BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2007-2008 Regular Session
AB 2279 A
Assembly Member Leno B
As Amended April 21, 2008
Hearing Date: June 24, 2008 2
Health and Safety Code 2
GMO:jd 7
9
SUBJECT
Medical Marijuana: Employment Discrimination
DESCRIPTION
The bill would prohibit employment discrimination on the
basis of a person's status as a qualified patient (medical
marijuana user) or designated primary caregiver, or on the
basis of the person's positive drug test for marijuana,
provided the person is a qualified patient and the medical
use of marijuana does not occur at the place of employment
or during hours of employment. An exception to the
prohibition would be when an employer hires a person in a
safety-sensitive position, as specified.
The bill would create, for a person who has suffered
discrimination as described above, a civil action for
damages, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate
equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise of the
right or rights secured.
Finally, the bill contains a savings clause that states
nothing in the section shall prohibit the employer from
terminating the employment, or taking other corrective
action against a person who is impaired on the property or
premises of the place of employment or during hours of
employment because of the medical use of marijuana.
BACKGROUND
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, the
(more)
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 2 of ?
Compassionate Use Act, "to ensure that seriously ill
Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for
medical purposes." Following passage of the proposition,
several issues arose, including the establishment of a
qualified patient's right to use medical marijuana outside
the workplace. SB 420 (Vasconcellos, Ch. 875, Stats. 2003)
was enacted to clearly prohibit the use of medical
marijuana by qualified patients on the property or premises
of any place of employment or during the hours of
employment. (Health & Safety Code 11362.785.)
In September 2001, Gary Ross, a 45-year old disabled Air
Force veteran, was fired after failing an employer-mandated
drug test. He was using medical marijuana on his doctor's
recommendation outside the workplace and had informed his
workplace of that fact. He sued for unlawful
discrimination based on disability under the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and for wrongful
termination in violation of public policy. The trial court
sustained a demurrer as to both causes of action. The
court of appeal affirmed, and upon further appeal, on
January 24, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that:
(1) nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use
Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the
respective rights and duties of employers and employees;
and (2) the FEHA does not protect the employment rights of
persons who test positive for illegal drugs (which
marijuana is under state and federal law). (Ross v.
Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920,
January 12, 2008.)
Americans for Safe Access, the sponsor of AB 2279, reports
that it receives more than 100 inquiries each year from
across the state covering medical marijuana related
pre-employment and employment discrimination issues. They
come from employees in 25 of the state's 58 counties, and
from large well-known businesses such as Walmart, Safeway,
DirecTV, Kaiser Permanente, Costco Wholesale, UPS, Forster
Farms Dairy, etc. The sponsor and author claim that
employment discrimination against medical marijuana
patients is a widespread problem facing Californians today.
The author and proponents state that AB 2279 intends to
clarify the law on the employment rights of medical
marijuana users, in light of the Supreme Court's decision
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 3 of ?
in Ross v. Ragingwire.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , Proposition 215 of 1996, the Compassionate
Use Act, confers on a person the right to obtain and use
marijuana for medical purposes where medical use is deemed
appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has
determined that the person's health would benefit from the
use of marijuana in treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS,
chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or
any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(Health & Safety Code 11362.5(b)(1). All references are
to the Health & Safety Code, unless otherwise indicated.)
Existing law removes the criminal penalties for cultivation
and possession of marijuana by qualified patients, who are
persons with a physician's written or oral recommendation
or approval to use marijuana for medical use, or by their
primary caregivers, and protects physicians from punishment
for recommending marijuana to a patient for medical
purposes. ( 11362.5(b), (c) and (d).)
Existing law provides that employment having no specified
term may be terminated at the will of either party on
notice to the other. (Labor Code 2922.)
Existing law provides that it shall be an unlawful
employment practice to discriminate based on race,
religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical
disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital
status, sex, age, or sexual orientation. (Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code 12940 et seq.)
The FEHA requires employers in their hiring decisions to
take into account the feasibility of making reasonable
accommodations to a person with a disability or medical
condition. (Gov. Code 12940(a)(2).)
