03/24/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB20 | |
| HB276 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 442 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 439 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 308 | ||
| += | HB 325 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 20 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 24, 2006
1:14 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 20(JUD)
"An Act relating to offenses against unborn children."
- TABLED
HOUSE BILL NO. 276
"An Act relating to business license endorsements for tobacco
products, to holders of business license endorsements for
tobacco products, and to the employees and agents of holders of
business license endorsements for tobacco products."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 442
"An Act relating to the validity of advance health care
directives, individual health care instructions, and do not
resuscitate orders; relating to the revocation of advance health
care directives; relating to do not resuscitate orders; relating
to resuscitative measures; relating to the liability of health
care providers and institutions; relating to an individual's
capacity for making health care decisions; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 439
"An Act relating to authorizing the state to join with other
states entering into the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation
Compact and authorizing the compact to supersede existing
statutes by approving standards, rules, or other action under
the terms of the compact."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 308
"An Act relating to false caller identification."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 03/29/06
HOUSE BILL NO. 325
"An Act relating to post-conviction DNA testing; and amending
Rule 35.1, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 03/27/06
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 20
SHORT TITLE: OFFENSES AGAINST UNBORN CHILDREN
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DYSON
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) STA, JUD
03/01/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/01/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/01/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/15/05 (S) Moved CSSB 20(STA) Out of Committee
03/15/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/05 (S) STA RPT CS 1NR 4AM SAME TITLE
03/16/05 (S) AM: THERRIAULT, ELTON, WAGONER, HUGGINS
03/16/05 (S) NR: DAVIS
03/16/05 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/31/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/04/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/04/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/05 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/12/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/12/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/19/05 (S) Moved CSSB 20(JUD) Out of Committee
04/19/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/05 (S) JUD RPT CS FORTHCOMING 3DP 1NR
04/19/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
04/19/05 (S) NR: GUESS
04/20/05 (S) RETURNED TO JUD COMMITTEE
04/21/05 (S) JUD CS RECEIVED SAME TITLE
04/26/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/26/05 (S) Moved CSSB 20(2nd JUD) Out of Committee
04/26/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/27/05 (S) JUD RPT CS(2D JUD) 3DP 2AM SAME TITLE
04/27/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
04/27/05 (S) AM: FRENCH, GUESS
04/27/05 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/28/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/28/05 (S) Moved CSSB 20(JUD) Out of Committee
04/28/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/29/05 (S) FIN RPT CS(JUD) 2DP 3NR
04/29/05 (S) DP: GREEN, DYSON
04/29/05 (S) NR: WILKEN, HOFFMAN, OLSON
05/01/05 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED Y11 N5 E3 A1
05/03/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/03/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 20(JUD)
05/04/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/04/05 (H) JUD, FIN
05/05/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/07/05 (H) JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/07/05 (H) Meeting Postponed to 5/8/05
05/08/05 (H) JUD AT 12:00 AM CAPITOL 120
05/08/05 (H) Meeting Postponed
05/09/05 (H) JUD AT 0:00 AM CAPITOL 120
05/09/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/15/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/15/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/06 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/22/06 (H) JUD AT 2:30 PM CAPITOL 120
02/22/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 2/23/06>
02/23/06 (H) JUD AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 120
02/23/06 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/15/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/20/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/20/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/22/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/22/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/06 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/24/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 276
SHORT TITLE: BUSINESS LICENSE TOBACCO ENDORSEMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
04/19/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/19/05 (H) JUD, FIN
04/26/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/26/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/27/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/27/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/27/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/15/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/24/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 20.
MICHAEL O'HARE, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 414, Version L, on behalf of
the sponsor, Representative Kott.
ED SASSER
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns during discussion of
HB 276.
RONALD F. TAYLOR, Coordinator
Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP)
Prevention and Early Intervention Section
Division of Behavioral Health (DBH)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns during discussion of
HB 276 and responded to questions.
MICHAEL ELERDING, President
Northern Sales Company of Alaska, Inc.
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 276 and
responded to questions.
SUZANNE MEUNIER, Director of Advocacy
American Stroke Association
American Heart Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 276, expressed
concerns and responded to questions.
KIP KNUDSON, Manager
Government Relations
Tesoro Alaska [Company]
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 276 and
responded to questions.
STEVEN RUSH, Director
Corporate Compliance
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 276 and
responded to questions.
TAMMY GREEN, Section Chief
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (CDPHP)
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 276, provided
comments and expressed a preference that the current law remain
unchanged.
ROGER HAMES, President
Hames Corporation
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 276, provided
comments and encouraged passage of the bill.
MARGE LARSON, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
American Lung Association of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 276.
ACTION NARRATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE TOM ANDERSON, acting as chair, called the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:14:46 PM.
Representatives Anderson, Coghill, Gara, Wilson, Kott, and
Gruenberg were present at the call to order. Representative
McGuire arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 20 - OFFENSES AGAINST UNBORN CHILDREN
1:16:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON announced that the first order of
business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 20(JUD), "An Act
relating to offenses against unborn children." [Before the
committee was CSHB 20(2d JUD), which had been adopted as the
work draft on 2/15/06 and amended on 3/22/06; left pending from
3/22/06 was the motion to adopt Amendment 2, as amended; and
included in member's packets was a proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for SB 20, Version 24-LS0197\B, Mischel,
3/24/06.]
