      
   3. Clarify that the task force will have a representative from the California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.
      
6. Argument in Support: According to The California Police Chiefs Association, “With the November 2016 passage of Proposition 64 to legalize marijuana, there is an urgent need to reduce silos between impacted agencies and research institutions to further drug impaired driving research.
   
   “As the recipient of substantial funding for drugged driving enforcement provided by Proposition 64, the California Highway Patrol is the ideal agency to convene this diverse group of stakeholders charged with advancing strategies and technologies to identify drug impaired driving. Furthermore, the taskforce will provide policymakers with nonbiased findings; information that is crucial given the complexity of this subject matter.
   
   “We thank you for taking a measured approach to combatting drug impaired driving. As the number of drug impaired driving incidents continue to increase, it is imperative that California begins to identify the appropriate deterrents, measurements and responses as soon as possible.”
   
7. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 266 (Bonta), Chapter 689, Statutes of 2014, required the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation to contract with the California Marijuana Research Program, known as the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, to develop a study that identifies the impact that cannabis has on motor skills.
      
   2. AB 1731 (Atkins), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have created the Statewide Interagency Human Trafficking Task Force within the Department of Justice to gather statewide data on human trafficking and make recommendations. AB 1731 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. AB 1019 ( E. Garcia), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have required the Department of Justice to establish a Metal Theft Task Force Program related to the investigation and prosecution of illegal recycling operations, and metal theft and related recycling crimes. AB 1019 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   4. AB 2626 (Furutani), of the 2011-2012 Legislative Session, would have required county task forces on violence against women, if established, to evaluate and make recommendations on the need for services and access to information provided in languages other than English for women who are victims of violent crime. AB 2626 was returned to the desk without further action.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Police Chiefs Association (Co-Sponsor)
California Narcotic Officers’ Association (Co-Sponsor)
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Riverside Sheriffs’ Association

Opposition

Drug Policy Alliance

Analysis Prepared by:

David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744