This bill would make it unlawful for an employer to
discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or
any term of employment or otherwise penalize a person,
based on (1) the person's status as a qualified patient or
a designated primary caregiver, or (2) the qualified
patient's positive drug test where the medical use of
marijuana does not occur on the property or premises of the
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 4 of ?
employer or during the hours of employment.
This bill would establish a civil cause of action by a
qualified patient or primary caregiver who suffered
discrimination for damages and injunctive relief, and other
equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise of the
right or rights secured.
This bill would not apply when the employer employs a
person in a safety-sensitive position, as defined.
Finally, this bill would expressly provide that the bill
would not prohibit an employer from terminating the
employment of or taking corrective action against a person
who is impaired on the workplace premises or who is
impaired during working hours.
COMMENT
1. Need for the bill
The author writes:
On January 24, 2008 the California Supreme court
ruled in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications that
an employee using medical marijuana with a doctor's
recommendation as permitted by California law may be
fired solely because of their status as a medical
cannabis patient. AB 2279 would make it unlawful to
discriminate in employment practices based on an
employee's legal use of medical marijuana outside the
work place and not during work hours.
In its ruling the California Supreme Court ignored
the will of the voters and the legislature by
invalidating the rights of over 250,000 patients to
be free from discrimination in employment. Most
concerning was the fact that Gary Ross was not
employed in a safety-sensitive position, did not use
medical marijuana at the workplace, and was not under
the influence of marijuana at work. In essence, the
Court said that Ross could be fired simply because of
his status as a patient using doctor recommended
medication.
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 5 of ?
In denying Ross certain protections from employment
discrimination, the High Court did invite the
Legislature to clarify its intent with respect to the
employment rights of medical cannabis patients.
AB 2279 will provide the clarification requested by
the Court and reverse a decision that puts every
medical cannabis patient in jeopardy of losing their
job without due cause. ?AB 2279 clearly establishes
that medical marijuana patients have a right to work.
This bill does not require an employer to
accommodate marijuana impairment or use in the
workplace, and does not require the employer to
violate any state or federal law. ?
The policy of this state should be to encourage
gainful employment by those patients who are able to
work. In addition to being an issue for basic human
fairness, medical marijuana patients who lose their
jobs could become an additional burden for state
general assistance, MediCal, and other social
services programs that are already stressed by
chronic funding shortages. AB 2279 is a reasonable
solution that protects patients, employers, and
public safety.
In 2006, the author and other legislators filed an amicus
brief in Ross v. Ragingwire, indicating to the appellate
court the Legislature's intent in SB 420 (Vasconcellos,
Ch. 875, Stats. 2003) to permit the use of medical
marijuana outside the workplace setting and to make FEHA
applicable so that "accommodation of medical cannabis use
by disabled persons with medical conditions" are required
of employers. The appellate court rejected the argument,
thus inviting further clarification by the Legislature.
This bill was introduced to do just that, after the
Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decisions.
2. The Compassionate Use Act and federal law remain in
conflict
California voters enacted the Compassionate Use Act in
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 6 of ?
1996 in order to permit the use of marijuana for medical
purposes by persons deemed qualified by their physicians.
Marijuana was then, and still is, an illegal drug both
under federal and state law, and its use, possession,
distribution, cultivation, or sale carries significant
penalties. Under federal law, possession of marijuana,
even by medical users, continues to be a crime: the
Controlled Substances Act provides that except as
provided by the Act, it is unlawful for any person
knowingly or intentionally?to manufacture, distribute, or
dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture,
distribute, or dispense a controlled substance. (21
U.S.C. 841(a).) The only exception provided in the Act
for marijuana, a Schedule 1 drug, is for its use in
government-controlled research projects.
Lawsuits filed by the United States against "medical
cannabis dispensaries" have resulted in the complete
rebuke of efforts by supporters of medical marijuana use
to create a "medical necessity" exception to the
Controlled Substances Act's prohibition on manufacturing
and distributing marijuana. (United States v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative et al.(2001) 532 U.S. 483,
491-485.) This conflict remains to this day.
Proponents of this bill, however, contend that federal
law does not stand as an obstacle to AB 2279, as further
discussed in Comment 4b.
3. Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc: FEHA does
not provide protection to medical marijuana users at work
In Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications the Supreme
Court revisited the ballot arguments proferred by
supporters of Proposition 215 (the initiative that
enacted the Compassionate Use Act) and declared that
"[n]othing in the act's text or history indicates the
voters intended to articulate any policy concerning
marijuana in the employment context, let alone a
fundamental public policy requiring employers to
accommodate marijuana use by employees." Further, the
court said, an examination of the ballot arguments did
not put defendant employer (and other employers) on
notice that employers would thereafter be required under
the FEHA to accommodate the use of marijuana.
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 7 of ?
Gary Ross also contended that the Legislature's passage
of SB 420, that enacted 11362.785 evidences the
legislative intent of the Compassionate Use Act to
require employers to accommodate employees' use of
medical marijuana at home. That section provides:
(a) Nothing in this article shall require any
accommodation of any medical use of marijuana on the
property or premises of any place of employment or
during the hours of employment or on the property or
premises of any jail, correctional facility, or other
type of penal institution in which prisoners reside or
persons under arrest are detained.
Answering plaintiff's argument that 11362.785 at least
inferred a requirement of accommodation under FEHA, the
court said, "[e]ven without inferring a requirement of
accommodation, the statute can be given literal effect as
negating any expectation that the immunity to criminal
liability for possessing marijuana granted in the
Compassionate Use Act gives medical users a civilly
enforceable right to possess the drug at work or in
custody?In any event, ?we do not believe that Health and
Safety Code section 11362.785, subdivision (a), can
reasonably be understood as adopting such a requirement
silently and without debate."
4. AB 2279 would prohibit discrimination in employment
based on status as a medical marijuana user
Under existing law, the Compassionate Use Act does not
require any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana
on the property or premises of any place of employment or
during the hours of employment, or on the property or
premises of any jail, correctional facility, or other
type of penal institution in which prisoners reside or
persons under arrest are detained. ( 11362.785.)
Proponents read this provision as current law prohibiting
use of medical marijuana by qualified patients at the
workplace or during working hours.
Based on the Court's holding in Ross v. Ragingwire that
11362.785 does not infer an accommodation under FEHA is
required, this bill would create a standalone statute
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 8 of ?
prohibiting discrimination in employment based on status
as a qualified medical marijuana user or on the basis of
a positive marijuana drug test when use of marijuana
occurred outside the employment workplace or during
non-working hours.
a. Discrimination on the basis of status
AB 2279 would prohibit an employer from discriminating
against a person in hiring, termination, or in any
term or condition of employment, or otherwise
penalizing a person on the basis of that person's
status as a qualified patient (medical marijuana user)
or a designated primary caregiver.
Gary Ross and other medical marijuana users are
protected under the Compassionate Use Act because the
voters decided, in passing Proposition 215, to
disagree with Congress' assessment that marijuana has
a "high potential for abuse," that it lacks any
"currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States," and that it lacks "accepted safety for
use?under medical supervision." (Id., citing 21 U.S.C.
812(b)(1) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1,
14.) Instead, the voters viewed the possibility of
beneficial medical use of marijuana as sufficient
basis for exempting from criminal liability under
state law patients whose physicians recommend the
drug. This logic, however, said the court in Ross,
did not compel the voters to take the additional step
of requiring employers to accommodate marijuana use by
their employees.
Proponents contend that it doesn't make sense to allow
a person to use medical marijuana to control pain, for
example, and be immune from criminal liability, just
to be deprived of the opportunity to work and be
self-supporting because the Compassionate Use Act did
not mention employment law in the findings and
declarations that precede the Act's operative
provisions. And since it was the Supreme Court's view
that the follow up legislation, SB 420, did not
clearly state legislative intent to protect the
employment rights of medical marijuana users, AB 2799
is the author's and proponents' response to the call
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 9 of ?
for clarity.
While there may be justification for the prohibition
against discrimination in employment decisions on the
basis of status as a medical marijuana user or
qualified patient, no justification has been made to
include designated primary caregivers in the protected
class in the voluminous material provided by
proponents.