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that public testimony on SB 20 had
been closed at a prior meeting, posited that the bill has been
thoroughly debated and analyzed, and acknowledged that there are
still differing philosophies regarding what the intent of the
bill is and the direction it should take.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that the committee and sponsor have
done their best to try to reach a compromise on the bill;
however, it looks s though that is unlikely to occur. He said
he agrees with the concept of increasing sentences for those who
assault a pregnant woman and those who by doing so cause a
miscarriage - characterizing such as a heinous crime - and is in
favor of the sentence lengths proposed in the bill. He
recounted that an amendment he'd proposed [Amendment 2, as
amended] would have made the current penalties [for murder and
assault] much stiffer if one's behavior is directed at a
pregnant woman or causes a woman to have a miscarriage or causes
an injury to a pregnant woman and her [unborn baby]. The part
of the bill that people aren't going to agree on, he surmised,
is the part that could have an impact on Roe v. Wade, that part
being the "unborn child" terminology.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA added:
We could pass the same bill that would say it's
illegal to terminate a pregnancy, it's illegal to
assault a pregnant woman, it's illegal to attack a
pregnant woman, and I could impose the same sentences
that everybody on this committee on both sides of the
issue would want to impose. But the language that I
think will be used by lawyers to reverse Roe v. Wade,
I think that's an issue we should fight on some other
day. ...
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON interjected to note that members'
packets now contain a proposed House committee substitute (HCS)
for SB 20, Version 24-LS0197\B, Mischel, 3/24/06.
1:18:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that at the last hearing on the
bill, Amendment 2, as amended, was left pending.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew Amendment 2, as amended.
1:19:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed HCS for
SB 20, Version 24-LS0197\B, Mischel, 3/24/06, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected, and noted that at a prior
meeting the committee had adopted an amendment to CSSB 20(2d
JUD).
1:20:21 PM
SENATOR FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said that
although he'd not yet had a chance to review Version B, the
intention was include the amendment adopted on 3/22/06 as well
as language in the original bill that would ensure that a woman
could not be prosecuted for any actions she takes that may
result in a miscarriage. It was also intended that Version B
would no longer include language that would have allowed a woman
to be prosecuted for recklessly causing damage to her [unborn
child].
The committee took an at-ease from 2:24 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a quick review of the
specific changes incorporated in Version B.
SENATOR DYSON explained that proposed AS 11.41.150(a)(4) [and
proposed AS 11.41.280(a)(3)] no longer contain the words, "; for
purposes of this paragraph, a pregnant woman's decision to
remain in a relationship in which domestic violence as defined
in AS 18.66.990 has occurred does not, by itself, constitute
conduct manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of
human life".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed approval of that change.
SENATOR DYSON explained that proposed AS 11.41.160(a) now says:
A person commits the crime of manslaughter of an
unborn child if, under circumstances not amounting to
murder of an unborn child, the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly causes the death of an unborn
child.
SENATOR DYSON, referring to a handout being distributed to
members, explained that that was what was given to Legislative
Legal and Research Services in order to direct the drafter
regarding the changes that were intended to be incorporated into
Version B.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he still has concerns about proposed AS
11.41.170 - criminally negligent homicide of an unborn child -
because it could apply to situations wherein a husband, for
example, with his pregnant wife in the car, gets in a car
accident because he is driving too fast and thus causes his wife
to miscarry; under the language proposed via Version B, the
husband, in addition to losing his unborn child, would face a
charge of criminally negligent homicide of an unborn child - a
class B felony - whereas currently, he might only be charged
with negligent driving.
1:29:17 PM
SENATOR DYSON said his goal when originally drafting this
legislation was to establish penalties for damaging an unborn
child that were reasonably equivalent to those that would be
applied for damaging a born child; in the aforementioned
example, the driver would be guilty of negligence and so should
face the same penalties as if the child had been born and was
sitting beside its mother in a car seat.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated his prior argument and said he
can't support this provision.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Version B now exempts acts
committed by a pregnant woman against herself and her own unborn
child, and said he appreciates that change, which involves the
inclusion of language found on page 3, lines 1-2, and on page 4,
lines 4-5.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, after acknowledging that they may not ever
reach a consensus on Amendment 2, as amended, which he
characterized as a compromise, suggested that they adopt Version
B for purposes of discussion.
SENATOR DYSON said that although he is offering Version B for
the committee's consideration, he does not recommend adopting
it; rather, he would be more comfortable with the committee
adopting [CSSB 20(2d JUD)].
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his understanding that
Representative Gara has concerns regarding the bill's references
to "unborn child".
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to comments, offered his belief
that situations such as occurred to Laci Peterson can be
addressed by severely punishing people for assaulting a pregnant
woman - that's what many states have done - and so using the
term, "unborn child" is not necessary to effect that goal.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, after reiterating some of his earlier
comments regarding the changes incorporated into Version B,
removed his objection to the motion to adopt Version B.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked whether there were any further
objections to adopting Version B as the work draft. There being
none, Version B was before the committee.
1:38:05 PM
SENATOR DYSON said his intention is for Version B to no longer
contain any language that would allow a pregnant woman to be
prosecuted for her own actions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that they are not waiving
their right to cure typographical or punctuation errors.
SENATOR DYSON, in response to comments, assured the committee
that he has no intention of using this bill as a vehicle to
attack Roe v. Wade, and is willing to provide the committee with
legal opinions from three different law professors who state
that SB 20 will have no impact on Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, no
one has successfully used this type of legislation - either
state legislation or federal legislation - to challenge Roe v.
