Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
02/18/2015 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 | |
| HB5 | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Violent Crimes Compensation Board | |
| HB79 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 79-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
1:46:32 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to controlled substances;
relating to marijuana; relating to driving motor vehicles when
there is an open marijuana container; and providing for an
effective date."
1:46:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) HB 79, labeled 29-LS0409\G, Martin, 2/16/15, as
the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
1:46:52 PM
THOMAS BROWN, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, explained he would discuss policy changes and
would not discuss technical conforming amendments. He noted
that last week the House Judiciary Standing Committee received
committee substitute (CS) Version "I," which was discarded
[prior to introduction] in favor of Version "G." Mr. Brown
paraphrased the following (original punctuation included with
formatting changes):
All references to "preparations, compounds, mixtures,
or substances" have been replaced with "marijuana" to
conform with the definition as stated in the
initiative, AS 17.38.900
Former section 32 - conforming language dealing with
AS 12.55.135(j), related to sentencing for certain
marijuana crimes, is deleted and repealed-this section
was superfluous as misdemeanors listed in the bill do
not require jail time over one year so a bail schedule
is unnecessary
Section 44 - added 17.38.020 from the ballot
initiative, amended to remove the language
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW
Section 50 - added 17.38.110 from the ballot
initiative, local option provision, amended to specify
that established villages have the ability to opt out
of commercial marijuana operations
Section 51 - removed the crime of possession of more
than 4 ounces;
- Changed the prohibition of manufacture with a
substance other than vegetable glycerin to
prevent a person other than a registered
marijuana establishment from producing a
marijuana concentrate or extract using a volatile
or explosive gas;
- Made certain exceptions for a medical marijuana
patient registered under AS 17.37 who is at least
18 years old to enter a marijuana establishment
and purchase marijuana;
- Removed the crime of possession of more than
one ounce and less than four ounces;
- Removed AS 17.38.270, a proposed section which
dealt with rehabilitation;
- Removed AS 17.38.260, a proposed section which
established weight calculations for marijuana
plants;
- Changed "marijuana overdose" to "significant
adverse marijuana reaction;"
- Removed AS 17.38.290, which allowed for
forfeitures and seizures;
- Added 17.38.280 which allows for the
confidentiality of court records of minors;
- Added 17.38.290-340 which allow and define
local option procedures for exemptions from
commercial marijuana use;
- Made a 3rd degree marijuana misconduct
violation punishable by a $300 fine;
- Limited the fine for a 4th degree marijuana
misconduct violation punishable by a $100 fine;
- Added exceptions for marijuana misconduct
crimes for people "acting in the person's
capacity as an officer, agent, or employee of the
marijuana establishment";
- Added to 1st degree marijuana misconduct the
crime of manufacturing more than six marijuana
plants, not more than three of which are mature;
- Added "usable marijuana" to the possession
limit of 1 ounce of marijuana
Section 53 - defined established village as used in
sections 50 and 51
- Defined usable marijuana to accommodate the
removal of the weight calculation of live
marijuana plants
Former section 77-78 - deleted amendments to AS
23.30.120 (a) & AS 23.30.235, pertaining to workers'
compensation
Former section 88 - deleted an amendment to AS
28.15.176 to correct a drafting error which only
changed a catchline in current law
Section 116 - removed language that allowed testing of
a minor's blood or urine for the purpose of
determining the marijuana content of the minor's blood
or urine
Section 119, 121 - deleted "blood or urine" from these
sections, which relate to a minor's refusal of a
chemical test
Section 130 - added "possess" so that the commissioner
of corrections can prohibit a prisoner from using,
consuming AND possessing marijuana or marijuana
products
Section 134 - technical changes
Former section 141 - deleted amendments to AS
17.38.220(a)(3) relating to crimes for which juveniles
may be punished as adults, now conflicting with the
17.38.280
Section 142 - added the Dept. of Administration to the
list of departments the Dept. of Health & Social
Services must consult with in establishing and
conducting programs designed to deal with the problem
of persons operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of an alcoholic beverage, marijuana,
inhalant, or controlled substance
1:50:12 PM
MR. BROWN, in response to Chair LeDoux, advised that references
to "preparations, compounds, mixtures, or substances" are
located throughout the bill.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Mr. Brown to identify areas throughout the
bill discussing weight.
MR. BROWN responded that he would discuss that issue within his
summary of changes and began his sectional analysis of Version
G. He said that Sec. 44, adds Sec. 17.38.020 from the ballot
initiative and was added "pretty much verbatim," but deleted the
language "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW." Section
50 adds Sec. 17.38.110 from the ballot initiative, which is also
known as the "local option" provision.
1:52:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the reason witnesses want Sec. 44
in the bill.
MR. BROWN responded that all written and oral testimony the
committee received indicate that this is the "strongest language
possible" to definitively state that marijuana is legal, that
personal possession is legal, and that personal consumption is
legal. He explained previous versions of the bill did not
include .020, which removes marijuana from the list of
controlled substances and states that possession is not a crime.
He explained that the addition of this section makes it explicit
in approximately four-five different ways that it is legal for
Alaskans over the age of 21 to possess, grow, and consume
marijuana.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised this is the "core section" of
the bill.
MR. BROWN responded that as far as the proponents of the
initiative are concerned, he would probably say "yes," except he
cannot speak on their behalf. He reiterated that Sec. 50 is
also known as the local option provision and that Sec.
17.38.110(a) was added from the initiative, page 29, lines 2-4.
1:55:40 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:56:31 PM
MR. BROWN referred to Sec. 50, [AS 17.38.110(a)] page 29, lines
2-4, which read:
(a) An established village may prohibit the operation
of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product
manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing
facilities, or retail marijuana stores by a voter
initiative as provided in AS 17.38.290.
MR. BROWN explained it is to specify that local government
includes established villages.
1:56:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that [HB 75] is in the Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee which deals with
[established villages] and questioned whether there would
potentially be two bills from two different committees reading
differently. He asked whether the term "established village" is
defined somewhere and referred to the current text [page 28,
lines 30-31, and page 29, line 1], which read:
(a) A local government may prohibit the operation of
marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product
manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing
facilities, or retail marijuana stores through the
enactment of an ordinance or by a voter initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that the added language reads
"that they may prohibit the operation of ... by a voter
initiative as provided in [AS 17.38.290]." He asked the
difference between the two sentences, and why the new language
is limited to voter initiatives.
MR. BROWN, in responding to Representative Gruenberg, advised
the original language was taken from the ballot initiative which
only used the term "local government." As to the definition of
an "established village," he deferred to an expert from the
Department of Law (DOL), or the Department of Health & Social
Services (DHSS), or another [expert].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether it was the intent of
the ballot initiative to limit "this" to a voter initiative, or
whether it was intended to add an initiative. The wording could
be "either by an ordinance or an initiative," he said.
1:59:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER called the committee's attention to [Sec.
53, AS 17.38.900(17)], page 37, line l5:
(17) "established village" means an area that
does not contain any part of an incorporated city
or another established village and that is an
unincorporated community that is in the
unorganized borough and that has 25 or more
permanent residents;
2:00:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to "enactment of an ordinance or
by a voter initiative," and surmised that those are the only two
ways municipalities can actually enact a law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked it would depend upon the
situation whether it is allowed by charter, "or something." He
questioned the language on line 1, as it allows the enactment
... that the prohibition may be either by an ordinance or an
initiative, but does not mention on line 4 that it could be done
by an ordinance. The only word mentioned is "initiative," he
remarked.
2:01:14 PM
MR. BROWN turned to Sec. 51, page 29, and highlighted that it
removed the crime of possession of more than four ounces,
changed [the language from] the prohibition of manufacture with
a substance other than vegetable glycerin to prevent a person
other than a registered marijuana establishment from producing a
marijuana concentrate or extract, to the language "using a
volatile or explosive gas," it makes certain exceptions for a
medical marijuana patient registered under AS 17.37 who is at
least 18 years old to enter a marijuana establishment and
purchase marijuana, and removes the crime of possession of more
than one ounce and less than four ounces. He further
highlighted that it removed two separate sections, one dealing
with rehabilitation, and the other section establishing weight
calculations for marijuana plants. He pointed out that AS
17.38.260 relating to weight calculations for marijuana plants
was removed as, he noted, the ballot initiative was very clear -
one ounce or six plants - the weight of the plants being
immaterial.
