Interpretation of California's Marijuana Regulations after Proposition 64 and Pharmacy Practice Roles in Medical Marijuana Dispensing against Federal Enforcement Risks

Abstract

California was the first state in the union to pass medical marijuana legislation with Proposition 215, the voter enacted California Compassionate Use Act (CCUA, 1996), though regulatory oversight for the medical marijuana industry was negligible over the next 20 years. In 2015, California legislators passed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), providing a new and comprehensive regulatory framework for medical marijuana, subsequently renaming it the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA), with a planned implementation of January 1, 2018. In 2016, California's marijuana landscape dramatically changed with the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), also known as Proposition 64 (“Prop 64”), a voter initiative successful in legalizing recreational marijuana, where many prior similar initiatives had failed. In 2017, California lawmakers merged the two Acts (MCRSA and AUMA) into the Medical and Adult Use of Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, (MAUCRSA), known as Senate Bill 94 (SB 94), which passed overwhelmingly and created a single comprehensive marijuana regulatory scheme for California by integrating the 2015 recreational marijuana law with the state's longstanding medical marijuana program, also effective in January 2018. Given the current national marijuana landscape and political climate, California's novel unified model for regulating and taxing marijuana will likely influence how other states proceed to regulate and tax the emerging legal marijuana industry, which has an estimated value of $7 billion. Part One of this article provides an overview of the soon to be effective “harmonized” regulatory scheme for California's medicinal and recreational marijuana industries, touching on its potential to influence other states. Part Two surveys the changed national marijuana landscape within which three states have already implemented a role for pharmacists in medical marijuana dispensing, despite that under the federal Controlled Substances Act, as a Schedule I substance, marijuana remains illegal for any purpose. The recent developments have not surprisingly triggered questions about a pharmacist's liability vis a vis marijuana dispensing and federal enforcement risks. Part Two also attempts to answer those questions through an informative discussion of the national marijuana landscape, the current political climate, and their respective influences on federal marijuana policy and enforcement.