Wade. Senator Dyson offered his belief that there is nothing in
SB 20 that assigns personhood to an unborn child, adding that he
was very careful not to do so. As legislators, he remarked,
they have the right to assign value to entities that are not
persons, and he is merely attempting to establish - via SB 20 -
that an unborn wanted child has value, in and of itself, that
will be recognized and protected by law.
1:43:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA - after observing that they may never reach
consensus on some of the issues raised such as use of the term,
"unborn child" and whether to establish separate crimes or just
increase penalties - made a motion to lay SB 20 [Version B] on
the table.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
1:44:25 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara, Gruenberg,
Kott, Anderson, and Wilson voted in favor of the motion to lay
SB 20 [Version B] on the table. Representative Coghill voted
against it. Therefore, the motion to lay SB 20 [Version B] on
table passed by a vote of 5-1. [Members went on to note that
the committee could take the bill up again at any time via a
motion to take the bill from the table.]
HB 276 - BUSINESS LICENSE TOBACCO ENDORSEMENT
1:45:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 276, "An Act relating to
business license endorsements for tobacco products, to holders
of business license endorsements for tobacco products, and to
the employees and agents of holders of business license
endorsements for tobacco products." [In members' packets was a
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 276, Version 24-
LS0855\L, Bannister, 3/23/06.]
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his recollection that HB 276 was
held over for the purpose of possibly addressing some of the
concerns expressed during the bill's last hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, speaking as the sponsor, indicated that he
and the interested parties had been able to reach some level of
consensus between then and now, and that his staff would be
explaining what that entailed.
1:47:14 PM
MICHAEL O'HARE, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, on behalf of Representative Kott, relayed
that members' packets include the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 276, Version 24-LS0855\L, Bannister, 3/23/06. He
characterized HB 276 as a "business fairness bill," which will
increase the financial penalties for retailers who fall out of
compliance with the prohibition against selling tobacco products
to minors. He noted that testimony last year indicated that
some felt that the current penalties weren't sufficient.
1:49:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 276,
Version 24-LS0855\L, Bannister, 3/23/06, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion,
asked for a description of the changes encompassed in Version L,
and said he might also be objecting to some of the provisions in
Version L.
MR. O'HARE noted that members' packets also contain a sectional
analysis of Version L by Legislative Legal and Research
Services.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:51 p.m. to 1:55 p.m.
MR. O'HARE, after briefly discussing some of the provisions
contained in both Version L and the original bill, indicated
that Version L proposes to insert two "penalty matrixes," one
applying to those that don't comply with proposed AS
43.70.075(t) regarding employee/agent education, compliance, and
disciplinary programs, and one applying to those that do comply
with proposed AS 43.70.075(t).
MR. O'HARE referred to proposed AS 43.70.075(d) of Version L and
relayed that it stipulates that at the time of a current
violation, if a person who holds an endorsement is in compliance
with proposed AS 43.70.075(t) and has no previous violations,
he/she will no longer be subject to an endorsement suspension,
but may be subject to a civil penalty of at least $300 but not
more than $750.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that imposition of that civil
penalty is not mandatory.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred, and mentioned that the bill will
also provide the hearing officer in a suspension hearing with
more discretion. In response to a question, he offered his
understanding that currently endorsement suspensions are invoked
immediately.
2:02:04 PM
MR. O'HARE relayed that under Version L, for a second violation
within 24 months, the endorsement holder may be subject to an
endorsement suspension of up to 20 days and to a civil penalty
of at least $500 but not more than $1,000; for a third violation
within 24 months, the endorsement holder may be subject to an
endorsement suspension of up to 45 days and to a civil penalty
of at least $1,000 but not more than $2,500; for a fourth
violation within 24 months, the endorsement holder may be
subject to an endorsement suspension of up to 90 days and to a
civil penalty of at least $2,500 but not more than $3,500; and
for a fifth or more violation within 24 months, the endorsement
holder may be subject to an endorsement suspension of up to 12
months and to a civil penalty of at least $3,500 but not more
than $4,500. In response to a question, offered his
understanding that when calculating the number of prior
violations a holder might have, each [retail] location is viewed
separately.
MR. O'HARE referred to proposed AS 43.70.075(u) of Version L and
relayed that it stipulates that at the time of a current
violation, if a person who holds an endorsement is not in
compliance with proposed AS 43.70.075(t) and has no previous
violations, he/she will no longer be subject to an endorsement
suspension, but may be subject to a civil penalty of at least
$500 but not more than $750. Furthermore, when not in
compliance with proposed AS 43.70.075(t), an endorsement holder
may be subject to an endorsement suspension of up to 20 days and
to a civil penalty of at least $1,000 but not more than $2,500
for a second violation within 24 months; to an endorsement
suspension of up to 90 days and to a civil penalty of at least
$2,500 but not more than $3,500 for a third violation within 24
months; to an endorsement suspension of up to 12 months and to a
civil penalty of at least $3,500 but not more than $4,500 for a
fourth violation within 24 months; and to a permanent
endorsement suspension and to a civil penalty of at least $5,000
for a fifth or more violation within 24 months.
