The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (AUMA), an initiative measure, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Cannabis Control. Existing law authorizes local jurisdictions to enforce the provisions of MAUCRSA and to regulate cannabis businesses, as specified.

Prior existing law, which was repealed on January 1, 2025, established a task force on state and local regulation of commercial cannabis activity to promote communication between state and local entities engaged in the regulation of commercial cannabis activity and facilitate cooperation to enforce applicable state and local laws, consisting of specified members from state agencies and all local jurisdictions regulating commercial cannabis activity that opt to participate. That prior law exempted the meetings of the task force from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act.

This bill would reinstate the task force and expand the task force to include representatives from tribal governmental entities regulating commercial cannabis activity that opt to participate in the task force. The bill would exempt the meetings of the task force from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1496

Author:(Blanca Rubio) – As Introduced Ver:February 21, 2025

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

SUMMARY:

This bill re-establishes a task force on state and local regulation of commercial cannabis activity to promote communication between state and local entities and facilitate enforcement.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Reinstates provisions of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) establishing a task force on state and local regulation of commercial cannabis activity that were repealed January 1, 2025.
2. Requires the task force membership to include representatives from the following:
3. Department of Cannabis Control (DCC).
4. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
5. Department of Fish and Wildlife.
6. State Water Resources Control Board.
7. Department of the California Highway Patrol.
8. Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
9. Department of Justice.
10. All local jurisdictions and tribal governmental entities regulating commercial cannabis activity that opt to participate in the task force, which may send representatives from specified entities.
11. Requires DCC to lead the task force and convene it twice each fiscal year, through teleconference or similar means to facilitate remote participation.
12. Exempts the task force from requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act to protect the integrity of administrative, civil, and criminal investigations, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor and absorbable costs to DCC.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Since its legalization, California’s recreational cannabis market has been hindered by the presence of unlicensed illicit cannabis growers and sellers…[T]he cannabis market is currently in a precarious position, with licensed growers and retailers struggling to operate at a sustainable level. The illicit cannabis market takes away business and valuable customers from the legal market, reducing legal profits and in turn reducing general fund money generated by the cannabis industry. These illegal cannabis operations not only undermine the legal market but also prey on marginalized communities, leading to the exploitation of workers and contributing to labor trafficking. Re-establishing and expanding the task force is critical for continuing efforts to combat the illicit cannabis market and ensure that unregulated cannabis does not infiltrate our communities.

1. Background. The task force was established by AB 195 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 56, Statutes of 2022, to promote communication between state and local entities engaged in the regulation of commercial cannabis activity and facilitate cooperation to enforce applicable state and local laws.
   
2. Prior Legislation. AB 993 (Rubio), Chapter 822, Statutes of 2023, expanded the membership of the task force to include representatives of the Civil Rights Department (CRD) and the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). This bill does not require CRD and DIR membership on the task force.

Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Kim / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

Marc Berman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1496

Author:(Blanca Rubio) – As Introduced Ver:February 21, 2025

SUBJECT: Cannabis task force.

