Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
03/27/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB75 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 75-MARIJUANA ESTAB. REG; LOCAL ELECTION
1:02:55 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 75, "An Act relating to the regulation of
marijuana by municipalities; and providing for an effective
date."
1:02:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:02:56 to 1:04:30 p.m.
1:04:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt proposed CS to HB 75,
Version 29-LS0345\V, Martin, 3/23/15, as the working document.
There being no objection Version V was before the committee.
1:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature, thanked
Chair LeDoux for working with her on the committee substitute
and turned testimony over to her aide.
1:05:50 PM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff, Representative Cathy Tilton, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased the following "Explanation of Changes"
[original punctuation provide]:
Title (Page 1, lines 1-6) - The title has been
significantly tightened from previous versions.
Section 2 (Page 2, line 21-22) - The household plant
limit has been increased from 12 to 24 plants. Also,
the term "residence" has been replaced with the term
"dwelling" to be more consistent with municipal
ordinances. LAA Legal has indicated that Statute
treats the two terms as functionally interchangeable.
Section 11 (Page 6, line 22) - the addition of the
phrase "consistent with the" referring to the
Administrative Procedures Act was included at the
requests of municipalities in order to prevent
conflict with their own ordinances. This would allow
them to use their own version of the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Section 14 (Page 7, lines 9-14) - This provision was
included after the discovery of a potential
circumstance regarding a "gap" in potential
enforcement. The way the original provision was
written, a scenario was envisioned where a 2nd class
borough (FNSB and MSB, for example), which does not
have general public health or police powers, may have
issued a registration but the borough's enforcement
would be limited only to the revocation of the
registration. This provides that the holder of the
registration is ALSO subject to state regulation or
enforcement.
Section 16 (Page 7, line 23) - Similar to the change
made in section 11 above, this allows municipalities
to use local ordinances that are substantially similar
or "consistent with" AS 44.62, the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Several sections have been renumbered accordingly, as
a result of the changes listed above.
1:06:50 PM
MR. HILYARD said the household plant limit was increased from 12
plants to 24 plants as Chair LeDoux mentioned during the last
committee hearing there was confusion as to whether there was an
existing limit on the books. He related that Mr. Dennis
Wheeler, Municipality of Anchorage, sent Mr. Hilyard the [2006]
Darrin Hotrum v. State of Alaska, 130 P.3d 965 (Alaska), case
that dealt with the issue [of 24 plants]. Mr. Hilyard then
stated there is existing statute making reference to 24
(Indisc.). AS 11.71.040[a](3)(G), which reads:
(G) 25 or more plants of the genus cannabis;
MR. HILYARD related that anything in excess of 25 plants under
current criminal law is presumed possession with intent to
distribute, and anything under 25 plants is presumed to be for
personal use consistent with Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P.2d
494 (Alaska 1975) and Noy v. State of Alaska, 83 P.3d 538, 544-
45 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003) decisions. He referred to Section 11,
page 6, line 22, and advised "there is an addition of the phrase
'consistent with the'" which has to do with the Alaska
Administrative Procedures Act. He said it was noted that a
number of the larger municipalities have their own functional
ordinances that act as an Administrative Procedures Act. He
explained that phrases allows them to use their own ordinances
and prevent any potential confusion between what they have on
their books and what the Alaska Administrative Procedures Act
provides for.
1:08:23 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked for clarification.
MR. HILYARD advised he is referring to page 6, line 22-23, which
read:
... These procedures shall be consistent with the [SUBJECT
TO ALL] requirements of AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure
Act).
1:08:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to [Sec. 2, AS 17.38.020] and asked if
there was a change on page 2, lines 5-31 through Page 3, lines
1-5, and further asked and it was in the previous CS.
MR. HILYARD said it was in the previous CS and offered a brief
history from the Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee. He explained that municipal attorneys that assisted
in crafting this legislation asked for additional sideboards on
defining what "assisting" properly means. Legislative Legal and
Research Services provided the language in the bill and there
has not been a change since the "S" version.
1:09:59 PM
MR. HILYARD pointed to Sec. 14, Page 7, lines 9-14, and stated
this amendment was identified by Representative Keller in that
there was a gap in potential enforcement. He used the example
that second class boroughs do not have general police powers or
health powers. The way the initiative language read, if the
municipality issued a registration and the registrant acted
improperly, the municipality itself would not have the ability
to enforce and would have to depend entirely on the state. The
gap was closed in that the state also has enforcement authority
for activities on commercial marijuana establishments at any
time. He referred to Sec. 16, page 7, line 23, and stated it is
similar to the change made to the Administrative Procedures Act
provision in Sec. 11. It allows municipalities to use local
ordinances that are substantially similar or "consistent with"
AS 44.62, the Administrative Procedures Act. He described the
language as "clean up" so that municipalities were not
unnecessarily bound to particular language that might conflict
with their own ordinances. Lastly, he explained, several of the
sections throughout the remainder of the bill have been
renumbered accordingly as a result of drafting changes.
1:11:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to Sec. 5, page 3, line 18, and
questioned the rationale of "half of the registration
application fee," as to whether it was looked at in the context
of responsibilities that will be shared for the enforcement,
regulation, and cost of application.
MR. HILYARD stated he could not answer that question because the
language came directly from the initiative. Essentially, he
said he found Sec. 5 non-substantive because the only real
change pertaining to HB 75 was primarily the reference from
"local government" to "municipality."
1:13:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to [Sec. 2, AS 17.38.020(2), page
2, lines 21-23], and asked for an explanation as to why the
language changed from 12 plants to 24 plants [for personal use].
MR. HILYARD reiterated that there is existing statute in Title
11 stipulating that anything over 25 plants is a criminal charge
of possession with intent to distribute, or misconduct involving
a controlled substance. He described the presumption being that
under Ravin and Noy, 24 plants is for personal use.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the cite.
MR. HILYARD advised it should be in his packet and is AS
11.71.040(3)(G).
1:15:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to [Sec. 9, AS 17.38.110(b)],
page 6, line 4, and opined that criminal penalties can only be
set by a First Class Borough or a Home Rule Borough and not a
broader ... this uses the term municipality which would include
both, but it also includes others, so the language should be
tightened up a bit, he related.
MR. HILYARD advised that it certainly was not the intention of
the Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee to provide
municipalities with powers they do not currently possess. He
referred to a legal memo from Ms. Hilary Martin, Legislative
Legal and Research Services written earlier this month that
addressed that question. AS 29.25.070, which read:
(a) For the violation of an ordinance, a municipality
may by ordinance prescribe a penalty not to exceed a
fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for 90 days. For a
violation that cannot result in incarceration or the
loss of a valuable license, a municipality may allow
disposition of the violation without court appearance
and establish a schedule of fine amounts for each
offense.
MR. HILARY deferred to Ms. Martin, or a municipal attorney on
line, for further clarification.
1:16:55 PM
DENNIS WHEELER, Municipal Attorney, Legal Department,
Municipality of Anchorage asked Representative Keller to repeat
his question.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that the question may be more
appropriately for the drafter of the legislation. He pointed to
page 6, line 4, regarding the municipality and established civil
and criminal penalties. His concern is that the legislation may
be creating a power for other municipality types that was not
intended according to the sponsor.
MR. WHEELER replied that he represents a Home Rule Borough and
he does not know the ins and outs of jurisdictions that are not
Home Rule Boroughs. He stated they have a significant number of
laws that are local misdemeanor offense laws that are enforced
every day through the police department. As Representative
Keller noted, his question might be better for someone in the
state to answer with respect to whether or not this opens the
door to Second Class Boroughs and so forth, he said. He offered
that this legislation clarifies that a Home Rule Borough can
continue to enact misdemeanor offense ordinances.
1:19:25 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:19 to 1:21 p.m.
1:21:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised the committee could consider a conceptual
amendment if it is necessary.