MR. O'HARE referred to the language on page 6, lines 2-8, which
says that when making a decision, the hearing officer shall
consider whether the person is in compliance with proposed AS
43.70.075(t) on or before the date the department initiates a
proceeding under proposed AS 43.70.075(m); mitigating factors
presented by the person; and the scope and extent of the
person's education, compliance, and disciplinary program under
proposed AS 43.70.075(t)(2).
[Representative Anderson turned the gavel over to Chair
McGuire.]
MR. O'HARE then spoke about proposed AS 43.70.075(p), which is
unchanged from the original bill, and pertains to the civil
penalty that may be imposed for a violation of the signage
requirements of existing AS 43.70.075(f) or for a violation of
the requirements of proposed AS 43.70.075(t) regarding
employee/agent education, compliance, and disciplinary programs;
that penalty, also unchanged from existing law, is not to exceed
$250 for each day of the violation and may not exceed $5,000 for
each violation. In conclusion, he remarked that Version L
promotes employee/agent education regarding the selling of
tobacco products to minors and removes the automatic 20-day
suspension of an endorsement for a first offense, and mentioned
that Alaska currently has a high compliance rate with the
"Synar" requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON expressed favor with the removal of the
automatic 20-day suspension of an endorsement for a first
offense.
2:13:29 PM
ED SASSER relayed that although some of his concerns have been
alleviated via Version L, he is still concerned that the
language, "up to" regarding endorsement suspensions is
cumbersome and could cause a fiscal note, and he also questions
who besides the endorsement holder will certify that he/she has
an education, compliance, and disciplinary program in effect for
his/her employees/agents.
2:15:49 PM
RONALD F. TAYLOR, Coordinator, Alcohol Safety Action Program
(ASAP), Prevention and Early Intervention Section, Division of
Behavioral Health (DBH), Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), said that [the DHSS] has the primary
responsibility for [administering] the state's Tobacco
Enforcement program. The overall goal of this program is to
reduce youth access to tobacco products, and when the 2003
changes in the law took effect, Alaska dropped its noncompliance
rates from 30 percent down to 10 percent in a one-year period of
time, and currently the noncompliance rate is just over 9
percent; therefore, those changes in the law are working, and so
from a departmental standpoint, the DHSS has a problem with this
attempt to change something that is not only working but working
very well.
MR. TAYLOR predicted that if nebulous language such as, "may"
and "up to" is inserted into this statute, it will take away the
effectiveness of the state's Tobacco Enforcement program, and
water down the statute in terms of providing endorsement holders
with the certainty that a penalty will be imposed for
noncompliance; furthermore, from a statewide perspective, the
overall consistency of enforcement efforts will deteriorate.
He, too, spoke of the concerns expressed by Mr. Sassar regarding
who will be responsible for enforcing, monitoring, and
certifying the education, compliance, and disciplinary program
requirements, and regarding a possible fiscal note. When the
aforementioned 2003 changes were enacted, the legislature sent a
very loud and clear message to the department that it must do a
better job of enforcement so as to have Alaska be in compliance
with the "Synar amendment."
MR. TAYLOR said that to accomplish that goal, the department
looked at other states and received federal technical assistance
in order to come into compliance with "Synar rates," and the
department adopted all of the best practices that were
recommended. Now the department is being told, via HB 276, that
this "best practice" program needs to be watered down because it
is working too well. However, he remarked, "I think we all want
our system to operate on the basis of best practices." He
suggested that when looking at state's Tobacco Enforcement
program, one must compare it with "the alcohol program"; HB 276
is taking a step backward, similar to what was done with the
alcohol program. For example, he offered, the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board") has no enforceable
penalties for business owners and, because of this, the industry
in Alaska has a 29 percent [underage] sale rate in February
alone for the Kenai Peninsula, even though all clerks are
required by law to receive training.
MR. TAYLOR, with regard to tobacco sales, said that even in
Montana, when that state began to reduce penalties and take away
the impact on endorsements, the [underage sales] rates crept
back up: in 1999 the rate went up 33 percent, in 2000 it went
up 37 percent, in 2001 it went up 46 percent, and in 2002 it
went up 50 percent. He predicted that should the proposed
changes be adopted, Alaska's rates will go back up and Alaska
will not remain in compliance.
2:21:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that those figures be presented
to the committee in writing.
MR. TAYLOR agreed to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented on the good job that Mr.
Taylor's agency did in her town regarding reducing underage
tobacco sales.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked Mr. Taylor to give consideration
to the concept of at least eliminating the 20-day endorsement
suspension for a first violation, and suggested that when an
endorsement is suspended, it can cost a business much in terms
of both lost revenue and lost customer base.
MR. TAYLOR concurred, though he remarked that it's easy to get
off track on this issue if one thinks of the penalty as being
imposed on the spot, but that's just not true; currently, when a
citation [for noncompliance] is issued, the penalty is not
automatically imposed immediately. Instead, an administrative
hearing has to take place. And during such a hearing, for
example, if the citation is against the store clerk and he/she
is not found guilty, no penalties are imposed on the endorsement
holder. Furthermore, an endorsement holder has the right to go
through the entire administrative hearing process, which can
take at least nine months, and has an opportunity to present any
type of defense. He said, therefore, that if the purported
problem is one of due process, then the committee should
consider the issue similarly to driving under the influence
(DUI) violations wherein the officer issues the citation and
simply lets the court sort out issues of due process; "we have
administrative and judicial [processes] in place that actually
deal with due process issues."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON reiterated his suggestion to Mr. Taylor
that he give consideration to the concept of at least
eliminating the 20-day endorsement suspension for a first
violation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Taylor whether he's attended any
of the administrative hearings.