SUMMARY: Reestablishes a prior task force on state and local regulation of commercial cannabis activity and expands the membership of the task force to include representatives of tribal governmental entities.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Enacts the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) to provide for a comprehensive regulatory framework for the cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, processing, and sale of medicinal and adult-use cannabis. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) §§ 26000 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency (previously established as the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Bureau of Marijuana Control, the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, and the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation), for purposes of administering and enforcing MAUCRSA. (BPC § 26010)
3. Requires the DCC to convene an advisory committee to advise the department on the development of standards and regulations pursuant to MAUCRSA, which is required to include representatives of labor organizations. (BPC § 26014)
4. Establishes grounds for disciplinary action against cannabis licensees, including knowing violations of any state or local law, ordinance, or regulation conferring worker protections or legal rights on the employees of a licensee. (BPC § 26030)
5. Authorizes the DCC to issue a citation to a licensee or unlicensed person for violating MAUCRSA or regulations adopted pursuant to MAUCRSA, and allows the DCC to assess an administrative fine of up to $5,000 per violation by a licensee and up to $30,000 per violation by an unlicensed person. (BPC § 26031.5)
6. Prohibits a person or entity from engaging in commercial cannabis activity without a state license issued by the DCC pursuant to MAUCRSA. (BPC § 26037.5)
7. Provides the DCC with authority for issuing various types of cannabis licenses including subtypes for cultivation, manufacturing, testing, retail, distribution, and microbusiness; requires each licensee except for testing laboratories to clearly designate whether their license is for adult-use or medicinal cannabis. (BPC § 26050)
8. Prohibits the DCC from approving an application for a state cannabis license if approval of the license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation. (BPC § 26055)
9. Provides that state cannabis laws do not supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate cannabis businesses. (BPC § 26200)
10. Establishes the California Cannabis Equity Act, enacted to ensure that persons most harmed by cannabis criminalization and poverty be offered assistance to enter the cannabis industry. (BPC §§ 26240 et seq.)
11. Provides California with criminal jurisdiction and civil adjudicatory jurisdiction over tribal lands within its borders, but not civil regulatory jurisdiction. (Public Law 83-280)

THIS BILL:

1. Reinstates provisions of MAUCRSA that were repealed effective January 1, 2025 establishing a task force on state and local regulation of commercial cannabis activity.
2. Provides that the purpose of the task force is to promote communication between state and local entities engaged in the regulation of commercial cannabis activity and facilitate cooperation to enforce applicable state and local laws.
3. Establishes the membership of the task force to include representatives from all of the following entities:
4. The DCC.
5. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
6. The Department of Fish and Wildlife.
7. The State Water Resources Control Board.
8. The Department of the California Highway Patrol.
9. The Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
10. The Department of Justice.
11. All local jurisdictions and tribal governmental entities regulating commercial cannabis activity that opt to participate in the task force, which may send one or more specified representatives.
12. Requires the task force to meet twice each fiscal year, through teleconference or similar means to facilitate remote participation, for discussions to be convened and led by the DCC.
13. Provides that discussion topics may include, but need not be limited to, enforcement against the illicit market, social equity programs, state licensing requirements, and labor and workforce compliance.
14. Exempts meetings of the task force from the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act or the Ralph M. Brown Act.

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

COMMENTS:

Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the author. According to the author:

Since its legalization, California’s recreational cannabis market has been hindered by the presence of unlicensed illicit cannabis growers and sellers. After an initial boom, the cannabis market is currently in a precarious position, with licensed growers and retailers struggling to operate at a sustainable level. The illicit cannabis market takes away business and valuable customers from the legal market, reducing legal profits and in turn reducing general fund money generated by the cannabis industry. These illegal cannabis operations not only undermine the legal market but also prey on marginalized communities, leading to the exploitation of workers and contributing to labor trafficking. Re-establishing and expanding the task force is critical for continuing efforts to combat the illicit cannabis market and ensure that unregulated cannabis does not infiltrate our communities. In 2024 alone, the Cannabis Task Force was instrumental in removing over $500 million worth of illegal cannabis, confiscating firearms, and executing multiple arrests in the process. These efforts demonstrate the importance of maintaining a well-supported and comprehensive approach to tackling the illicit cannabis trade.

Background.

Brief History of Cannabis Regulation in California. Consumption of cannabis was first made lawful in California in 1996 when voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act. Proposition 215 protected qualified patients and caregivers from prosecution relating to the possession and cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes, if recommended by a physician. This regulatory scheme was further refined by SB 420 (Vasconcellos) in 2003, which established the state’s Medical Marijuana Program. After several years of lawful cannabis cultivation and consumption under state law, a lack of a uniform regulatory framework led to persistent problems. Cannabis’s continued illegality under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug ineligible for prescription, generated periodic enforcement activities by the United States Department of Justice. Threat of action by the federal government created persistent apprehension within California’s cannabis community.