CHAIR LEDOUX clarified that Mr. Brown meant one ounce and six
plants.
MR. BROWN agreed and stated if there is no purpose for weighing
the plants when an individual is allowed to cultivate plants as
a plant. He explained it is no longer the material of the plant
that is in question as it is the amount of plants an individual
possesses. Therefore, he said, determining the weight of the
plants is unnecessary. He explained that the drafter injected
the term "usable marijuana" in many places throughout the bill
that had weight calculations in it previously.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether this draft goes further than
what the initiative requires by using a four ounce rather than a
one ounce.
MR. BROWN responded that in some places, "Yes," to comply with
Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975) decision.
2:03:55 PM
MR. BROWN referred to Sec. 51, [AS 17.38.260], page 33, line 11,
and stated the term "marijuana overdose" was removed and
replaced with "significant adverse marijuana reaction." He
opined this is a nod to the fact that marijuana overdoses are
extremely unlikely.
2:04:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER called attention to [Sec. 51, AS
17.38.200], page 29, line 11, refers to an individual not
registered. On page 29, line 16, refers to the maximum as "not
more than three of which are mature, flowering plants." He said
the comparison between a person who is not registered on line
11, and the person who is registered, page 23, and "yet they
have exactly the same subsection (ii)". He advised he does not
understand why it would be the same. He reiterated he is
calling attention to page 29, lines 15-16 which appear to be
identical to lines [page 29], 29-30. He pointed out that lines
15-16 are referring to a marijuana establishment that is not
registered, and lines 29-30 are referring to a marijuana
establishment that is registered as a marijuana establishment.
MR. BROWN explained that it appears to be another drafting
error, and advised that after reviewing his notes he marked
lines 15-18 out to be amended in the future.
2:06:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked for confirmation that the lines
would be taken out of "is not a registered ..."
MR. BROWN advised there will be a discussion about that in order
to be certain it is completely understood, but yes.
2:06:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to "significant adverse marijuana
reaction," and advised it is not defined anywhere.
CHAIR LEDOUX opined there is not a provision defining
"significant adverse marijuana reaction."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled a previous bill dealing with
an individual in this type of situation and could not be
prosecuted, and questioned how the two bills relate.
MR. BROWN offered that the legislation, last session, was
Representative Lance Pruitt's bill offering immunity from
prosecution in the circumstances of drug overdose. He explained
that an individual can call Emergency Medical Services (EMS), or
the police and not be prosecuted for being in attendance,
possessing, or using a controlled substance for the purpose of
saving another individual's life. He advised the language was
"poached" from Representative Pruitt's bill.
2:09:00 PM
MR. BROWN responded in the affirmative to Representative
Gruenberg in that it is another conforming amendment putting all
of the marijuana together, and basically have a fairly
comprehensive structure for dealing with marijuana related
crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired whether there was a
significant difference between this version and Representative
Pruitt's bill, and that Mr. Brown could get back to him.
2:09:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to Sec. 51, page 31, line 3, and
asked for clarification, "(A) possesses more than six but less
than 25 plants," and on page 31, line 9, "(iii) up to six
immature marijuana plants ..." He questioned whether the
numbers were 25 or 31.
MR. BROWN explained that the possession of "more than six but
less than 25 plants" is merely for possession, and lines 9-10,
"up to six immature marijuana plants for remuneration," has to
do with dealing. The distinction is possession and dealing, he
explained.
2:11:00 PM
MR. BROWN continued with Sec. 51, and stated that AS 17.38.290
allowing for forfeiture and seizure of property and monies in
relation to marijuana crimes was deleted. He pointed out that
Sec. 51, AS 17.38.280, page 33, lines 22-25, was added and it
allows for the confidentiality of court records of minors.
2:12:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to Sec. 51, AS 17.38.250, page
33, lines 7-9, and asked the attorneys in the room whether the
legislature can tell the Alaska Supreme Court what to do without
anticipating an attached court rule change.