MR. TAYLOR said he hadn't, but relayed that one of his chief
investigators who has attended such hearings is available for
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT and REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that
they'd heard that the endorsement suspensions happen
automatically, without endorsement holders being given the
opportunity to defend their endorsements against suspension.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT offered his belief that in some other
states, the compliance rates are higher than in Alaska and yet
they don't suspend an endorsement on a first offense; in light
of that, how will eliminating the 20-day endorsement suspension
for a first offense have a dramatic effect on Alaska's
compliance rates.
2:27:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON surmised that Mr. Taylor's concern is
that lessening the penalties will encourage endorsement holders
to lessen their training and supervision as well.
MR. TAYLOR concurred. With regard to Representative Kott's
comments, he asked Representative Kott whether he was looking at
the overall prevention efforts put in place by the
aforementioned states, at the overall culture of those states,
and at the type of cooperation those states have with their
vendors.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated that he'd not considered those
aspects; instead, he'd merely seen the statistics those states
sent to the federal government in order to qualify for grant
money. He characterized the current statute as overreaching,
and posited that cutting back on the penalties will not have as
disastrous an outcome as Mr. Taylor fears, as evidenced by the
statistics of other states.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Taylor whether he has seen a
reduction in the number of kids who use tobacco products.
MR. TAYLOR said he thinks a reduction has occurred but he
doesn't have the exact figures.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for information regarding the
changes that occurred in Montana's law and enforcement methods,
as well as Montana's statistics and the same type of information
about other states.
MR. TAYLOR indicated that he would attempt to provide that
information.
2:32:08 PM
MICHAEL ELERDING, President, Northern Sales Company of Alaska,
Inc., after relaying that his company is in part a wholesale
distributor of tobacco products, indicated that he'd provided
testimony in support of HB 276 at the bill's last hearing. He
offered his belief that HB 276 will improve Alaska's laws
pertaining to enforcing the prohibition against selling tobacco
products to minors. Tobacco [retailers] in the state have a
special social responsibility to prohibit tobacco sales to
underage persons, and are doing a good job, he opined, adding
that since 2002, there has been an aggressive reduction in
retail availability of tobacco products to minors. The Alaska
legislature and the administration have done a good job
prohibiting tobacco sales to underage persons with vigorous laws
and regulations; in that regard, Alaska has some of the harshest
laws and regulations, and has the 4th highest rate of taxation
on tobacco products in the nation, behind only Rhode Island, New
Jersey, and Washington.
MR. ELERDING pointed out, however, that Alaska is the only state
in the union that has a mandatory 20-day endorsement suspension
for a first offense. He characterized this as a denial of due
process, and offered his understanding that a retailer who
employs a clerk that has sold tobacco products to a minor can't
offer up any defense. House Bill 276 will correct this
deficiency, he remarked, and will increase the financial
penalties for retailers found guilty of selling tobacco products
to minors. The bill will provide an incentive to retailers to
institute aggressive and rigorous staff training programs, by
having reduced penalties for those retailers that do so; he
posited that trained staff are more likely to refuse to sell
tobacco products to minors. In conclusion, he urged the
committee to pass HB 276.
MR. ELERDING, in response to a question, opined that suspension
of a retailer's endorsement can change customers' buying
patterns and thereby reduce a retailer's customer base. In
response to another question, he pointed out that the bill won't
affect his company because Northern Sales Company of Alaska,
Inc., is a wholesale distributor and does not sell directly to
consumers.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that some people are saying that
there is a due process violation occurring under current law and
some say there is not.
CHAIR McGUIRE and REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON suggested that
remaining testifiers address the issue of due process.
2:41:07 PM
SUZANNE MEUNIER, Director of Advocacy, American Stroke
Association, American Heart Association, indicated that she has
grave concerns about HB 276, specifically regarding its threat
to the lives of Alaskan children and thus to the future of
Alaska. Alaska's current tobacco enforcement laws are
reasonable, effective, and appropriate; they have effectively
curbed illegal sales of tobacco to minors; and that translates
into saved lives. She provided members with the DHSS's 2005
annual report entitled, "Tobacco Prevention and Control in
Alaska, Preventing Addiction - Saving Lives", and noted that the
graph on page 2 illustrates the reduction in smoking by Alaska
high school students; this report further documents that a
comprehensive and sustained tobacco prevention and control
program, along with enforcement, is a critical piece of that
reduction.
MS. MEUNIER relayed that compliance data for last year confirm
that only a small minority of Alaska's 1,700 retail tobacco
vendors are now selling to minors; specifically, better than 90
percent of Alaska's tobacco retailers are getting it right, and
they're managing the very serious responsibility of selling a
highly addictive, dangerous product - tobacco. She then
referred to a graph produced by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) that illustrated what she
characterized as a dramatic drop in illegal sales to youth after
2002, when the current enforcement law began to have an effect.
Other statistics speak to the fact that in 1995, 29 percent of
Alaska's teens reported the self-purchase of cigarettes, whereas
in 2003 only 13 percent did so.
