with the recommended and recorded vote. please call item two. >>ordinance amending the san francisco environment code by adding chapter 22, sections 2201 through 2210, to require any person who produces a drug offered for sale in san francisco to participate in an approved drug stewardship program for the collection and disposal of unwanted drugs from residential sources, and to provide for implementation, enforcement, fees, and penalties, and making environmental findings. >> this is an item brought to us by our vice chair, supervisor mirkarimi. >> thank you, president tchiu. if there was one way to sum up this law, it would be characterized in the general sense that if you give someone a pill, there are two things they would do with it. they will either swallow it or throw it away.

or sell it. [laughter] i would like us to focus on the disposal of consumer-generated drug waste, the absence of any affective lot and friends -- san francisco or in the state of california. active ingredients in pharmaceuticals are now widely established as ubiquitous contaminants in the environment. the active ingredients from medications and other pharmaceuticals can pose risks beyond those associated with their intended uses and therapy diagnosis. these unintended risks comprise three major categories. introduction to the unborn as trees, and that's, by combined activities of the number of individuals resulting in chronic alter exposure to both humans, and of course, to wildlife. recycling and drinking water and

the contamination of our route own waste water streams further by this introduction of these illicit drugs is causing a great concern. each of these two categories h"0

>> i would again look to british columbia as a model. their stewardship organization has suggested they would be willing to come down and implement hear what they do there. with the paint bill, that is exactly what is happening. oregon passed an amendment last year. a canadian organization will be coming down to implement that. they have knowledge on what to do. >> if this passes, we may have to seriously consider proposition 26. i do not think that applies to

british columbia. trying to impose a fee could cause problems. just using british columbia as an example probably will not be enough. you will have to do more. we are talking generally about producers of drugs. but the legislation, as written, is fairly generic. as i read it, it could be applied to the prescription of medicinal marijuana. are we going to require the producers of marijuana out to participate in this program? >> i cannot answer that. >> there is not language here that says if you produce prescription drugs, you need to present it. i am wondering how we are going

to track down the producers of all the images on their water that is distributed throughout san francisco. >> i appreciate the contrast but we are usually talking about synthetics. marijuana is not a synthetic. >> that is not specifically spelled out here, so we should draft legislation to deal with that. >> that is a good point. through the chair, may i respond? it sets up a dialogue which this legislation compels to the industry to help create the program. the question on fees is really generated by the quality of the program that i think the industry would then be able to provide to us. i am hoping there is 100% compliance and there would not be the necessity to enforce. but in order to be thorough, we need to see the program. as san francisco goes, as it

relates to its own programs, healthy san francisco, sure, medical marijuana would also be on the stand. >> covered products mean all prescription drugs. marijuana is a prescription drug. defining drugs -- one of the definitions is substances intended for and mitigation and prevention of disease in humans or other animals. i think that fits medicinal marijuana. are we now regulating the producers of marijuana all over the country? if not, maybe we could draft something to exclude that. >> based on british columbia, they do it based on the license holder of the drug. >> in the u.s. we do not necessarily licensed to producers of marijuana. but in san francisco, we allowed it to be prescribed. >> i am curious if you would

support a bill that regulates cultivators in california? >> what i've tried to get at is the local county of -- local supervisors is way over its head in trying to regulate an international industry. this is something that we 11 believe we have, but i do not think we do. >> i disagree. the question of marijuana is one of distortion. if we want to regulate it, let's do so. if it is entering the kind of waste stream that we do not want. but usually if the debate is around synthetics -- in order to get to the heart of what your asking -- let's regulate cultivators in san francisco. any waste stream generated by this would affect those in the state. >> we cannot regulate the cultivators outside of california. >> but if their product enters

california, we can. >> so we can regulate the cultivators and humboldt county? >> if we choose to do it like british columbia and look at the waste water, we would look at how much marijuana is return to prison pitting collection locations. [laughter] >> colleagues, if i could ask you to direct your comments either through me, the chair, or to our speaker. are there any other speakers to our representative from the department of the environment? supervisor mirkarimi, do you have any more speakers? >> yes, from puc bob ruben. >> good morning.

government affairs manager for the san francisco public utilities commission. i am joined today by our water pollution program manager karen hearst. the sf puc is very concerned about pharmaceuticals and our waste water. we support the concepts of cradle to grave product stewardship and also producer of responsibility. we also acknowledge the miracle of modern medicine. however, there is mounting evidence that these miracle medicines are having an impact on our environment. that is why, for many years, the sfpuc has worked through our water prevention program to discourage the flushing of and used medications. we look forward to working with

the board of supervisors, environmental advocates, of course, the pharmaceutical industry, to find a solution to this. at this point, i would like to call up caring hurst who will talk about our various water prevention efforts. >> good morning. i am the water pollution prevention manager. a lot of what i was going to say, both the supervisor and others have said. in terms of the efforts that the puc has done. our main responsibility is to keep pollutants out of the water system. once they reach a treatment plant, whether it is a drug, greece, mercury, -- and the entire philosophy is to keep

chemical's out of the system. we do that through education, inspections. one example, we lowered a limit with dental offices to reduce waste. they have installed sectors that would allow residents to use less pesticides. we also have locations where people can cut their runoff. the bottom line is controlling the chemical before it reaches the system. it makes the system work better. speaking specifically with respect to drugs and chemicals, our treatment plants were not designed to take out these chemicals, as the supervisor alluded to. when we have alluded to is we have worked to try and have programs to keep them out of the system.