After several prior attempts to improve the state’s regulation of cannabis, the Legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act—subsequently retitled the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA)—in 2015. MCRSA established, for the first time, a comprehensive statewide licensing and regulatory framework for the cultivation, manufacture, transportation, testing, distribution, and sale of medicinal cannabis. While entrusting state agencies to promulgate extensive regulations governing the implementation of the state’s cannabis laws, MCRSA fully preserved local control. Under MCRSA, local governments may establish their own ordinances to regulate medicinal cannabis activity. Local jurisdictions could also choose to ban cannabis establishments altogether.

Not long after the Legislature enacted MCRSA, California voters passed Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). The passage of the AUMA legalized cannabis for non-medicinal adult use in a private home or licensed business; allowed adults 21 and over to possess and give away up to approximately one ounce of cannabis and up to eight grams of concentrate; and permitted the personal cultivation of up to six plants. The proponents of the AUMA sought to make use of much of the regulatory framework and authorities set out by MCRSA while making a few notable changes to the structure still being implemented.

In the spring of 2017, SB 94 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) was passed to reconcile the distinct systems for the regulation, licensing, and enforcement of legal cannabis that had been established under the respective authorities of MCRSA and the AUMA. The single consolidated system established by the bill—known as the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA)—created a unified series of cannabis laws. On January 16, 2019, the state’s three cannabis licensing authorities—the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the California Department of Public Health—officially announced that the Office of Administrative Law had approved final cannabis regulations promulgated by the three agencies respectively.

In early 2021, the Department of Finance released trailer bill language to create a new Department with centralized authority for cannabis licensing and enforcement activities. This new department was created through a consolidation of the three prior licensing authorities’ cannabis programs. As of July 1, 2021, the Department has been the single entity responsible for administering and enforcing the majority of MAUCRSA. New regulations went into effect on January 1, 2023 to effectuate the organizational consolidation and make other changes to cannabis regulation.

Local Regulation of Cannabis. When Proposition 64 was approved by the voters, it preserved the provisions of MCRSA that provided local control to cities and counties to decide whether to allow cannabis activity within their jurisdictions. Language included in MAUCRSA authorized the state’s cannabis licensing authorities to issue four month “temporary licenses” to applicants, which could be extended in 90-day increments. These temporary licenses allowed businesses to engage in commercial cannabis activity under state approval while local governments commenced with establishing their own local authorization processes and reviewing applications for local approval. Temporary licenses were issued without any fees and temporary licensees did not have access to the state’s track and trace system.

While the intent of MAUCRSA was to transition businesses to full annual licensure no later than December 31, 2018—at which time temporary license authority was scheduled to expire—many local jurisdictions struggled to launch their approval programs. For example, by August of 2018, Humboldt County regulators had received 2,376 permit applications and only approved 240. Some jurisdictions issued temporary or provisional local permits, but had not completed the full process for local permitting. To transition away from temporary licensure while local authorization issues remained unresolved, the Legislature passed SB 1459 (Cannella) in 2018, which instead established a “provisional license” scheme. Unlike temporary licenses, provisional license holders must pay a fee, comply with track and trace requirements, and meet additional responsibilities under MAUCRSA.

As of 2022, the DCC reported that approximately 70 percent of licenses in California remained provisional. The authority to issue and renew provisional licenses was originally scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2020; this was subsequently extended with the provisional licensing program ultimately sunsetting on January 1, 2026. Specific expiration dates and deadlines were applied to provisional licensees and applicants based on the size and nature of the business, and new requirements for certain applicants to submit documentation regarding lake or streambed alteration agreement were enacted. Beginning January 1, 2025, the DCC is no longer authorized to renew provisional licenses with the exception of locally verified equity retail licenses.

The 2022-23 Budget Act required the DCC to submit a report to the Legislature on the condition and health of the cannabis industry in the state. This report was presented to the Legislature in March 2025 and discussed in a joint informational hearing. In its transmittal letter, the DCC argued that “California has made significant progress since launching licensed cannabis sales in 2018” while conceding that “the legal industry continues to face persistent challenges.”

The DCC’s report indicated that as of July 2024, 46 percent of cities and counties in California allow at least one type of commercial cannabis activity. This means that 54 percent of cities and counties do not currently allow any type of cannabis business. The DCC further reported that 57 percent of cities and counties do not allow any retail cannabis businesses within their jurisdictions.