MS. MEUNIER said that now is not the time to roll back the
state's tobacco enforcement efforts. In conclusion, she turned
member's attention to four photographs located on page 16 of the
aforementioned annual report. Those photos, from a counter-
marketing youth prevention advertisement entitled "Still Can't
Quit", are of a young man looking at x-rays of his diseased
lungs, and are captioned: "I'm 15 years old. I started smoking
when I was 11."; "I'm addicted to cigarettes. I found out I was
hooked about 3 weeks after I started."; "Now I have spots on my
lungs. If I don't quit smoking they can turn to cancer."; "It
scares me - and I still can't quit smoking."
2:45:39 PM
MS. MEUNIER, in response to questions, indicated that her
organization's main goal with the bill is to prevent minors from
obtaining tobacco, and that it would be willing to look at an
alternative proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested as an alternative to the 20-
day suspension [for a first offense] that they simply require
that a portion of a retailer's income go to health organizations
such as the one Ms. Meunier represents.
MS. MEUNIER offered her belief that the bill, as currently
written, is taking the law back to what was in place a few years
ago when Alaska's noncompliance rates were so high; the law's
current requirements regarding temporary suspensions have had an
impact and are working, so her fear is that lowering the
sanctions and penalties will create a risk - a risk too high to
take - that the state will revert back to high noncompliance
rates. In response to a question, she said she did not know how
the boy presented in the aforementioned advertisement initially
acquired his cigarettes.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he doubts it was through a retailer,
given that an 11-year-old probably could not have been mistaken
for a 19-year old. He asked Ms. Meunier whether her
organization received any of the grant money that the state
receives through the federal "arrangement."
MS. MEUNIER explained that the American Heart Association does
not receive any federal, state, or [other] government funding.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT surmised, then, that any funds her
organization might receive through a change such as just
suggested by Representative Gruenberg would go a long ways
towards helping it attain its overall goal of reducing smoking
among Alaskans.
MS. MEUNIER concurred.
2:49:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that the question is whether the
bill will affect the current lower noncompliance rates if all of
the other efforts to curb smoking among youth are maintained to
the same degree.
MS. MEUNIER said she is not sure whether that can be determined.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised that it's possible that the lower
noncompliance rates could be maintained even with passage of the
bill.
MS. MEUNIER concurred, but added that one can only look at what
is occurring under current law as compared to what occurred
before passage of the current law. She remarked that having a
comprehensive, sustained tobacco program is the best practice as
recommended, and so her organization is seeking to ensure that
such is implemented in Alaska, and an enforcement aspect is part
of that and it's working.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she is supportive of all the efforts being
made to curb the number of smokers, and doesn't want to see the
lower noncompliance rates begin to rise again. The question,
however, is whether the aforementioned reduction can be
maintained without requiring a 20-day endorsement suspension for
a first offense.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked Ms. Meunier to consider the issue
from businesses' perspective.
MS. MEUNIER, after thanking members for their comments, opined
that it is important to remember that better than 90 percent of
Alaska's more than 1,700 retail tobacco venders are complying
with current law - are getting it right - and that in order to
even be convicted of a violation, a retailer has to fail a
compliance check, which involves the young person who is making
the purchase on behalf of the state actually disclosing to the
retailer that he/she is underage.
2:56:43 PM
KIP KNUDSON, Manager, Government Relations, Tesoro Alaska
[Company], testified in favor of HB 276, adding that his
company, which operates convenience stores in 16 western states,
favors the language in Version L. He said that even with
passage of HB 276, Alaska will still have the most stringent
tobacco prevention laws of any of the states that his company
operates in. Tesoro Alaska [Company], he remarked, has a very
strong "no underage tobacco sales" policy; before employees are
allowed to sell tobacco products, they must complete
orientation, be tested, and have a passing score of 100 percent,
and each quarter Tesoro Alaska [Company] conducts internal
compliance checks.
MR. KNUDSON said that since the year 2000, Tesoro Alaska
[Company] has had only 13 violations among its 31 Alaskan
convenience stores, but there has been no difference in
compliance rates since current law was put in place, and there
have been no second time offenses. When an employee violates
the company's "no underage tobacco sales" policy, he/she is
terminated, Mr. Knudson explained, adding that the company's
goals with regard to prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to
minors are similar to those of the American Heart Association
and the legislature, though the company would appreciate the law
being changed to somewhat buffer it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether his earlier suggestion
would be preferable to the current 20-day endorsement suspension
for a first offense.
MR. KNUDSON said that as long as the money went to the right
organizations, that suggestion would be preferable to a 20-day
suspension and would underpin the company's existing community
relations program.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON surmised that if Tesoro Alaska [Company]
experiences a reduction in revenue, then it might not be able to
continue contributing to the community to the same degree that
it has been.
MR. KNUDSON acknowledged that such might be the case, but
relayed that not having the company's endorsement suspended is
still the preferred option.
3:03:35 PM
STEVEN RUSH, Director, Corporate Compliance, Holiday
Stationstores, Inc. ("Holiday"), after mentioning that Holiday
operates in 12 states, indicated that he'd provided testimony in
support of HB 276 at the bill's last hearing. Holiday entered
into Alaska's marketplace in 2004 when it acquired convenience
stores previously owned and operated by Williams Express, Inc.,
and since that time, Holiday has been cited only three times for
alleged underage sale of tobacco products to minors, and two of
those violations occurred within just a couple of months of
acquiring its Alaskan units, before Holiday had had a chance to
fully incorporate its employee training program. Currently,
Holiday has a very comprehensive and proprietary computer-based
training program, among other methods, to train its employees
regarding this critical issue, and since the implementation of
this program, Holiday has only had one citation.