SHOULD PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT
FOR A DESIGNATED PRIMARY CAREGIVER BE REMOVED FROM THE
BILL?
b. Discrimination on the basis of positive marijuana
drug test
Under AB 2279, an employer also may not discriminate
against a qualified patient with a positive test for
marijuana, as long as the medical use of marijuana
does not occur on the premises of the place of
employment or during the hours of employment.
FEHA does not require employers to accommodate the use
of illegal drugs. (Ross v. Ragingwire, supra, citing
Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846). In
Loder the high court concluded that an employer can
require prospective employees to undergo testing for
illegal drugs and alcohol and an employer can have
access to test results, without violating California's
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civil Code
56 et seq.) Thus, the Court declared in Loder that
employers may deny employment to persons who test
positive for illegal drugs and confirmed in Ross that
the FEHA was unavailable as a source of protection for
the employment rights of medical marijuana users.
Proponents contend, however, that except for the
federal 1991 Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing
Act that requires employers to test all workers who
apply for or currently hold "safety sensitive"
positions in the transportation industry, there are no
state or federal laws that require private businesses
to have drug testing programs. Even the 1988 Drug
Free Workplace Act that requires companies with
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 10 of ?
federal contracts in excess of $25,000 to show they
have made appropriate efforts to maintain a drug-free
workplace does not require drug testing of job
applicants or current employees. In fact, a report by
the American Civil Liberties Union, "Drug Testing: A
Bad Investment" (September 1999) states that while no
court has held an employer legally liable for not
having a drug testing program, employers have incurred
substantial legal costs defending their drug testing
programs against workers' claims of wrongful
dismissal.
Proponents insist that the federal Drug-Free Workplace
Act does not place any general obligation on employers
to drug test their employees, much less to fire them
for a positive drug test for marijuana (citing Parker
v. Atlanta Gas Light Co. (S.D. Ga. 1993) 818 F.Supp.
345, 347), but acknowledge that under the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act, regulations of
the federal Department of Transportation do require
employers to drug test employees in safety sensitive
positions and to remove them from such positions if
they test positive for the illegal use of drugs.
AB 2279 would provide that no employer may
discriminate against a qualified patient who tests
positive for marijuana use, so long as the medical use
of marijuana occurs outside the property or premises
of work or during non-working hours. In other words,
a worker who is a medical marijuana user may use it
anyplace but work and anytime but working hours. The
only question left would be whether the use of medical
marijuana impairs the ability of the employee who is a
qualified patient to perform his or her work. That
question is resolved below.
c. No protection from employment discrimination if
employee is impaired because of medical use of
marijuana
The bill contains a savings clause that states nothing
in the section shall prohibit an employer from
terminating the employment of, or taking other
corrective action against, a person who is impaired on
the property or premises of the place of employment or
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 11 of ?
during hours of employment because of the medical use
of marijuana.
In this the author and proponents are cognizant of the
possible effects of marijuana on the performance of an
employee, and thus provide employers with the right to
exercise their business judgment in taking corrective
action when that employee is impaired and cannot
function at an acceptable level. "This means that when
safety is in question employees can be terminated for
a positive drug test [for marijuana] in order to
protect employers from liability and to ensure public
safety," states the author.
It should be noted that the employer's prerogative to
drug test for illicit drugs to determine whether an
employee is impaired due to drug use is applicable to
all employees, not just to those who are impaired due
to medical marijuana use, and that the employer's
right to exercise business judgment in taking
corrective action, including termination, applies to
all employees.
Suggested technical amendment:
On page 4, line 12, strike out "a person" and insert:
an employee
d. No prohibition against discrimination on the basis
of a positive drug test for marijuana where employment
is for a safety sensitive position
The protection established by AB 2279 for a person who
tests positive for marijuana where the medical use of
the drug occurs outside of the employment premises or
during nonworking hours would not be available in
"safety sensitive" jobs. Lifted from the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act, these safety
sensitive jobs originally were those associated with
aviation, railroad, and mass transportation employees.
Under this bill a "safety-sensitive" position means a
position in which medical cannabis-affected
performance could clearly endanger the health and
safety of others, and shall have the following general
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 12 of ?
characteristics:
Its duties involve a greater than normal
level of trust, responsibility for, or impact on
the health and safety of others.