Tribal Governments and Cannabis. A document issued by the United States Attorney General in 2013 known as the “Cole memorandum” indicated that the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system, and a cannabis operation’s compliance with such a system, could allay the threat of federal enforcement interests. Federal prosecutors were urged under the memo to review cannabis cases on a case-by-case basis and consider whether a cannabis operation was in compliance with a strong and effective state regulatory system prior to prosecution. The memo was followed by a “Policy Statement Regarding Marijuana Issues in Indian Country” (referred to as the “Wilkinson memorandum”), which essentially extended the Cole memorandum to tribal lands contained within the borders of states that possess strong and effective state regulatory systems for cannabis, and that effectively comply with that regulatory system.

Both the Cole and Wilkinson memoranda were rescinded by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in January of 2018. In March 2022, a coalition of nine United States senators sent a letter to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, urging the Department of Justice to respect tribal sovereignty and cease enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act on tribal lands where cannabis activities are legalized by the tribes. The letter emphasized that tribal governments should have the right to determine their own cannabis policies without federal interference.

Neither the AUMA nor MAUCRSA included any language expressly authorizing recognized Indian tribes to engage in licensed cannabis activity within California. In the text of the regulations originally promulgated to implement MAUCRSA, a cannabis licensee “that may fall within the scope of sovereign immunity that may be asserted by a federally recognized tribe or other sovereign entity must waive any sovereign immunity defense that the applicant or licensee may have.” The regulations’ prohibited on cannabis delivery to publicly owned lands also “applies to land held in trust by the United States for a tribe or an individual tribal member unless the delivery is authorized by and consistent with applicable tribal law.”

It is generally accepted that members of a recognized Indian tribe may engage in cannabis activities on tribal land as long as this activity does not intermix with the market outside that tribal land and any involved individuals are exempted from the state’s cannabis license requirements through a claim of sovereign immunity. However, this has led to frustration among several tribes that wish to engage in the state’s growing regulated industry without having to waive sovereign immunity, as required by regulations. One barrier to allowing tribal members to engage in licensed activities on tribal lands is that Public Law 280 does not allow the state’s licensing authorities to enter that tribal land to engage in civil regulatory enforcement, meaning a tribe’s compliance with MAUCRSA could not be monitored and confirmed without a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Additionally, even to the extent that members of a tribe do not themselves intend to engage in regulated cannabis activities, they remain unable to lease any part of their land for cannabis cultivation to a California licensee, as tribal land is not technically within a local government capable of authorizing the activity locally under the state’s scheme for dual-licensure. Meanwhile, tribal governments also see significant adverse impacts from the illicit cannabis market, including environmental damage and other criminal activity.

State and Local Task Force. The 2022-23 Budget Act established a task force to promote communication between state and local entities engaged in the regulation of commercial cannabis activity and facilitate cooperation to enforce applicable state and local laws. The author of this bill previously authored earlier legislation that expanded the task force to include additional representatives of state agencies engaged in the enforcement of civil rights and labor rights. However, the task force formally sunset on January 1, 2025.

This bill would reestablish the task force, placing recently repealed language back into MAUCRSA. Additionally, this bill would add representatives of tribal governments to the task force, with the intent of improving collaboration and communication between those entities and state and local governments. The author believes that this task force was a demonstrated success and that its operation should continue as California continues to work toward its goal of facilitating a successful legal cannabis industry within the state.

Prior Related Legislation. AB 993 (Rubio), Chapter 822, Statutes of 2023 expanded the membership of the task force on state and local regulation of commercial cannabis activity to include representatives of the Civil Rights Department and the Department of Industrial Relations.

AB 195 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 56, Statutes of 2022 originally established the task force on state and local regulation of commercial cannabis activity.

SB 94 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 27, Statutes of 2017 combined the AUMA and MCRSA into a unified system for the regulation of cannabis, resulting in MAUCRSA.

REGISTERED SUPPORT:

None on file

REGISTERED OPPOSITION:

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Robert Sumner / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301