MR. RUSH said he would be testifying in support of HB 276. With
regard to the question of how much revenue a retailer can lose
during a 20-day endorsement suspension, he said that some of
Holiday's units could lose in excess of $100,000 in collateral
sales for that 20-day period, thus it is critical that Holiday
not be subject to an endorsement suspension for a first offense.
On the issue of due process, he characterized [current law] as
unconstitutional because during the administrative hearing
process for a 20-day endorsement suspension, under AS
43.70075(m), the hearing officer is limited in the types of
information he/she may consider before making a determination;
for example, all the hearing officer has to consider, and all
the state has to prove is "the underlying criminal conviction of
the sales associate." So as soon as that information is
introduced, Holiday's liability is automatic because the company
can't offer any evidence that would prove it was not negligent
and so shouldn't be found responsible under the statute.
MR. RUSH posited that that underlying conviction acts as
collateral estoppel in any subsequent civil proceeding on the
issue of culpability of the retailer, and this is what attaches
liability and responsibility to the retailer; he opined that
this is blatantly unconstitutional. He referred to a 1993
Alaska Supreme Court case, Spenard Action Committee v. Lot 3,
Block 1, Evergreen Division, 902 P 2d 766, and offered his
belief that the court held that a criminal conviction of a non-
party may not be admitted at a subsequent civil trial as a
evidence of the facts on which the judgment rests. With regard
to cases involving tobacco sales to underage persons, the sales
associate is cited for an alleged sale of tobacco and within a
matter of weeks or days, he/she usually pleads guilty to the
crime of negligent sale of tobacco to an underage individual.
MR. RUSH pointed out that in such a case, Holiday is not a party
to that action and is given no notice of it, but once the sales
associate is convicted, that conviction is used as evidence in
an administrative hearing regarding suspension of the
endorsement to prove the company's guilt without also allowing
the company to offer any evidence that it was not negligent in
the handling of the tobacco product. House Bill 276 corrects
the due process problem, he remarked, by specifying, on page 6,
that the hearing officer shall consider any mitigating factors,
and whether the [endorsement holder] was in compliance with
proposed AS 43.70.075(t) regarding employee/agent education,
compliance, and disciplinary programs. Holiday is only asking
for a fair hearing and the ability to exercise its
constitutional right to present evidence regarding guilt or
innocence, evidence that it has made good faith efforts towards
compliance with the law.
3:12:21 PM
MR. RUSH, in response to a question, offered his understanding
that there have been legal challenges to the current statute,
and that a ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court on the due process
issue is pending.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked about the Alaska Superior Court's
decision in that Alaska Supreme Court case.
MR. RUSH said that the Alaska Superior Court affirmed the
hearing officer's decision that the statute was not
unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised, then, that it is not absolutely
clear yet whether the current statute is unconstitutional.
MR. RUSH clarified that the hearing officer had stated that he
did not have the authority to rule on constitutionality.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that although a hearing
officer can't rule whether a statute is constitutional, the
Alaska Superior Court can, and therefore his assumption is that
the Alaska Superior Court, by affirming the hearing officer's
decision, was saying that the statute is not unconstitutional.
Therefore, it will be up to Alaska Supreme Court to offer the
final judgment on this issue. His concern for now, he relayed,
is to ensure that the process is fair, and acknowledged that
they could certainly come up with something that is more fair
than the minimum the Alaska State Constitution requires.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like a copy of that
Alaska Superior Court decision, and would like to know how long
ago the case was submitted to the Alaska Supreme Court, what its
status is, and whether oral argument has been presented yet.
MR. RUSH clarified that that case does not involve his company;
offered his understanding that the name of one of the parties is
Mendenhall Valley Tesoro, that the matter has been briefed, and
that the last materials were submitted in December; and
predicted that there won't be a decision by the Alaska Supreme
Court for about 16 months.
3:16:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON provided a synopsis of Mr. Rush's
points.
MR. RUSH concurred with Representative Anderson's synopsis, and
offered that Holiday simply wants acknowledgment that a 20-day
endorsement suspension for a first offense is bad public policy
because of it severity on retail businesses. He added, "We do
want the ability to present evidence at the hearing rather than
simply having an unrelated proceeding and conviction introduced
as evidence of our guilt when we were a not a party to that
proceeding nor were we in privity with the employee." In
response to a question, he explained that all three of the
aforementioned citations against Holiday are under appeal; that
the estimate of how much revenue would be lost was simply an
estimate that a store could lose as much as 25 percent of its
income during a 20-day suspension; and that if Holiday ends up
being subject to an endorsement suspension for any of those
cases, it will only apply to the store at which the violation
occurred.
MR. RUSH, in response to another question, offered his
understanding that with regard to a violation of the prohibition
of selling alcohol to minors, the state has to prove that the
license holder knowingly, or with criminal negligence, allowed
the sale, and characterized that as a far higher standard than
what is being applied with regard to tobacco because, for a
tobacco sale, the state needn't show that the retailer was
negligent - there is simply the introduction of the conviction
of the sales associate as evidence of the endorsement holder's
guilt. He again offered that a solution to this problem would
be to adopt HB 276.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the holding in Spenard
Action Committee clearly indicates that Holiday would not be
denied due process, and that nothing in AS 43.70.075(m) is
contrary to that holding.
