Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/31/1999 02:05 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to controlled substances and to the
possession and distribution of certain chemicals."
Co-Chair Therriault observed that he introduced similar
legislation and that his office has worked with
Representative Brice on HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, SPONSOR testified in support of HB
3. He reviewed his sponsor statement. Methamphetamine is an
addictive stimulant that dramatically affects the central
nervous system. Methamphetamine is commonly known as
"crank," "speed," and "ice." The drug is easily made in
laboratories with relatively inexpensive, over-the-counter
ingredients. Methamphetamine laboratories are extremely
dangerous, even if they are not producing as the
combinations of the chemicals that are used in the
production process are highly explosive. These factors make
methamphetamine a dangerous drug with great potential for
widespread abuse. House Bill 3 raises the penalties for the
manufacture of methamphetamines and their immediate
precursors, and the possession of listed chemicals with the
intent to manufacture these drugs. Under the CSHB 3, the
manufacture of methamphetamines and their immediate
precursors will be a class A felony, punishable as provided
in AS 12.55.125. It also identifies chemicals that are legal
to posses but are used for the manufacture of controlled
substances. Possession of these chemicals with the intent
to manufacture methamphetamines or their immediate
precursors is made a class A felony.
Representative Brice noted that section 1 establishes that
the manufacture of methamphetamine or an immediate precursor
of methamphetamine with the intent to manufacture is a class
A felony. Section 3 clarifies that the provision only
applies to conduct that is not proscribed under section 1.
He explained that there are new processes with new chemicals
being developed in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Therefore, it was decided that a list should be maintained
to place the elements of the crime specifically in statute.
He noted that the Internet contains information regarding
the manufacturing of methamphetamine.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that some of the elements are
relatively common. He questioned how many of the components
a person would need to have in their position for
prosecution. Representative Brice replied that it would be
at the discretion of the law enforcement officers. He
clarified that intent to manufacture methamphetamine must be
demonstrated.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
AGENCY explained that possession of the chemicals is not
made illegal. Possession must be accompanied by the intent
to manufacture methamphetamine. He discussed circumstances
that could lead to intent such as statements by the
defendant or recipes and equipment used in the manufacture
of methamphetamine.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the legislation was
amended to clarify that there must be intent to manufacture.
Representative J. Davies expressed concern with section 3,
page 2. He questioned if there are other substances that
could be manufactured with the same precursors.
Mr. Luckhaupt explained that immediate precursors have been
identified as separate controlled substances. He observed
that the chemicals listed in section 3 are precursors.
Immediate precursors are defined in A.S. 11.71.900. He noted
that the legislation recognizes that the manufacture of
methamphetamine is dangerous in itself. The intent to
manufacture was upgraded from a class B to a class A felony.
Manufacturing an immediate precursor carries the same
penalty as manufacturing methamphetamine. Section 3 follows
other controlled substance laws. Subsection 4 is an addition
to existing law. It codifies a specific form of intent to
manufacture methamphetamine or an immediate precursor to
methamphetamine.
In response to a question by Representative G. Davis,
Representative Brice clarified that all of the chemicals in
section 5 are can be used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine.
Mr. Luckhaupt noted that the list follows federal law as
essential in the illegal manufacture of a controlled
substance. There are some chemicals used in the manufacture
of methamphetamine, which are not on the federal list. These
were added.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if there is a market for the
immediate precursor. Representative Brice explained that the
legislation responds to frustrations by enforcement officers
in their inability to close methamphetamine laboratories
before the controlled substance has been produced.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that 5 gallons of smoking
chemicals were found in one operation. He emphasized the
danger of immediate precursors.
Representative Austerman expressed surprise that there is no
fiscal cost to the legislation. Representative Brice
explained that the manufacture of methamphetamine is only
beginning in the state of Alaska.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there were two prosecutions
in the last year, and one of these was a federal case. He
observed that the department felt that they could absorb the
additional cost.
In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Mr.
Luckhaupt explained that federal law identifies the
chemicals that are important to the manufacture of
methamphetamine. The state and federal schedules do not
match identically. He gave examples of differences between
state and federal listings. He concluded that the state is
making a finding that these substances are used in the
manufacture of controlled substances so that possession of
the chemicals with the addition of intent would be illegal.
He noted that other chemicals could be added for
prosecution. In addition, the general attempt statute
mandates that whenever a person intends to violate any other
state law that a crime is committed. The crime would be
punishable one level below the crime that they intended to
violate. He concluded that even if a person intended to
manufacture methamphetamine and they possessed other
chemicals, even if they were not a listed chemical, they
would be prosecuted.
FIRST SGT. DAVID HUDSON, ANCHORAGE POLICE testified via
teleconference in support of HB 3.
BLAIR MCCUNE, ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDERS AGENCY stated that
they are concern with the use of methamphetamine. He
questioned if sentencing would be tied to quantities. He
stated that it is important to distinguish between a
misguided youth and someone who is setting up a large
laboratory. He discussed federal sentencing guidelines. He
expressed concern with the inclusion of immediate precursors
as a class A felony. He pointed out that a class A felony is
serious. He noted that the Alaska Public Defenders Agency's
fiscal note is indeterminate. The fiscal note was based on
the Department of Law's estimations of additional cases. The
Department of Law does not anticipate many additional cases
initially.
DON DAPCEVICH, ADIVSORY BOARD ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
testified in support of HB 3. He stressed that the drug goes
hand and hand with crime. He maintained that the legislation
would act as a deterrent.
In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Mr.
Dapcevich stated that the Board supports the change to a 1A
substance.
RICHARD WALLIS CRAIGHTON, JUNEAU recounted personal
experiences with the police.
(Tape Change, HFC 99 - 57, Side 2)
Sergeant Hudson stated that the number of cases that would
occur in the near future would not require a fiscal note.
Representative J. Davies asked if the possession of each
chemical substance on the list would lead to a separate
charge. Mr. Luchhaupt stated that it is possible that there
would be multiple charges. He emphasized that he is not
aware of cases involving multiple charges under the federal
system, which contains similar language. He noted that one
form of attempt to manufacture has been codified. He
stressed that he would need to research the wording of
language to clarify a single charge. The possession of the
chemicals together is used to make the case of intent to
manufacture.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 3 (JUD) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes.
CSHB 3 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and an indeterminate fiscal impact note by
the Alaska Public Defenders Agency and two zero fiscal notes
one by the Department of Law and one by the Department of
Public Safety.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|