CHAIR LEDOUX opined that "we can on something like this," and
they have not been told by the court attorney that the committee
"can't."
MR. BROWN advised he spoke with the representative of the court
system and was told this has been done a couple dozen times in
statute, and the legislature does have the authority.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the word "shall" can be used
in two different ways: mandatory or directive.
2:14:30 PM
MR. BROWN referred to Sec. 51, AS 17.38.290 - Sec. 51, AS
17.38.340, page 34, line 26, - page 37, line 9, which is the
local option rule allowing and defining local option procedures
for exemptions from commercial marijuana use.
2:15:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked the committee to refer to [Sec. 51,
AS 17.38.280], page 34, [lines 22-25], the confidential records
provision and questioned whether that mirrors similar provisions
for minor consuming or whether minor consuming is not
confidential.
MR. BROWN offered to get back to him with the correct answer.
2:15:55 PM
MR. BROWN related that Sec. 51, [AS 17.38.220] page 32, lines
15-16, is amended to read:
(c) Misconduct involving marijuana in the third degree
is a violation and is punishable by a fine of $300.
MR. BROWN responded to Representative Gruenberg that the
previous language was "Misconduct involving marijuana in the
third degree is a violation and is punishable as provided in AS
12.55." He offered that the statute set up a series of
different schedules, procedures, and circumstances with the
ballot initiative setting the maximum fine at "$400."
2:18:40 PM
MR. BROWN related that [Sec. 51, AS 17.38.220] page 32, lines
25-26, were amended to read
(b) Misconduct involving marijuana in the fourth
degree is a violation and is punishable by a fine of
$100.
MR. BROWN indicated that these two fines can be paid in the same
manner as paying a traffic ticket.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG presented the scenario of an individual
having two cigarettes and the total amount is "whatever it is."
He inquired as to whether the individual would be subject to two
different counts under the fourth degree violation. He asked
whether six cookies would be six counts in the fourth degree
with the fine being $600.
2:20:13 PM
MR. BROWN advised that is not his understanding, unless each
joint weighed more than one ounce, but that would be aggregated.
He said he will confirm the correct answer.
2:20:38 PM
MR. BROWN referred to Sec. 51, [AS 17.38.200] page 29, lines 11-
13 "and repeated a couple time throughout," added the language:
(A) is not a registered marijuana
establishment under this chapter or acting
in the person's capacity as an officer,
agent, or employee of the marijuana
establishment and knowingly ...
MR. BROWN continued to Sec. 51, [AS 17.38.200] page 29, lines
15-16,
(ii) manufactures more than six
marijuana plants, not more than three
of which are mature, flowering plants;
MR. BROWN referred to Representative Keller's prior comments and
noted that the language may be amended. However, he added, that
same language is repeated on page 29, lines 29-30.
2:22:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to [Sec. 51, AS 17.38.200]
page 29, and said that it reads that an individual commits first
degree misconduct if at the time of the possession the person is
acting in the capacity of an officer, agent or employee of the
marijuana establishment. He opined it doesn't appear to require
that the person have any knowledge that the particular
establishment was improperly registered as all the person has to
know is that they are transporting marijuana.
2:25:31 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law, referred to page 29, line
24, and stated a "culpable mental state" is necessary for there
to be a crime. The person under this provision must be acting,
and if an individual is acting in the capacity of [officer,
agent or employee] they have done a certain thing, and normally
when a statute doesn't refer to a particular culpable mental
state, it would be knowing as to conduct and reckless as to
result. That is built into Title 11 and, he said, he would
assume that an appellate court would read that into Title 17
because unless there are specific findings about the need for a
crime ... to have strict liability as a culpable mental state.
That is, he explained, it doesn't make any difference what your
state of mind is, unless there are specific findings, there will
need to be a particular state of mind that a person has before
they have committed a crime.
CHAIR LEDOUX suggested inserting "knowingly," so there is a
bright line as opposed to leaving it to the courts to interpret.
MR. SVOBODNY pointed out that it is better when the legislature
tells the court what it wants the law to be.