MR. RUSH pointed out, though, that the language in AS
43.70.075(m) references the criminal conviction of the employee,
which the hearing officer then uses in the civil endorsement
proceeding to determine whether to hold the endorsement holder
vicariously liable.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized that as a different
question than what is presented in the Spenard Action Committee
case; Mr. Rush appears to be raising a question regarding the
elements [used] for suspension of the endorsement, rather than
an evidentiary question.
MR. RUSH concurred, but explained that the Spenard Action
Committee is the most analogous case that he'd been able to
find. He added:
In the context of a hearing, ... all that happens is
the State of Alaska shows the hearing officer the
criminal conviction of the sales associate - it is a
proceeding to which we are not a party nor are we
given notice; that conviction, in and of itself, is
sufficient for the adjudicator to determine that we as
a license endorsement holder are guilty of violating
our endorsement and therefore the resulting penalties
will be placed on us.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued, though, that that is a
different issue, one that isn't addressed in Spenard Action
Committee, where the court simply cited a federal rule of
evidence that if a judgment of guilty in a criminal case which
follows proof beyond a reasonable doubt is to have impact, the
impact should be by way of collateral estoppel, not by admitting
the previous judgment.
3:23:56 PM
TAMMY GREEN, Section Chief, Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion (CDPHP), Division of Public Health, Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS), relayed that the Division
of Public Health thinks that the current law is important and
has been working, and so would like to see things continue as
they have been. She noted that nearly all smoking starts in
childhood, and that of the current Alaska smokers, 78 percent
started before the age of 15, and 47 percent [of those] had
started by the age of 12. It is relatively easy to keep kids
from starting to use tobacco when one compares that to helping
adults quit using tobacco, she opined, adding that another
important statistic to keep in mind when looking at a
comprehensive approach to the state's tobacco program is that
after the implementation of the 2002 enforcement law, the self-
purchase of cigarettes by Alaska youth dropped from 29 percent
to 13 percent. This is important. Also, according to the Youth
Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), youth smoking dropped from a 36
percent prevalence rate in 1995, to a 19 percent prevalence rate
in 2003. Again, the Division of Public Health believes the
current law is working and is part of the state's comprehensive
tobacco prevention and control program, and therefore would like
to see this success continue and not be changed.
3:25:46 PM
ROGER HAMES, President, Hames Corporation, after mentioning that
his family-owned company owns two retail grocery stores and two
convenience stores, relayed that his company supports the law
prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors, and takes
this issue very seriously, having instituted an aggressive
education program in all of his stores and for all of the sales
associates. His company tries very hard to be a responsible
business, following the laws and educating its employees and
reeducating everyone constantly. Current law is bad law, he
opined, and contains no incentive for retailers because
regardless of what kind of a training program is instituted,
retailers have their endorsement suspended with a first
violation.
MR. HAMES noted that his company has experienced two suspensions
at the same store and has another suspension pending. A
suspension essentially brings a business to its knees in an
instant and leaves it suffering tremendously, particularly when
tobacco products account for up to 20 percent of its sales, as
is the case with his convenience stores. What is extremely
wrong with the picture current law presents is that his business
is totally at the mercy one sales associate who made the wrong
decision, for whatever reason, but not for a lack of effort on
his part; it just isn't fair, he opined, and is just the
opposite of a business-friendly law. House Bill 276 will
provide a powerful and effective alternative to current law
without jeopardizing an endorsement holder's overall business.
He concluded by encouraging passage of HB 276.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Hames how much profit the
suspensions cost him.
MR. HAMES said that the purchasing patterns of his customers
changed, but he hasn't yet analyzed exactly how much revenue was
lost.
3:29:39 PM
MARGE LARSON, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), American Lung
Association of Alaska, opined that Version L will effectively
prevent the state from imposing meaningful sanctions on those
businesses that make illegal tobacco sales to children. With
the ability to sell a deadly addictive drug necessarily comes
the responsibility to ensure that tobacco products are not sold
to children. A relevant point of current law, a point not
changed by HB 276, is that the first violation has to occur
within a 24-month period, and it is her understanding, she
relayed, that very few endorsement holders receive more than one
citation on a license for a given location. So essentially, she
opined, [Version L] would completely revoke suspensions from
current law.
MS. LARSON mentioned that in a meeting the American Lung
Association of Alaska had with Mr. Rush, he'd made two specific
points, one being that Holiday and other responsible retailers
ought to be separated from those retailers who did not believe
in enforcing the law regarding the sale of tobacco to underage
individuals, and the other being that the current law is more
stringent than it needs to be to achieve "Synar compliance". On
the latter point, the American Lung Association of Alaska would
argue that although that may be true, Synar compliance is not
sufficient to achieve the outcome of reducing tobacco use among
children, whereas the current law has made a difference. For
example, between 1997 and 2003, tobacco use prevalence among
youth has been reduced by 50 percent, and although that
reduction can't be entirely attributed to the enforcement
program - because the enforcement program works in concert with
tobacco counter-marketing media, with the taxes on tobacco
products, and with prevention efforts - it is not worth the risk
to remove "one of the legs of that stool" when the health of
Alaska's children are at stake. So regardless that current law
is not business friendly, it is a children's health law.
3:32:30 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that public testimony would remain open
and that HB 276 would be held over [with the motion to adopt
Version L left pending].
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|