California Assembly Bill AB287

California 2021-2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/21
• Refer: 1/28/21
• Report Pass: 3/24/21
• Refer: 3/26/21
• Report Pass: 4/20/21
• Refer: 4/20/21
• Refer: 5/5/21
• Report Pass: 5/20/21
• Engrossed: 5/27/21
• Refer: 5/28/21
• Refer: 6/9/21
• Report Pass: 6/21/21
• Refer: 6/21/21
• Report Pass: 6/30/21
• Refer: 6/30/21
• Refer: 7/15/21
• Report Pass: 8/26/21
• Enrolled: 9/3/21
• Chaptered: 9/23/21
• Passed: 9/23/21

Caption

Civil actions: statute of limitations.

Impact

The decision to extend the statute of limitations could have significant implications for enforcement of cannabis regulations. By allowing more time for civil actions, the state and local jurisdictions can better penalize violations related to unauthorized commercial cannabis activities. This is particularly crucial for ensuring compliance within the burgeoning cannabis industry in California, where unauthorized operations could undercut licensed businesses and hinder regulatory efforts aimed at consumer safety and fair competition.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 287, introduced by Assemblymember Quirk, amends Section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically addressing civil actions related to penalties for engaging in commercial cannabis activities without a license. This amendment extends the statute of limitations for such civil actions from one year to three years. This change aims to enhance enforcement capabilities under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) and the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which govern cannabis licensing and regulation in California.

Sentiment

The sentiment regarding AB 287 appears supportive among proponents of regulated cannabis commerce. Supporters argue that the extended statute of limitations is a necessary tool to uphold the legal frameworks governing cannabis and ensure that all operators comply with state regulations. Conversely, there may be concerns among some business owners about the increased enforcement pressures such legislation could introduce, potentially impacting smaller operators or businesses transitioning to a licensed operation.

Contention

Notable points of contention may revolve around the balance between effective enforcement and the burden it places on cannabis operators. While the legislation aims to strengthen regulatory oversight, critics may argue that an extended time frame for penalties could disproportionately affect smaller entities who may struggle to navigate the complexities of compliance. Ensuring that enforcement practices are fair and proportionate to the scale of the operation will be crucial as the state continues to refine its cannabis regulations.