2:27:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to [Sec. 51, AS 17.38.900] page
37, line 11, which read:
(15) "criminal negligence" has the meaning given
in AS 11.81.900;
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN continued that line 19 reads:
(18) "knowingly" has the meaning given in AS
11.81.900;
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that the only thing missing is to
add the definition of "recklessly" in reference to Title 11, and
it probably solves the issue Mr. Svobodny is addressing.
MR. SVOBODNY stated he could not answer the question right away.
"To be blunt, the drafters made this issue way too complicated,"
and he would prefer staying with the language known for culpable
mental state. He defined conduct as "knowingly," and result as
"recklessly," or it could be with "criminal negligence." He
suggested that in criminal law there is generally four culpable
mental states, "intentionally" which is left for crimes like
murder or robbery.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the bill should refer to Title
11 and not attempt to reinvent as the courts have spent years
interpreting those terms and applying the statutory terms. He
expressed that the legislature should not go anywhere else.
2:30:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to Sec. 27, [AS 12.30.016] page
19, lines 21-26, which read:
(2) submit to a search without a warrant of the
person, the person's personal property, the
person's residence, or any vehicle or other
property over which the person has control, for
the presence of marijuana, marijuana products, or
marijuana accessories by a peace officer who has
reasonable suspicion that the person is violating
the terms of the person's release by possessing
marijuana, marijuana products, or marijuana
accessories;
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked that this section applies to
people on parole and questioned whether this a standard for
anyone on parole.
MR. SVOBODNY responded that he doesn't have the statutes with
him, but believes this section deals with bail. It is the
provision wherein if an individual has been charged with a crime
that involves substances abuse, there can be special conditions.
He explained it allows a court to impose that, as a condition of
bail release in a crime involving alcohol or drugs, for example.
It is not a "shall" as the court may impose conditions depending
upon what is necessary to assure the individual's appearance in
court or to protect the public.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed that it is a red flag when
getting into the area of constitutional rights. He then
referred to [Sec. 37, AS 17.21.090(3)(B)] page 23, lines 11-14,
which read:
(i) a crystalline or powder product in
crystalline, loose powder, block,
tablet, or capsule form; or
(ii) plant material in granular, loose
leaf, powder, or liquid form or used as
a food additive; and
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that this section is regarding
synthetic drugs, and the bill is saying a synthetic drug can
consist of marijuana. He questioned line 13, subsection [ii]
wherein it refers to "loose leaf" form in that he thought that
is what marijuana is.
MR. SVOBODNY reiterated he does not have the statutes in front
of him, but believes Representative Keller is correct that it is
around the synthetic drug issue.
MR. BROWN called attention to Sec. 37, [AS 17.22.090] page 23,
lines 8-9, which read:
(3) ... introduced into the human body, to
mimic or simulate the effect of a drug, or
controlled substance, or marijuana;
MR. BROWN stated the two key words are "mimic or simulate." He
then referred to subsection (C), which read:
(C) not a controlled substance or marijuana.
2:34:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to [Sec. 27, AS12.30.016] page
19, lines 21-26, which read:
(2) submit to a search without a warrant of
the person, the person's personal property,
the person's residence, or any vehicle or
other property over which the person has
control, for the presence of marijuana,
marijuana products, or marijuana accessories
by a peace officer who has reasonable suspicion
that the person is violating the terms of the
person's release by possessing marijuana,
marijuana products, or marijuana accessories;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted two issues: (1) can the court say
as a condition of parole, and he assumed probation, that an
individual cannot possess a legal substance. [Someone from the
audience said, yes]; and, (2) a search of an individual's entire
residence can be ordered, even if the person only occupies a
small portion of it, he continued.
MR. SVOBODNY answered in the affirmative and advised that this
is the existing bail statute that added marijuana.
2:36:27 PM
MR. BROWN referred to Sec. 51, [AS 17.38.200(a)(1)(A)] page 29,
[lines 17-18], which read:
(iii) transports more than one ounce
of usable marijuana or more than six
plants;
MR. BROWN advised that "usable marijuana" was added to the
statute in reference to "one ounce of" as it eliminates the
whole plant idea. He noted that since marijuana, as defined in
AS 17.38.900, includes compounds, extracts, resins, and so
forth, it is one ounce of usable marijuana no matter the form.
He offered that it has been in place throughout Sec. 51, so
there is no concern about hash, or hash oil, as it is usable
marijuana in whatever form it happens to be.
2:38:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked for clarification that an
individual can have one ounce of hash oil concentrate, which has
a high level of THC, in their possession.
MR. BROWN responded "That is my understanding, yes."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER highlighted that one ounce of concentrate
could "stoke" for quite a while compared to another kind of an
ounce, and the committee must review this further.
2:39:42 PM
MR. BROWN referred to Sec. 53, [AS 17.38.900, page 37, line 15
and line 30, which read:
(17) "established village" means an area that
does not contain any part of an incorporated city
or another established village and that is an
unincorporated community that is in the
unorganized borough and that has 25 or more
permanent residents;
(22) "usable marijuana" has the meaning given in
AS 17.37.070.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether "established village" is
a term appearing elsewhere in the law, or whether it was new.
MR. BROWN advised he would research the issue and get back to
him.
2:40:37 PM
MR. BROWN moved to former Sec. 77-78, and advised they were
deleted as they were amendments to AS 23.31.020(a) and AS
23.30.235 which pertain to workers' compensation. He then
referred to former Sec. 88, which was deleted and was an
amendment to AS 28.15.176 that corrected a drafting error.
MR. BROWN referred to Sec. 116, [28.35.280(a)] page 67, line 3,
and advised the section removed the following language: " ...
request that the person submit to a chemical test or test of the
person's blood or urine for the purpose of determining the
marijuana content of the person's blood or urine."
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked for clarification that the language
left in the bill read:
(2) request that the person submit to a
chemical test or tests of the person's breath for
the purpose of determining the alcoholic content
of the person's blood or breath; and
MR. BROWN responded that instead of saying the state can draw
their blood or urine, the legislation is saying the state can
request to take their blood or breath.
MR. BROWN responded to Representative Gruenberg that he would
research why the state does not test urine, but is allowed to
test breath.
2:44:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to Sec. 107, [AS 28.35.031(a)]
page 63, [lines 13-28], and said that just operating a vehicle
... you shall be considered to have given consent. He
questioned whether that provision is possible under other
statutes in Alaska where an individual cannot give consent until
the individual is 18. He opined that this section, "presuming
there is consent, may not be possible in somebody from age 14-
18, it would apply to someone 18-21, I don't think."
MR. BROWN responded that this is existing statute and the
drafter added marijuana to it, he deferred to Mr. Svobodny.
2:45:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Sec. 116, pages 66-67 and said
that the implied consent discussed is not giving authority for a
blood or urine test based on the stopping of an individual. He
described it as setting it up so a person can be required to
give a breath test, and questioned whether that was the intent
of this committee substitute.
MR. BROWN responded in the affirmative, and will get back to him
as to why the drafter chose to keep blood in and take urine out.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated there is no blood test here.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that when an individual takes a
breath test measuring blood alcohol content, it is not actually
authorizing a blood test. She described it as basically giving
authorization ... putting marijuana in existing statute even
though there is not a blow test for marijuana.
2:47:38 PM
MR. BROWN referred to Sec. 119 and 121, [AS 28.35.285(a) and AS
28.35.285(d)] page 68-69, delete the words "blood and urine"
from these sections as they specifically relate to a minor's
refusal of a chemical test. He then referred to Sec. 130, [AS
33.30.015(a)(3)(K)] page 75, which added the word "possess"
specifically so that the Department of Corrections Commissioner
can prohibit a prisoner from using, consuming, and possessing
marijuana or marijuana products. He noted that Sec. 134 is a
technical change. Mr. Brown then pointed to former Sec. 141 and
said that it deleted amendments to AS 17.38.220(a)(3) which
relate to crimes for which juveniles may now be punished as
adults. He offered that this provision now conflicts with AS
17.38.280 [Court records of violations by minors confidential.]
which gives the courts the ability to seal the records of minors
convicted of marijuana violations. He called attention to Sec.
142, [AS 47.37.040] page 81, which adds the Department of
Administration to the list of departments the Department of
Health and Social Services must consult in establishing and
conducting programs designed to deal with the difficulties of
persons operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
marijuana
2:50:28 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony and offered the "Close Up"
students to testify.
2:50:37 PM
HALEY HOBAN stated that there are some problems with marijuana
becoming legal in that she was told marijuana is being treated
like alcohol so "we can't do blood tests with it and we would
take them to get blood work." She noted that chemical THC can
stay in an individual's blood for 30-days and there is no way to
determine how impaired someone is, and marijuana may end up
being a gateway drug as there are students her age thinking that
just because it is legal they can smoke it, she expressed. She
offered that it is known kids already smoke it so this is going
to be a bigger problem because it is legal. She said she has
noticed kids caught for possessing or smoking it and have been
let off very easy without necessarily getting into trouble.
Thereby, telling the kids it is not a big deal, she remarked.
We have to protect the kids for sure with the drug, she opined.
2:52:53 PM
MADISON STIBES said that marijuana should not be allowed in
public areas as a child might see this and want to do it also so
adults should not be encouraging this unhealthy addiction. She
pointed out that people should not be allowed to smoke marijuana
before or during that person driving as marijuana will make a
person dizzy and lazier, increasing the percentage of car
accidents and most likely leading to more deaths of American
citizens, she remarked.
2:54:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that he may offer an amendment to a
bill establishing that marijuana is illegal within 500 feet of a
school, church, places of worship, public play area and so
forth.
2:54:52 PM
CAIDEN PETERSEN said she is currently in the seventh grade and
believes that marijuana should never be smoked in public, in
front of children, or carried in "pocket slush bags" in public.
She expressed that never should a smoker be able to smoke and
drive as smoking marijuana causes an individual to be loopy and
dizzy "so do you want your kid playing near a street with a
person that just smoked a bud driving by?" She extended that it
is extremely dangerous and will hurt the people of Alaska.
2:56:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised Mr. Brown that he would like to
review information currently dealing with medical marijuana,
whether or not it is in the bill.
CHAIR LEDOUX, in response to Representative Claman regarding the
initiative taking effect on February 24, 15, there is a
possibility the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) is
holding a meeting to define public place.
2:58:17 PM
DON HART said he is concerned about the unconstitutionality
committee substitute to HB 79 raises in that it would cause
serious problems with the court system. In addition, he
offered, based upon the shortage of law enforcement officers the
state would have to increase law enforcement "one hundred fold"
in order to handle [problems]. He expressed the bill can force
people to submit themselves to searches without a search warrant
by adding the word "marijuana" to the particular criminal
offenses that exist today. He remarked he has heard officers in
court repeatedly testify that they are entitled at their
discretion to make any call they want - [assuming] the person
must be under the influence of something and force them to go to
the hospital and submit to tests. He opined there are no
consequences to law enforcement officers when [the results are
negative] when they've violated the constitutional rights to
privacy in the State of Alaska. He referred to the original
bill and objected to the word "containing," and reiterated his
concern regarding police officer's ability to search a person's
home without a search warrant. The courts have stated
repeatedly, he said, with a person on parole, probation, or
personal bond, the only area the law enforcement officer is
allowed to search is the part the person has access.
3:03:01 PM
RHONDA MARCY stated she agreed with the previous speaker and
advised she will submit her testimony in writing. She said her
concern is that only one ounce of body massage oil would be
allowed to go with a [client]. She related that the committee
needs more information before they fall into the "rhetoric" that
the school children expressed as far as this being an "evil
weed," and that the state must not let people see anyone
receiving medical benefits from it. This is a "miraculous"
plant and, she offered, the committee must avoid fear-mongering.
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that CSHB 79 is held over.
3:05:17 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB79 Summary of Changes ver P to ver I.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| Appointments - Violent Crimes - Dr. Brown.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
Appointments-Violent Crimes Compensation Board |
| HB79 Supporting Documents - Legal Memo.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Draft Proposed CS ver G.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB79 Supporting Documents - Timeline.PDF |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB05 Letter of Suppotr - AARP.PDF |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB05 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB05 Letter of support - AoCA.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB05 Fiscal Note-Law.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB05 Fiscal Note-HSS.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB05 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB05.pdf |
HJUD 2/18/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |