California Senate Bill SJR5

California 2017-2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/17
• Refer: 2/21/17
• Refer: 3/2/17
• Engrossed: 4/6/17
• Refer: 6/15/17
• Enrolled: 9/15/17
• Chaptered: 9/22/17
• Passed: 9/22/17

Caption

Federal rescheduling of marijuana from a Schedule I drug.

Impact

Should SJR5 achieve its goal, its implications would extend to various state laws associated with marijuana use and transactions. It would facilitate legal avenues for marijuana businesses to engage with traditional banking institutions, relieving current operational difficulties caused by the Schedule I classification. This shift is anticipated to allow clearer oversight and taxation mechanisms for marijuana-related activities, which could result in significant economic benefits for state and local governments by mitigating tax income losses attributed to illicit sales and unregulated markets.

Summary

Senate Joint Resolution No. 5 (SJR5) seeks to influence federal policy by requesting the U.S. Congress to reschedule marijuana and its derivatives from a Schedule I classification. Currently, drugs classified in this category are deemed to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, which includes marijuana among others. This resolution highlights the discrepancies between state legalization for medical and recreational use and the continuing federal restrictions that complicate its commerce and management.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SJR5 appears to be supportive, particularly among state lawmakers who recognize the benefits of aligning federal classification with evolving public perceptions and legal frameworks concerning marijuana. Proponents argue that federal rescheduling would enable essential research, banking capabilities, and consumer safety measures. Conversely, opposition may arise from factions concerned about potential increases in substance abuse and the social implications of a more permissive federal stance on marijuana.

Contention

Notable points of contention may stem from the differing viewpoints on drug policy and public health. Advocates for rescheduling emphasize the importance of access to marijuana for various medical applications and the economic advantages of legitimate market participation. Critics might argue that relaxing federal oversight could lead to adverse social outcomes or signify a step backward in drug control policies. The resolution aims to bridge these divides by calling for legislative change at the federal level, fostering dialogue on the complexities surrounding marijuana use and its implications for society.