PASSED: AB 1103  — Research on Schedule I & II Controlled Substances

Summary:
AB 1103 modernizes how California reviews research involving Schedule I and II controlled substances, including cannabis, psychedelics, and emerging therapeutics. The bill updates the Research Advisory Panel of California (RAPC) review process under the Health & Safety Code.

Key Changes:

• Requires mandatory RAPC review for all California-based research that administers Schedule I or II substances to humans or animals.

• Creates an expedited review pathway (through January 1, 2028) for projects with federal (DEA, FDA) or IRB approval.

• Authorizes delegated review by panel members between bimonthly meetings to reduce delays.

• Extends RAPC’s ability to hold confidential closed sessions (protecting trade secrets and IP) through 2028.

• Requires public posting of expedited-review criteria on the Attorney General’s website, plus annual reports to the Legislature and Governor.

Impact:
AB 1103 streamlines legitimate cannabis and psychedelic research and signals a broader shift back toward scientific and medicinal validation in California’s controlled-substances framework. It bridges the gap between state legality and federal scheduling, preparing the groundwork for Schedule III cannabis and federally recognized medical studies.

VETOED: AB 632  — Streamlined Enforcement of Local Cannabis Penalties

Summary:
AB 632 sought to give cities and counties stronger tools to collect fines for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity by allowing local agencies to file administrative penalties directly with superior courts for immediate entry as civil judgments.

Proposed Changes:

• Would have allowed local agencies to file (not sue) to convert administrative orders into enforceable court judgments.

• Granted authority to impose liens against properties tied to unlicensed operations.

• Made property owners and unlicensed operators jointly and severally liable for daily fines up to $10,000 per day.

• Intended to accelerate enforcement without requiring separate litigation.

Governor’s Rationale for Veto:
Newsom’s veto message cited due-process and separation-of-powers concerns, warning that the bill would allow local governments to create judicially enforceable debts without court review. While the measure aimed to deter illicit operators, it risked overreach by blurring administrative and judicial authority.

Impact:
The veto preserves the status quo: local agencies can still impose fines but must file independent civil actions to collect. This outcome keeps enforcement slower but ensures judicial oversight—reflecting the state’s ongoing balance between strong enforcement and procedural fairness.

VETOED: AB 1332  — Medicinal Cannabis Direct Shipment

Summary:
AB 1332  would have authorized certain licensed medicinal cannabis microbusinesses to ship medicinal cannabis directly to qualified patients within California, expanding access for patients who live in areas underserved by dispensaries or delivery services.

Key Provisions:

• Applied to microbusinesses (with an “M” designation) that hold both retail and distribution privileges.

• Allowed shipment only if the patient had no or limited access the product within 60 miles of their residence.

• Restricted shipments to state possession limits under Health & Safety Code § 11362.77.

• Required a signature by an adult (21+) upon delivery and prohibited inclusion of vape devices or batteries.

• Preempted local bans on medicinal cannabis shipment within the bill’s parameters.

Impact:
AB 1332 re-centers the “medicinal” lane of California cannabis law, emphasizing patient access and small-business participation over commercial retail expansion. It aligns with the passed AB 1103’s (above) research reforms by reinforcing a therapeutic, patient-oriented framework within MAUCRSA. It is this writers opinion that trend towards “medicinal-first” frameworks will grow, especially as different efforts at federal legalization (slowly but surely) gain steam. 

ASH LEGAL Insight

Taken together, these three bills define the contours of California’s next phase in cannabis regulation:

• AB 1103 modernizes research and clinical oversight — a scientific foundation.

• AB 1332 expands medicinal access — a patient foundation.

• AB 632 (though vetoed) highlights the tension between efficiency and due process in enforcement — an institutional boundary.

The 2025 legislative session confirms what this writer and other industry leaders have increasingly sensed: California is gradually pivoting back toward its medicinal roots, using research, patient protection, and evidence-based enforcement as the scaffolding for long-term legitimacy.

About ASH LEGAL

ASH LEGAL is a California-based boutique law practice focused on business formation, cannabis & hemp regulatory compliance, licensing, zoning, land-use, and general counsel services. We help clients navigate the rapidly evolving intersection of law, policy, and business within the state’s cannabis framework. For guidance or policy review, contact us at (818) 856-6617, jordan@ashlegal.pro or reach out directly through our Contact Page.

Disclaimer: The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship with ASH LEGAL. For advice specific to your situation, please contact us directly at ashlegal.pro.