1:21:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he is willing to offer a conceptual
amendment and pointed to [Sec. 18, AS 17.38.200(c)], page 8,
line 22, " ... and the board is not required to approve the
application." He questioned if it is clear that the board is
always referring to the state control board. The conceptual
amendment he would propose is just that the drafters would
review it and ascertain it is clear without unintended
consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded to Chair LeDoux that he is
asking whether the board is referring to the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board (ABC Board), or if it could apply to some useful
regulatory board.
MR. HILYARD responded that the language is directly from the
initiative. He said, in the absence of a Marijuana Control
Board, he presumed the board is the ABC Board as the initiative
language provides that the legislature may enact or adopt a
Marijuana Control Board.
1:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER advised that putting it on the record is
enough as the drafter should review the use of the word "board"
to ascertain it is clear throughout the legislation.
MR. HILYARD responded that the initiative sponsors drafted this
language, within which the drafter used relative portions of AS
17.38.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the language that is
passed is the product of the legislature. He opined that once
the law passes, the legislature can't go back and say the
confusion factor is in there and it's not our fault. He
expressed that the drafter must ascertain that the language is
clear as the legislature has that responsibility.
1:24:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that Sec. 9 is technically the
initiative's language except changing "local government" to
"municipality," and adding "and criminal."
MR. HILYARD responded "That is correct."
1:25:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that public testimony is closed and invited
testimony is open.
1:26:09 PM
MR. WHEELER described the bill as a good product and that his
office supports this version of the bill. He noted that when
the state determines regulations and statutes, and whether there
will be a marijuana control board, municipal governments will
have basic parameters within which to regulate at the local
level.
1:28:01 PM
AMY MEAD, Assistant Municipal Attorney, Law Department, City and
Borough of Juneau voiced her support and appreciation and stated
that the bill contains important provisions left unanswered by
the initiative. She opined these provisions will assist
[municipalities] in drafting local legislation necessary to
responsibly regulate new business as part of this process. She
expressed her appreciation that the bill includes the definition
of "assisting," as it provides a protest process, recognizes
marijuana clubs as a type of marijuana establishment, fixes the
Administrative Procedure Act issue, and allows that criminal
sanctions are allowed for time, place, and manner violations.
These provision are consistent with other land use regulations
and the power provided to municipalities under AS 29.35.010 and
AS 29.25.070.
1:29:50 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX requested that Ms. Mead and Mr. Wheeler remain on
the line.
1:30:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt [Amendment 1], labeled 29-
LS0345\V.1, which read:
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "24"
Insert "12"
Delete "12"
Insert "six"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to page 2, line 21, and stated that
he believes changing the number of [personal use] plants from 24
to 12 is a happy medium between zero and 24. "I don't think we
need a forest" of plants in anyone's dwelling, he opined.
CHAIR LEDOUX objected.
1:31:31 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that the terms of the initiative allow 6
plants per person regardless of how many people live in a
household, and 24 plants is a compromise. Nevertheless, she
said, in order to make matters easier for municipalities in
establishing a bright line, it appears appropriate to use the
white line municipalities and police departments have used for
years to determine intent to sell. She noted that she maintains
her objection.
1:32:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that the closer the committee
stays to the language of the initiative, the better case the
state will have if it comes down to a lawsuit. She offered she
will not vote in favor of the amendment.
1:32:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he supports the amendment and pointed
out that any number picked over the number six is an arbitrary
number. The committee is setting a bright line and, he noted,
there is testimony "we" don't care where the legislature sets
the line as long as a line is set. He does not see any
justification in going to the maximum allowed by going to 24.
1:33:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked that he supports Chair LeDoux and
will not vote in favor of the amendment. He expressed that he
views 24 plants as a compromise and a bright line in light of
the Holtrum case, and the previously articulated reasons.
1:34:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he associates himself with
Representative Claman's comments.
1:34:48 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, and Keller
voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Foster, Millett,
Claman, Gruenberg, and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 failed the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a
vote of 2-5.
1:35:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt [Amendment 2], labeled 29-
LS0345\V.2, which read:
Page 6, line 4:
Delete "and criminal"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to page 6, line 4, wherein the
language would delete "and criminal" as he is committed to
supporting the language of the initiative. Although, he stated,
he was a "no" vote on the initiative, he recognizes that the
majority of the public voted in favor of the initiative language
except the language only references "civil penalties." He
opined that as a matter of standard statutory construction, if
the Alaska Supreme Court was asked to analysis the initiative's
language it would presume that every word had meaning. He
further opined the Alaska Supreme Court would presume that words
not included, were intended to not be included. He noted that to
add the words "and criminal" is changing the jurisdiction by
taking language different from the intent of the voters.
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
1:37:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that Representative Claman's logic
that because the word "criminal" is not in the initiative means
that the very intent was to not allow for a criminal penalty is
a leap. He opined that when the initiative was written, the
sponsors would have made the statement that there would be no
civil or criminal penalties allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that this particular bill
relates to the regulation of marijuana, and not to the question
of civil penalties. He referred to a memo from Hilary Martin,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, dated 3/2/15, and
stated that on page 2, paragraph 2, Ms. Martin specifically
wrote "it is possible that the intent of this language is to
prevent a municipality from imposing criminal penalties on
violations of an ordinance as only civil penalties are
mentioned." He argued that it is not a leap of faith because
the committee is not dealing with the broad scheme of criminal
penalties, but is focused solely on the question of regulations
affecting those that get permits for a marijuana sales and
growing business. He said that the Alaska Supreme Court would
read the fact that there is no language about criminal penalties
and would look at it as a reason to limit the powers to just
civil penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that was exactly his point and asked
the sponsor to reiterate why the language was put in, for the
sake of context.
1:39:46 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked the municipal attorneys on line how they
regulate and enforce, whether they do enforce, or whether they
have criminal ordinances with respect to alcohol sales.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested historical background for the
committee on the discussion around inserting this language.
MR. HILYARD said this was an issue in early discussions of
developing HB 75 to its current iteration. He noted that Title
29 provides certain municipalities with limited criminal penalty
authority, and the rationale was that it was not abundantly
clear how Title 29 would apply. The municipalities that do have
general police authority prefer to make it clear that they would
continue to maintain the ability to adopt criminal penalties
specifically with time, place, and manner, violations of
commercial establishments. It was suggested by municipal
attorneys that it would be unlikely that local assembly or city
councils may adopt those, they simply wanted to have that
ability in the event it was necessitated.
1:41:39 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to alcohol establishments and asked whether
municipalities are allowed to have criminal penalties for
violations of ordinances or regulations with respect to time,
place, and manner.
MS. MEAD responded "The City and Borough of Juneau does."
MR. WHEELER responded that under the Anchorage Municipal Code,
Title 8, Chapter 35, there are a number of ordinances that make
it misdemeanor offenses to violate the rules including hours of
service, serving under aged persons, allowing person who are
intoxicated on premises, and so forth.
1:42:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports the amendment and
noted that the language of the bill reads a "municipality may
establish civil and criminal penalties." "Read directly and
literally," he opined, it does not limit it to municipalities
that already have the power. He further opined it could be read
as giving municipalities that don't already have that power
additional power to do so. He remarked he does not know if that
argument would be accepted in view of the fact there is no
amendment to the governing statutes in Title 29 on municipal
powers, but it could create litigation. Whether it should not
violate the initiative due to the language on line 4 does not
say "may establish only civil" or "may establish civil but not
criminal." He opined the court would apply the rule that
because the initiative does not just say "penalties," but says
"civil penalties" that it would be read as excluding criminal.
He explained that normally the Rules of Statutory Construction
only require that things that are included be put into the
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded to Representative Gruenberg that
the committee is not a court and it is deals with whether or not
to put [certain] language into Alaska Statutes. According to
Representative Gruenberg's argument, he related, to be certain
the language is crystal clear that it would have to include
language that reads that the "civil and not criminal." The
committee's role is to determine intent and clarify what goes
into statute. He referred to Representative Gruenberg's
argument and said he intends to propose a conceptual amendment
that limits this section to municipalities that already have the
power to establish criminal statutes.
CHAIR LEDOUX remarked with regard to the conceptual amendment,
after hearing from the City and Borough of Juneau, and the
Municipality of Anchorage regarding the regulation of liquor,
she does not have a problem with this language. She pointed out
that it does not appear to be violative of the spirit of the
initiative in that the legislation allows municipalities to
regulate marijuana establishments in the same manner.
1:47:19 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said she maintained her objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Foster,
and Claman voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives
Keller, Lynn, Millett, and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 failed the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a
vote of 4-3.
1:47:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER proposed a conceptual amendment [Amendment
3], on page 6, line 3, after the word municipality insert "with
power to establish civil and criminal penalties" and then
continue on with the language in the bill. He offered that his
intention is that only municipalities currently with the power
to set criminal penalties be allowed to set criminal penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised he supports [Amendment 3].
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that Amendment 3 helps with the
problem.
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. [There being no further
objection Amendment 3 passes the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.]
1:50:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:50 to 1:52 p.m.
1:52:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN [moved to adopt] Amendment 4, which read:
Page 2, line 29, through page 3, line 5:
Delete "; assisting under this paragraph does not
include
(A) using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting
marijuana in excess of the amount allowed in this
section;
(B) possessing, growing, processing, or transporting
marijuana plants in excess of the amount allowed in
this section;
(C) growing marijuana plants for another person in a
place other than that other person's dwelling"
CHAIR LEDOUX [objected].
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred the committee to [page 2, line
29, through page 3, line 5], and advised there are three layers
of the existing language that was added into the CS before the
committee. With regard to assisting, he found the language
vague, ambiguous and confusing and, therefore, submits
[Amendment 4]. He referred to Sec. 2, "notwithstanding whatever
else is the law it will be lawful and not criminal under Alaska
law to possess, use, display, purchase, transport, marijuana
accessories, Sub (2) grow marijuana, (3) transfer one ounce or
less of marijuana (4) consume marijuana, and then using the
specific language of the initiative, paragraph (5) is that you
can assist another person who is 21 years of age or older in
doing all of 1-4, which was assisting, possessing marijuana."
Previously marijuana is not allowed, possession of marijuana is
generally illegal, except as protected by Ravin. Currently the
language is what was previously (Indisc.) can't be now that it
is no longer prohibited as now it is specifically lawful to do
this and now, he related, the language is trying to create a
negative on the negative by trying to say what assisting is. He
pointed out Sub (C) of the assisting language "growing marijuana
plants for another person in a place other than that other
person's dwelling." He said he understands this language was
urged by the municipalities and had questions regarding Sub (C)
how can the person watering marijuana plants as part of the
housesitting responsibilities answer "Sub (5) where it basically
says a person can assist in somebody to grow plants at their
house and (5)(C) trying to say you can't do it." He stated it
seems they are in contradiction and he asked the municipal
attorneys to explain how this works.
MS. MEAD responded that she did not ask for [the language] but
believes this paragraph would allow someone to have their plants
watered while on vacation, it would prohibit a person sending a
note to 20 of the neighbors telling them "I" will grow their
plants for them in my house and ending up with 80 plants. She
opined that is what it was intended to prohibit, to not allow a
communal growing situation in one dwelling.
1:56:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned if the concern is that someone
will try to be a community grower how does that get a person
that is growing more than 24 plants, get around the 24 plant
limit that is part of the committee substitute Sub (2) that is
specifically permitted. He further questioned that the police
would ask a person how many plants they have and if they have
more than 24 plants, there is a problem.
MS. MEAD replied that if there are not enough adults living in
the house. She posited that the number of plants allowed in a
particular dwelling are still tied to the number of adults in
the house. The assisting language prohibits someone from doing
a "work around" and growing plants for someone not residing in
the home by claiming they are assisting their friend in growing
his six plants - just growing them at "my" house.
1:58:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that currently there is a statute
dealing with legal accountability based on the conduct of
another, AS 11.16.110 [Legal Accountability Based Upon the
Conduct of Another], the aiding and abetting statute. He asked
how someone with 30 plants in their house ... "how can a person
assist someone to grow marijuana and how do we basically try to
negate what the language has specifically told them they could
do."
