Industrial hemp.
Summary
Existing law makes it a crime to engage in any of various transactions relating to marijuana, as defined, except as otherwise authorized by law, such as the Medical Marijuana Program. For the purposes of these provisions, marijuana is defined as not including the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, and fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. This bill would revise the definition of "marijuana" so that the term would exclude industrial hemp, as defined, except where the plant is cultivated or processed for purposes not expressly allowed. The bill would define industrial hemp as a fiber or oilseed crop, or both, that is limited to the nonpsychoactive types of the plant Cannabis sativa L. and the seed produced therefrom, having no more than 310 of 1% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops, and that is cultivated and processed exclusively for the purpose of producing the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin or flowering tops extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. The bill would enact certain provisions relating to growing industrial hemp which would apply only in Imperial, Kern, Kings, and San Joaquin Counties, except when grown by an established agricultural institution, and which would be operative only until January 1, 2020. The bill would require industrial hemp to be cultivated only from seeds imported in accordance with laws of the United States or from seeds grown in California from industrial hemp plants or grown from industrial hemp plants grown by an established agricultural research institution. The bill would require, except as specified, the person growing the industrial hemp to obtain, prior to the harvest of each crop, a laboratory test of a random sample of the crop to determine the amount of THC in the crop. The bill would require that samples to perform the testing be taken in the presence of, and be collected and transported only by, an employee or agent of a laboratory that is registered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. The bill would require that the test report contain specified language, that the testing laboratory provide not less than 10 original signed copies to the cultivator, and that the testing laboratory and cultivator retain an original signed copy for a minimum of 2 years. The report would be required to be made available to law enforcement officials and provided to purchasers, as specified. The bill would require all industrial hemp seed sold for planting in California to be from a crop having no more than 310 of 1% THC contained in a random sampling of the dried flowering tops and tested under these provisions, and would require the destruction of crops exceeding that content, as specified. The bill would provide that growing industrial hemp shall not be construed to authorize the possession, outside of a field of lawful cultivation, of resin, flowering tops, or leaves that have been removed from the hemp plant, except to perform required testing by an employee or agent of the testing laboratory or any cultivation of the industrial hemp plant that is not grown by an established agricultural research institution. This bill would require the Attorney General and the Hemp Industries Association to submit reports to the Legislature by January 1, 2018, regarding the economic and law enforcement impacts of industrial hemp cultivation. The bill would state the findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to industrial hemp. By revising the scope of application of existing crimes relating to marijuana, this bill would impose a state‑mandated local program. By specifying the conditions of cultivation, the violation of which would be a misdemeanor pursuant to other provisions of existing law, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Sep 2011
Senate Passage
May 2011
Assembly Passage
Sep 2011
Vetoed
Mar 2012
Introduced Feb 18, 2011
Vetoed Mar 1, 2012
Floor votes · Senate May 31, 2011 · Assembly Sep 7, 2011
How they voted
20–12
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 35
May 31, 2011
D
Democratic23
86% Yea
R
Republican12
83% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
36
Key actions
8
Committee
10
Amendments
2
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Veto sustained.
upper
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
upper
Oct 9, 2011
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Oct 9, 2011
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Sep 8, 2011
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 26. Noes 13. Page 2415.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 7, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (42-21-9)
assembly
Sep 7, 2011
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Aug 18, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.) (August 17).
lower
Jul 13, 2011
Lower · Passed
Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Jun 30, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 22, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on AGRI. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.
lower
Jun 9, 2011
Committee
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and AGRI.
lower
May 31, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (20-12-3)
senate
May 17, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 3. Page 1014.) (May 16).
upper
May 5, 2011
Upper · Passed
Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Apr 27, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 742.) (April 26).
upper
Apr 5, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 540.) (April 5). Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Mar 3, 2011
Committee
Referred to Coms. on AGRI. and PUB. S.
upper
Feb 18, 2011
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
ML
Mark Leno
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 676
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 676. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline