There are 58 bills pending prior to the California Legislature in 2019 that incorporate the word “ cannabis” or “ marijuana,” which suggests the state’s market could be in for one more tumultuous year of huge alterations.

Lots of of the measures touch on important market hurdles, ranging from the lack of banking access to minimizing state tax prices to an ongoing debate more than statewide MJ delivery.

Not all the bills are important legal alterations, even so, and numerous are not market-connected.

Some also have been introduced as placeholders but are awaiting complete language – such as Assembly Bill 1678, which merely states that its intent is to “enact legislation relating to cannabis” – which means far more legislation has however to completely take shape.

The California Cannabis Market Association also lists 47 bills that it is tracking, which the organization shared with Marijuana Small business Each day.

Under are the prime 12 legislative measures that could effect California cannabis companies, what they would do if signed into law and exactly where they stand at the Capitol.

Numerous need a two-thirds supermajority vote to pass since they amend Proposition 64, the 2016 marijuana legalization measure that is now aspect of the California Constitution.

Other individuals that only transform state law need a easy majority to pass.

State Assembly

Assembly Bill 37

What it would do: Assistance offset the federal 280E tax burden by generating a carve-out for company deductions in California’s individual earnings tax for state-licensed cannabis providers.

Principal sponsor: Assembly member Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat.

Status: Referred to Assembly Committee on Income and Taxation. Awaiting hearings.

Assembly Bill 953

What it would do: Let marijuana providers to spend state and regional taxes by way of a cryptocurrency system referred to as “stablecoins.”

Principal sponsors: Assembly members Philip Ting, a San Francisco Democrat, and Kevin McCarty, a Sacramento Democrat.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment.

Assembly Bill 286

What it would do: Temporarily slash the state cannabis excise tax from 15% to 11% and suspend the state MJ cultivation tax till June 2022.

Principal sponsors: Assembly members Rob Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland Ken Cooley, a Democrat from Rancho Cordova Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale and Jones-Sawyer.

Status: Referred to Assembly Committee on Income and Taxation and Committee on Small business and Professions. Awaiting hearings. Needs two-thirds help to pass each chambers.

Assembly Bill 1288

What it would do: Need that further MJ sales information be uploaded into California’s track-and-trace plan, such as the date of each sale and no matter if every sale was carried out at a shop or by way of delivery.

Principal sponsor: Assembly member Cooley.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment.

Assembly Bill 1420

What it would do: Prohibit state regulators from raising application and licensing costs previous what was currently established as of January.

Principal sponsor: Assembly member Jay Obernolte, a Republican from Massive Bear Lake.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment. Needs two-thirds help to pass each chambers.

Assembly Bill 1525

What it would do: Codify that economic institutions such as banks and credit unions that operate with cannabis providers are not in violation of state law.

Principal sponsor: Assembly member Jones-Sawyer.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment. Needs two-thirds help to pass each chambers.

Assembly Bill 1530

What it would do: Reverse a controversial policy adopted in 2018 by the Bureau of Cannabis Manage that enables marijuana deliveries to be performed anyplace in the state regardless of city or county bans on industrial cannabis activity. Would also establish a competitive grant plan by way of the Board of State and Neighborhood Corrections to expand enforcement efforts against unlicensed marijuana companies and boost customer education.

Principal sponsor: Assembly member Cooley.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment. Needs two-thirds help to pass each chambers.

State Senate

Senate Bill 34

What it would do: Let licensed cannabis providers to give away goods for absolutely free to healthcare individuals, primarily relegalizing so-referred to as “compassion programs” that had been prevalent for years in California’s MMJ marketplace.

Principal sponsors: Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat Assembly members Bonta and Jim Wood, a Santa Rosa Democrat.

Status: Referred to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance and the Committee on Small business, Professions and Financial Improvement. Awaiting hearings. Needs two-thirds help to pass each chambers.

Senate Bill 51

What it would do: Let for the establishment of “ cannabis restricted charter banks and credit unions” to serve the marijuana market.

Principal sponsors: Sen. Robert Hertzberg, a Los Angeles Democrat, and Assembly member Bonta.

Status: Referred to Senate Committee on Banking and Economic Institutions and the Committee on Governance and Finance. Awaiting hearings.

Senate Bill 67

What it would do: Extend the life span of short-term company licenses till the finish of 2019 for providers that have currently submitted annual license applications.

Principal sponsors: Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat from Healdsburg, and Assembly member Wood.

Status: Authorized by the Senate Small business, Professions and Financial Improvement Committee, referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Awaiting hearings. Needs two-thirds help to pass each chambers.

Senate Bill 475

What it would do: Let the sharing of absolutely free-trade samples of cannabis merchandise involving licensees.

Principal sponsors: Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Democrat from Berkeley.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment.

Senate Bill 625

What it would do: Legalize marijuana celebration buses.

Principal sponsors: Sen. Jerry Hill, a San Francisco Democrat.

Status: Awaiting committee assignment.

John Schroyer can be reached at [email protected]