Home > News > News Articles > 2014 > May > Crucial Doctor Provisions Deleted from Medical Marijuana Bill in Senate Health Committee
News Feed

Crucial Doctor Provisions Deleted from Medical Marijuana Bill in Senate Health Committee

May 1, 2014
Significant amendments were taken in the Senate Health Committee on Wednesday to SB 1262 (Correa) that removed nearly all provisions that would have regulated physicians. The committee passed the bill on a 6-0 vote.
 
The bill that went to the Health Committee yesterday provided a solid regulatory framework for implementing the Compassionate Use Act in a way that protects local governments land use authority unconditionally and provides for the authority to effectively provide public safety while ensuring that patients in need of medical cannabis have access.  SB 1262 has been the only bill that had the support of patient advocates, cities and law enforcement and represented a truly health-based approach to the regulation of medical marijuana in California.  
 
In brief, yesterday’s amendments almost entirely delete the doctor provisions with only a prohibition on doctors having a financial interest in marijuana businesses remaining.
 
The Senate Health Committee deleted the following provisions:
  • Requirement for a doctor-patient relationship;
  • Appropriate prior examination before medical marijuana can be recommended;
  • Consult with patient as needed and periodically review treatment’s efficacy;
  • Doctor to discuss side effects, and address THC/CBD levels;
  • Record-keeping requirements; and
  • Regulations for recommendations for minors.
The following remains intact:
  • Local control provisions;
  • Health and safety provisions (minus requirement for doctors to address THC vs. CBD marijuana); and
  • Public safety provisions in terms of security requirements at dispensaries, transport and inventorying requirements.
Given the amendments taken to SB 1262 this week deleting the doctor-related provisions, the League will be re-evaluating its support position as well as whether to continue sponsoring the measure. Members will be updated with further developments.


 
© League of California Cities