Errors in judgment, inattentiveness, or
diminished coordination, dexterity, or composure
while performing its duties could clearly result
in mistakes that would endanger the health and
safety of others.
An employee in a position of this nature
works independently, or performs tasks of a
nature that it cannot safely be assumed that
mistakes like those described above could be
prevented by a supervisor or another employee.
A "safety-sensitive" position also includes a position
that involves the performance of a "safety-sensitive
function," which are specified:
(1) as described in Section 655.4 of Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations:
Operating a revenue service vehicle;
Operating a nonrevenue service
vehicle, when required to be operated by a
holder of a commercial driver's license;
Controlling dispatch or movement of a
revenue service vehicle;
Maintaining (including repairs,
overhaul, and rebuilding) a revenue service
vehicle or equipment used in revenue service,
with exception for specified employers; and
Carrying a firearm for security
purposes.
(2) as described in Section 13951(d) of the Government
Code, the following law enforcement personnel: every
district attorney, municipal police department,
sheriff's department, district attorney's office,
county probation department, and social services
agency, the Department of Justice, the Department of
Corrections, the Department of the Youth Authority,
the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the
police department of any campus of the University of
California, California State University, or
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 13 of ?
community college, and every agency of the State of
California expressly authorized by statute to
investigate or prosecute law violators.
In short, employers hiring for all of the above jobs may
not only require drug testing but also refuse to hire or
take adverse employment action against a person who tests
positive for marijuana, even if the person is a qualified
medical marijuana user whose use of medical marijuana
occurs any place but the work location or any time but
working hours.
However, under this bill an employer would still be
prohibited from discriminating against the above "safety
sensitive" employees or potential employees on the basis
of the person's status as a qualified patient, i.e., a
medical marijuana user.
5. New civil action for damages based on discrimination
for qualified patient or designated primary caregiver
Under the state's employment discrimination laws, an
employee may file a complaint of unlawful employment
practice with the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing (DFEH) or seek relief directly in superior court
for wrongful termination or adverse employment action.
Filing a complaint with the DFEH has the advantage of a
state agency investigating allegations of discriminatory
action by the employer and getting the benefit of the
state agency's findings before going to court pursuant to
a right to sue letter issued by the agency.
This bill would establish a new civil action for a person
who suffered discrimination prohibited by the bill, i.e.,
for a qualified patient (a medical marijuana user) or a
designated primary caregiver (assuming the caregiver is
kept in the bill, see Comment 4a), to seek damages,
injunctive relief, and "any other appropriate equitable
relief to protect the peaceable exercise of the right or
rights secured."
Generally, a civil action involving employment seeks
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 14 of ?
reinstatement to a job or position, with backpay, actual
damages, recoupment of nonpecuniary losses, perhaps a
change in policy at the place of employment, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs. An award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs is generally granted
by a court only if authorized by statute or by
contractual agreement of the parties. It is not clear
whether any or all of the above items of relief are
intended to be recovered by a plaintiff under this bill.
SHOULD THESE BE CLARIFIED?
6. Opponents' concerns
Opposition to AB 2279 comes from different viewpoints.
The National Federation of Independent Business -
California (NFIB), for example, contends that AB 2279
"puts an employer in an untenable position with regard to
state-mandated workplace safety laws. This bill does not
allow employers to carry out their duty to:
"furnish employment and a place of employment
that is safe and healthful for the employees
therein." Labor Code sec. 6400(a)
"Adopt and use methods and processes reasonably
adequate to render the employment and place of
employment safe" Labor Code Sec. 6403(b)
To do every other thing reasonably necessary to
protect life, safety, and health of employees" Labor
Code Sec. 6403(c)."
Further, the NFIB states that while they understand that
AB 2279 does allow employers to exercise their right to
take corrective action against impaired employees, "this
bill cannot account for the possibility that accidents
and death may occur prior to any realization that an
employee's use of medicinal marijuana has caused
impairment. This places employers in danger of costly
workplace safety citations and higher workers'
compensation premiums due to this bill."(Letter dated
June 10, 2008.)
Another view is expressed by the Association of
California Health Care Districts (ACHD): "[w]hile ACHD is
sympathetic to the needs of patients who use medical
marijuana, our primary concern is for the safety of
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 15 of ?
patients who rightly expect that their care givers will
have met certain employment criteria, one of which is
being drug free. Although AB 2279 excludes individuals
employed in a 'safety sensitive position,' that term is
not sufficiently defined. Many positions in a hospital
are clearly 'safety-sensitive'; however, the definition
could be construed to exclude them." (Letter dated June
10, 2008.)
While persons involved in the delivery of health care do
not belong in the statutorily-specified categories, they
may in fact fall within the more general definition of
safety-sensitive positions excluded from the scope of AB
2279. This does not, however, mollify concerns of the
California Hospital Association (CHA). "While CHA is
sympathetic to the needs of patients who use medical
marijuana, hospitals are in a very different role when
faced with an applicant who has tested positive for
marijuana use. Patients, health care workers and our
communities expect hospitals to screen out applicants who
may appear for work in an impaired state. Requiring
hospitals to hire individuals who have tested positive
for marijuana use undermines their ability to ensure the
highest quality of care. ? The question of whether an
employee is 'impaired' is fact specific and the law
requires employers to have probable cause before seeking
a drug test." (Letter dated June 10, 2008.)
The California Narcotics Officers Association, California
Peace Officers' Association, and the California Police
Chiefs Association have also stated their fierce
opposition to the bill. "Proposition 215, which enacted
California's so-called medical marijuana law, not only
violates federal law, but is so loosely structured that
someone who simply wants to smoke marijuana 'legally'
need only contrive a medical condition and find a
compliant physician, who, for a fee, will 'recommend'
that marijuana is appropriate for that person." Citing
the "60 Minutes" television series on medical marijuana
use in California, these groups express their belief that
a significant number of "medical marijuana"
recommendations are "simply bogus. Given that reality,
it is inappropriate to use Proposition 215 - an overly
broad, poorly worded law - to prevent employers from
attempting to protect their workplace." (Letter dated
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 16 of ?
June 11, 2008.)
All of these opposition comments seem to focus on the
practice of drug-testing in the workplace. While this
bill is focused on prohibiting employment discrimination
based on status as a qualified medical marijuana user,
the contentious issue centers around drug testing by
employers. There is really no other way for an employer
to find out whether an employee is a medical marijuana
user unless the employee discloses the fact prior to or
during the employment, or through drug testing in the
workplace. As contended by the proponents in Comment 3,
drug testing is not required of employers under state or
federal law, and it is proving to be more costly to
businesses because of substantial costs in defending the
practice from challenges made by employees.
Support: American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; AIDS
Healthcare Foundation; Americans for Safe Access;
California Labor Federation; SEIU; National
Lawyers Guild; West Hollywood Chamber of
Commerce; San Francisco AIDS Foundation; The AIDS
Institute; National Association of People with
AIDS; Drug Policy Alliance; California NORML;
HIVictorious, Inc.; Lambda Letters Project; AIDS
Project Los Angeles; Berkeley Chamber of
Commerce; South Carolina Campaign to End AIDS
(SC-C2EA); American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Opposition: Californians For Drug-Free Schools;
Association of California Healthcare Districts
(ACHD); California Narcotic Officers Association;
California Peace Officers' Association;
California Police Chiefs Association; California
Hospital Association (CHA); California Chamber of
Commerce; ALPHA Fund; California Association of
Health Facilities (CAHF); California Association
of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA); CSAC Excess
Insurance Authority; National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB); California
Employment Law Council (CELC); California
Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA);
City of Modesto; Western Electrical Contractors
Association (WECA-IEC); Capitol Resource Family
AB 2279 (Leno)
Page 17 of ?
Impact; Health Advocated Rejecting Marijuana
(HARM)
HISTORY
Source: Americans for Safe Access (Sponsor)
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: SB 420 (Vasconcellos, Ch. 875 Stats.
2003) See Comment 1.
Prior Vote:Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 3)
Assembly Labor & Employment Committee (Ayes 6,
Noes 2)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 41, Noes 35)
**************