.png)
AB 762 Passed Committee, But the Fight Isn't Over: Here's What California Cannabis Operators Need to KnowÂ
- Laura Braden
- Jan 15
- 3 min read
On January 13, 2025, Assembly Bill 762 (Irwin) passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. We testified in opposition, and so did the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office.Â
Explore CaCOA’s testimony and fact sheet
Despite these concerns, the bill advanced with an AYE recommendation from Chair Marc Berman, with most Democrats voting in support and Republicans voting no. Three Democrats, Corey Jackson (D-Riverside), Maggie Krell (D-Sacramento), and Stephanie Nguyen (D-Sacramento), abstained. Multiple members urged the author to work with the legal cannabis industry to address the bill’s impacts, signaling ongoing discomfort within the caucus.
Here's what happened and what comes next
AB 762 would ban integrated (all-in-one) cannabis and tobacco vaporizers. Data obtained by Headset indicates that this product category accounts for 12% of legal cannabis sales statewide. The bill's stated goal is to reduce lithium-ion battery waste in landfills, but the logic is fundamentally flawed.Â
The committee amendments, negotiated during the hearing, delay implementation to January 1, 2027, for manufacturing and January 1, 2028, for sales.
That's a small win. And yet, delays don't address the underlying problem: this bill targets a narrow subset of legal products while ignoring the massive illicit vaping market that already dominates California. It also remains silent on countless other lithium-battery consumer goods (e.g., electronics, hearing aids, greeting cards) that generate far more battery waste.Â
Realities hard to ignore
Much of the committee debate focused on a hard truth: banning a subset of legal vapes won't reduce battery waste if consumers simply shift to untested, unregulated illicit products. The bill neither changes consumer behavior nor enforces disposal standards in the unregulated channels that already supply the majority of vaping products in California.Â
Here's the economic reality: using updated consumer data, CaCOA estimates AB 762 would result in approximately $76 million in lost cannabis excise tax revenue annually, not including additional declines in sales and use tax or local cannabis taxes.Â
That's revenue that currently funds community youth prevention, environmental restoration, and public health programs.Â
This isn't over – time to make your voice heard
The bill now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee (hearing is scheduled for January 22, 2026), where fiscal impacts will be formally evaluated. This is where the debate shifts from environmental policy to basic math: Can California afford to lose $76 million in tax revenue on a bill that won't achieve its stated goal?Â
If you operate a cannabis business in California, you have standing in this conversation. You have data about what AB 762 means for your business, your employees, and your customers.Â
If your legislator serves on the committee, please consider reaching out before January 22nd, so they understand the unintended consequences of AB 762:
Committee Members | District | Office & Contact Information |
Dem - 14 | Contact | (916) 319-2014 | |
Rep - 71 | Contact | (916) 319-2071 | |
Dem - 31 | Contact | (916) 319-2031 | |
Dem - 56 | Contact | (916) 319-2056 | |
Dem - 52 | Contact | (916) 319-2052 | |
Rep - 72 | Contact (916) 319-2072 | |
Dem - 57 | Contact | (916) 319-2057 | |
Dem - 49 | Contact | (916) 319-2049 | |
Dem - 54 | Contact |(916) 319-2054 | |
Dem - 37 | Contact | (916) 319-2037 | |
Dem - 64 | Contact | (916) 319-2064 | |
Dem - 28 | Contact |(916) 319-2028 | |
Dem - 62 | Contact |(916) 319-2062 | |
Rep - 70 | Contact | (916) 319-2070 | |
Rep - 08 | Contact | (916) 319-2008 |
Want talking points and/or outreach support? Contact CaCOA’s Executive Director, Amy O’Gorman Jenkins (amy@precisionadvocacy.co).