With the California legislature in full swing, DPA is actively tracking bills that impact drug policy.  DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann was recently in Sacramento to support DPA’s legislative efforts and meet with key lawmakers about the future of harm reduction and a new bottom line for drug policy.  He was introduced in the Senate chambers as a special guest and friend while the Senate was in floor session. 

Here are the bills we’re watching:

Senate Joint Resolution 20, by Senator Carole Migden (D – San Francisco), was approved by the Senate Committee on Health.  This bill would memorialize the President of the United States and Congress to stop federal interference with the state medical marijuana program.  More than ten years after Californians voted to support medical marijuana through Proposition 215, there remain elements of local law enforcement who continue to work with federal authorities to investigate and arrest sick and dying medical marijuana patients against the will of the voters.  SJR 20 sends a strong message to the president and Congress that Californians are best equipped to deal with the implementation of state medical marijuana laws.

Assembly Bill 1961, by Assemblymember Sandré Swanson (D – Oakland), was approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.  This sensible bill would support the successful reintegration of certain formerly incarcerated persons who have served a term in the state prison, fulfilled specified requirements relative to rehabilitation, and petitioned to have their records expunged.  Far too often we see the stigmas associated with formerly incarcerated persons unnecessarily limit their ability to gain meaningful employment, return to school, and reunite with their families.  This bill would address many of these barriers without jeopardizing public safety.

Assembly Bill 2389, by Assemblymember John Benoit (R – Palm Desert), was rejected by the Assembly Committee on Human Services.  This bill would have required random, suspicionless drug testing for all persons who receive CalWORKs public assistance benefits.  DPA opposed this legislation for many reasons, noting concerns over constitutional violations and the lack of science supporting the policy.  This bill would have set a terrible precedent and treated all public assistance recipients as criminals until proven innocent.

As the legislative session continues and legislators grapple with possibly the worst fiscal and budget situation in state history, DPA will keep you updated about the bills that affect drug policy in California.