MS. MEAD remarked that the aiding and abetting statute does not
apply as it is not a criminal activity for every adult over the
age of 21 to grow six plants in his/her home. She reiterated it
is trying to prevent a situation where there is one person
growing more than the number of plants otherwise authorized by
claiming they are for someone else.
1:59:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said the current provisions allow 24
plants in a person's own home, and do not allow him to have 24
plants in Chair LeDoux's home. He said he is only allowed 24
plants in his own home but he can say he is assisting her then,
he questioned, isn't Chair LeDoux now in for aiding and abetting
him in having more than 24 plants.
MS. MEAD answered that it would be Representative Claman that
would be in trouble, but a person cannot have 24 plants in their
home unless there are four adults living there.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that what is being proposed in
the statute, 24 plants is the line and a person could have 24
plants whether they have ...
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that Representative Claman's description
is not what everyone intended the line.
2:00:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the amendment is confusing
because it does not address ... the initiative specifically says
that a person can assist another person in all these activities.
Now, he said, it is trying to say that a person cannot assist
those persons in those very same activities. He related that he
does not see how the person with 36 plants in their home, what
is the basis for saying "I'm assisting somebody" that the
assistance somehow creates a defense.
CHAIR LEDOUX said "I don't understand what you are talking about
at all right now."
2:01:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the committee tries to write
language so clearly that public defenders, prosecutors, judges,
and legislators can understand and this provision is a triple
negative.
CHAIR LEDOUX remarked that she does not a problem with the
language as it reads that everyone is allowed six plants, but if
one person is caught with twelve plants they cannot say "these
are my six, and the other six belong to someone else and I am
just assisting them to grow their six plants."
2:03:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG conveyed that there are other scenarios
this will arise in as the person watering the plants is
assisting the other person. He opined he would like the
language to be clearer.
2:05:20 PM
MR. HILYARD pointed to page 2, lines 29-31 through page 3, lines
1-5, and said in reviewing (a)[5], "assisting under this
paragraph does not include using, displaying, purchasing, or
transporting, marijuana in excess of the amount allowed in this
section." A person can water their friend's plants all day long
so long as those plants are in their friend's home.
CHAIR LEDOUX offered that a friend cannot go away for a while
and bring their plants to another person's home.
MR. HILYARD responded his reading of the provision is that he
could water his friend's plants at his friend's home.
2:06:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT remarked that a person can babysit plants
but cannot bring the plants to their home.
2:06:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked why a neighbor cannot bring 24
plants to person's home when the person does not have any
plants. He included that the 24 plants represent four adults
living in the neighbor's home.
MR. HILYARD responded that as long as there are not more than
six plants in a [single] individual's home at a time, it really
doesn't matter.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN restated his question of why the person
assisting his neighbor, who has four adults living in the
neighbor's house, bring [24 plants] to his house to water and
assist the neighbor.
MR. HILYARD replied "No," because the committee is defining it
that does not constitute assisting for the purposes of this
paragraph.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN further questioned that under this
language "I specifically could not bring them to my house,
whereas, under ... if you don't have these ... except the
language that is in the proposed ... that I am proposing to
delete ... you didn't have that language there wouldn't be a
basis to say I could take them to my house."
MR. HILYARD replied that he could take six plants, if there were
no other plants in his home.
2:08:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that lines 29-30, "assisting
under this paragraph does not include ..." is confusing. What
the language should say is that even if a person is helping
someone over 21, the person is criminally liable if they do the
following things ... He expressed that would be one way of
making the language clearer.
2:10:10 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that she does not have a problem with the
language and will maintain her objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Claman and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives
Foster, Keller, Lynn, Millett, and LeDoux voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4 failed the House Judiciary Standing
Committee by a vote of 2-5.
2:10:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 75, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
75(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
2:11:18 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:11 to 2:13.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB106(STA) Brief Synopsis 032615.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Fiscal Note-0897-DOR-CSS-2-6-15.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Fiscal Note-JUD.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Fiscal Note-LAW.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sectional Analysis - CSHB106(STA).pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Supporting Document - Murkowksi Letter.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 ver W.PDF |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| CS HB 75 Version V.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |