Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/03/2015 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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 | |
| HB39 | |
| HB59 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 59-MARIJUANA CONCENTRATES
3:10:19 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 59, "An Act relating to marijuana concentrates;
and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute, (CS) for HB 59, labeled 29-LS0257\P, Martin, 1/29/15
as the working draft. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
3:10:46 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:11:32 PM
TANEEKA HANSEN, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 59 as staff for the bill sponsor,
Representative Seaton. She explained that the intent of the
proposed bill was to give the regulating entity, the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board, a safety net to ensure they were able to
write the new regulations while maintaining commercialization
and sales as detailed in the initiative. This would delay the
implementation of regulations solely on concentrates for no more
than one year, if necessary. She declared that this proposed
bill was focused on health concerns and was not intended to
address any legal issues.
3:12:54 PM
MS. HANSEN directed attention to the Sectional Analysis, Version
P, [Included in members' packets] and stated that Section 1
contained legislative intent language, which explained that in
order to implement the marijuana initiative in an orderly
process, the legislature intended to focus first on the growth
and sale of marijuana and to delay regulations relating to
marijuana concentrates for not more than a year. She stated
that during the delay period, these activities related to the
commercialization of marijuana concentrates would remain
illegal. Moving on to Sections 2 - 4, she noted that these
amended the language in AS 17.38.070(a) - (c) to clarify the
initiative language and change the term "registration" to
"license." She pointed to Section 5, which amended the language
to also replace "registration" with "license." She stated that
Section 6 would require the board to adopt regulations governing
marijuana concentrates, and would include labeling and packaging
requirements, prohibitions on combining concentrates with
nicotine or alcohol, and prohibitions on the sale of
concentrates in establishments that sell or serve alcohol. She
directed attention to Sections 7 - 11, which amended language to
replace "registration" with "license." Section 12 added
subsection (i) which stated that a license under AS 17.38 did
not authorize a marijuana establishment to manufacture, deliver,
or possess marijuana concentrates or products containing
marijuana concentrates. She pointed out that this would keep
marijuana concentrates illegal until regulations were in place.
Addressing Sections 13 - 21, she stated that these also amended
AS 17.38.110 to replace "registration" with "license." She
explained Section 22, which defined marijuana concentrates as a
substance created by extracting cannabinoids from marijuana
using a solvent other than water for the purpose of increasing
the concentration of the cannabinoids. She stated that Section
23 replaced "registration" with "license" in AS 43.61.030, while
Section 24 repealed subsection (i), created earlier on page 6 of
the proposed bill, effective on either November 24, 2016, or an
earlier date on which the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
completed the regulations required under Section 6 of the
proposed bill. She concluded with Section 25, which established
an immediate effective date for the proposed bill.
3:16:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for clarification of the dates. She
relayed that the initiative would take effect on February 24,
2015, although the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board would
draft regulations for growth and sales throughout the following
nine months; during the year following this, through November
24, 2016, the board would focus on concentrates. She offered
her belief that the actual delay was 1 year and 9 months from
the date of legalization.
MS. HANSEN replied that this would allow a delay in regulations
for an additional year, although this could be sooner if the
regulations were completed.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that this did not delay the regulations
for growing or processing operations, or for sales. It just
delayed for up to one year the regulations for chemical
extraction and manufacture of edible and non-edible products.
He said that this was not a delay of any regulations defined by
the initiative for growing, processing, or sales. He reiterated
that the intent of the legislation was for an orderly process
for the new regulations, whether written by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board or a new board.
3:19:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for clarification whether this would
affect the dates for sales of marijuana.
MS. HANSEN, in response, explained that the proposed bill would
only affect the dates for sales of marijuana concentrates, not
for any other marijuana products. She added that should the
regulations be completed sooner, then marijuana concentrates
would also be available for retail sale. She pointed out that
the title of the proposed bill had necessitated an expansion to
allow a word change, as there had been a request to change
"registration" to "license."
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered her belief that the proposed bill
related to marijuana establishments and the licensing of
marijuana establishments, and did not specifically state
marijuana concentrates. She opined that the proposed bill
included all the parameters, and not just those for marijuana
concentrates.
MS. HANSEN replied that the only changes to the initiative
language presented in the proposed bill related specifically to
the marijuana concentrates, and it also substituted "license"
for "registration."
3:22:02 PM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the term "registration" was often
used to represent something which was applied for and obtained
simply by paying a fee, whereas "license" included
qualifications, provisions, and possible endorsements not
usually included with "registration." He stated that this was
to ensure regulatory alignment similar to liquor licenses, and
this change necessitated a modification in the title to the
proposed bill, as well.
3:23:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how other committees listening to
similar legislation had reacted to "this particular carve out,"
and then questioned whether the ABC board supported use of the
same licensing model as currently used by the ABC.
MS. HANSEN replied that the ABC board was on-line to answer
questions. She stated that, as the board had indicated an
interest in moving forward as quickly as possible, the proposed
bill was "more of a safety net." She directed attention to the
reference to effective dates and the repeals in Sections 24 and
25. She pointed out that one of the proposed changes in Version
P was to ensure that the board could move forward whenever it
was prepared. She reiterated that the intent of the proposed
bill was to allow the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board to
focus on growth, manufacture, and retail sale of the plant
products, so as to not short change that structure and those
regulations before moving on to address the concentrates. She
noted that there had been more health concerns for concentrates
in other states, and there were many necessary regulations.
CHAIR SEATON shared that the date in the proposed bill would
prevent any unnecessary delay for the implementation of
concentrates, as it limited the extension to one year.
3:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked to clarify that the sale of
"vegetative marijuana" would be legal in November, 2015, but
that there would be postponement of up to one year, if needed,
for the rest of the regulations. He asked if there was any
reason the regulatory agency could not work on this
concurrently, as there were already ongoing discussions with
states that had legalized sales.
MS. HANSEN replied that, although there were ongoing discussions
with the other states, there were many complex regulations and
that the proposed bill would ensure an orderly process for the
testing and packaging regulations. She pointed out that the
goal was to ensure that the regulations for growing of the plant
products, as this was the first step for the industry, were in
place first.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ pointed out that the delay was actually
for more than a year, as legality was established on February
24, 2015, with the regulations to be issued by November 24,
2015. She offered her belief that this extension could be
perceived by a court to be a frustration of the people's
initiative. She opined that this proposed time frame was too
long to justify. She recognized a need for time to write the
regulations, and she suggested that a total of one year seemed
to be more reasonable. She stated that she would need to review
the initiative to determine whether the proposed bill would be
upheld by the court. She noted that it was their responsibility
to implement the will of the people, regardless of their
personal feelings.
CHAIR SEATON explained that the intent of the proposed bill was
to ensure an orderly process. He pointed out that the maximum
duration for delay was one year after the commercial sales
regulations were established for vegetative product. He added
that there was nothing in the proposed bill that prohibited the
regulatory board from moving forward on both sets of regulations
at the same time. He offered his hope that it would be an open
and transparent public process, and that the added time would
allow the process to work without any rush. He opined that the
worst case would be from problems due to inadequate regulations
which had been rushed. He pointed out that there were two
industries to regulate: growth, processing, and sales of raw
product; and the chemical extraction, infusion, and manufacture
of edible and non-edible products.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked to clarify that, although the proposed
bill would allow the legal sale of concentrates on November 24,
2016, the possession of concentrates would be illegal prior to
that time.
MS. HANSEN offered her belief that the proposed bill would not
have any effect on personal use, and would only be concerned
with commercial production and sale.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if there was an increased risk for
incendiary accidents because of unregulated use as opposed to
the opportunity to purchase the concentrate legally.
MS. HANSEN, in response, said that the bill sponsor had not
reviewed this specific issue, although this had been discussed
in other committees. She allowed that, although there was an
understandable concern, there were other safer process options
for extraction. She reiterated that legalization for
concentrates would be shortly after the legalization of plant
products, no more than one year. She offered her belief that
the risk for accidents should be weighed against the risk from a
rush to regulations.
CHAIR SEATON, referencing butane explosions during home
processing in Colorado after legalization, opined that people
may not have wanted to pay the fees and the taxes. He
questioned any direct connection between commercial availability
and price with the actions of individuals.
3:35:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her concern for the difficulties
to local control due to a domino effect from delays by the
legislature. She asked if any local government groups had
responded to the proposed bill.
MS. HANSEN replied that there had not been any specific response
from municipal organizations, although there was a letter in
support of the proposed bill from the Alaska Peace Officers
Association (APOA) [Included in members' packets]. She allowed
that the proposed bill would not affect municipal ability to
have marijuana retail, growth, or processing operations within
the city limits. She pointed out that the licensing would be
expanded, per approval by the regulatory board, when the
regulations became effective.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that this could force a decision
without all the necessary information, potentially influencing
local sales and restrictions. She suggested that there needed
to be careful consideration for these interfaces and the
impacts.
CHAIR SEATON expressed his agreement with the complexity of the
issue, pointing out that these were very different products,
including edibles, salves, infusions, and patches. He stated
that there were a lot of ramifications beyond the
commercialization of the plant products. He reiterated that, as
there were many complex issues, the proposed bill would allow
for a focus on regulations for the growing, processing, and
retail sales of the plant product, to be initiated without
delay. He allowed that, although the second set of regulations
could be pursued concurrently, the proposed bill allowed these
regulations to be delayed.
3:41:18 PM
CHAIR SEATON, directing attention to the labeling and packaging
requirements in Version P, Section 24, said that there was not
an intent to establish details for these requirements, as this
task was more appropriate for the regulatory board. He noted
that page 4 of the proposed bill did prohibit the sale of
marijuana concentrates combined with nicotine and alcohol. He
expressed his desire that availability of this product for self-
medication would result in a switch from alcohol, as alcohol had
more down side consequences. He acknowledged that many people
could mix alcohol with THC. He explained that, as there was
physical addiction with nicotine, the proposed bill prohibited
its mix with marijuana. He reminded the committee that, as the
sale of nicotine products had been prohibited to minors, there
was not going to be any mechanism for the further sale of
addictive products, page 4, line 30. On page 5, line 1 there
was a prohibition on the sale of marijuana in establishments
that sell alcohol, so that people who might be changing from
self-medicating with alcohol will not be surrounded by their
previous addiction when they go to purchase marijuana.
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Wool, expressed his
agreement that the intent was to prohibit the combination of
marijuana and nicotine in "a cocktail."
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Wool, explained that
the proposed bill would require the sale of marijuana
concentrate products at separate venues from those selling
alcohol. He expressed his agreement that the proposed bill
would offer an indication to the regulatory board of its intent
for health and social issues. He expressed his desire for full
discussion of this aspect, as it was now included in Version P,
Section 6.
3:47:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if the intent was to not allow the
usage of marijuana in an establishment selling alcohol.
CHAIR SEATON replied that the proposed bill did not address
usage, and that he was unsure of the use of marijuana in public
establishments under the initiative.
3:49:11 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:50:05 PM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
3:50:29 PM
RACHELLE YEUNG, Legislative Analyst, Marijuana Policy Project,
explained that the Marijuana Policy Project was a national, non-
profit organization based in Washington, D.C., and that the
organization had been working with local Alaskan activists for
many years. She shared that they had served as legal and policy
council for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in
Alaska in support of the recent ballot measure. She
acknowledged the intent of the proposed bill for thoughtful and
deliberate rule making, and declared confidence in the abilities
of the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board to adequately
undertake the mandate under Measure 2 while abiding by its
timeline. She pointed out that Cynthia Franklin, director of
the ABC board, had already begun research and appeared to be
willing and able to abide by the deadlines by the initiative.
She expressed that the primary concern with proposed HB 59 was
for any delay that would contradict the will of the voters. She
declared that marijuana concentrates were included under the
definition of marijuana in Measure 2, and that manufacturers'
sale and possession of these products should be treated with
parity. She stated that the position of the Marijuana Policy
Project was that HB 59, as currently drafted, would be
unconstitutional. She emphasized that the initiative expressly
specified that the state had no later than nine months after the
effective date to craft regulations to implement the law, which
applied to all aspects of marijuana, including marijuana
concentrate. She pointed out that proposed HB 59 fundamentally
altered the time line for implementation, as approved by the
voters of Alaska. She added that, other than concern for points
of the proposed bill being unconstitutional due to the
alteration of the time line, marijuana concentrates currently
existed in Alaska, and would continue to exist even with passage
of the proposed bill in its current form. She stated that
proposed HB 59 would simply ensure that control over the sales
and production of these concentrates would remain on the black
market for another year, and allow for criminals to recognize
these profits. She added that this could increase the risk for
explosions or other incidences by unlicensed businesses, as
these businesses did not have the specialized equipment and
safeguards of a licensed, accountable business.
3:55:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether her organization participated
in the implementation of bills and engaged in law suits if they
determined that the law was not being properly implemented. She
asked about the longevity for her organization within Alaska.
3:56:05 PM
MS. YEUNG, in response, said that her organization envisioned
continual assistance with the Alaska campaign throughout the
implementation process. She noted that its role depended on the
needs of the activist, and she shared that the campaign had
requested support during the implementation process. She said
that she had never personally been involved in a lawsuit, and
she expressed her hope that there was not a lawsuit in Alaska.
She declared that should any bill fundamentally violate the
intent of the voters under the initiative, then a lawsuit may be
an option to consider, although her organization would much
prefer not to go down that path.
3:57:12 PM
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
Board, expressed her understanding for the motivation behind the
proposed bill, as her recent visit to Colorado had revealed that
many of their issues for the implementation of legal
recreational marijuana had centered on the edible products. She
reported that she did, however, have some issues with the
proposed bill, noting that she was not satisfied that the
definition of concentrates, as it would raise more questions
than it solved. She stated that the methodology for making
marijuana concentrate observed in Colorado was in contrast with
these definitions. She offered her belief that the ABC Board,
as well as a marijuana control board, were capable for getting
rules in place for concentrates during the timeframe set forth
in the initiative, although she understood the "spirit of this
bill in the sense that if we ran into problems, that it would
permit us to go past the timeline." She questioned whether the
intent of the proposed bill was for a separate license for
concentrates, as AS 17.38 did not have a separate definition for
marijuana concentrate. She stated that neither Colorado nor
Washington had a separate license for edibles. She pointed out
that, as there was a federal prohibition for transportation of
marijuana, there was a possibility for unnecessary complications
with many licenses in Rural Alaska. She referenced Version P,
Section 6, and opined that it appeared that the writing of
prohibition for combinations of marijuana concentrates with
nicotine and tobacco, or for having marijuana concentrates sold
on the same premises as alcohol, were being foisted on a state
agency, whereas it should be the responsibility of the Alaska
State Legislature to make this determination. She expressed
support for the allowance of a shortened timeline for
regulations if they were ready to be put into place, as she was
confident that the timeline as expressed by the initiative could
be achieved. She offered her belief that many of the issues
regarding marijuana concentrate products arose from the medical
marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, which offered very high
potency products for patients with a very high tolerance. She
pointed out that the more recent legalization of recreational
marijuana in Colorado had increased the market which had in turn
created these issues. She pointed out that Alaska, as the state
did not have medical marijuana dispensaries, was able to learn
from Colorado and had the advantage for making the rules before
the market was created. She expressed her appreciation for the
intent of proposed HB 59 to ensure that good regulations were in
place prior to the public availability for these products. She
opined that the regulations could still be completed along the
original timelines.
4:05:16 PM
MS. FRANKLIN, in response to Representative Stutes, stated that
she was the Director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
She pointed out that the agency was currently responsible, under
AS 17.38, for the rules and implementation to the commercial
marijuana operations.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked to clarify that the ABC Board felt it
could implement all necessary regulations within the currently
allotted time frame.
MS. FRANKLIN concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if the proposed substitution of
"license" for "registration" was an appropriate model.
MS. FRANKLIN expressed her agreement, noting that this had been
requested by the board. She explained that liquor licenses were
a privilege, not a right; whereas, the term "registration" was
not in sync with the process for this substance.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the proposed process for
marijuana licenses would be similar to the issuance of alcohol
licenses.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that the marijuana license rules were yet
to be written, and that there could be different licensing
methods, including for the transferability of licenses. She
explained that, in the experience of the ABC board, the
secondary market value of liquor licenses had caused many
issues. She suggested that the method for license selection
could be different than population based. She pointed out that
there were other methods in other states, noting that Nevada had
a high standard merit selection process without limits. She
acknowledged that the board would discuss the type of license
selection process, and whether the licenses would be
transferable. She allowed that the previous experience for
liquor licensing would be informative, but would not be "knee
jerk mirroring of liquor licensing." She stated that there
would not be a "this is what we do with alcohol, so therefore
this is what we're gonna do with marijuana" approach. She
declared that it would be a situation for evaluating
cultivation, processing, and sales, and then reviewing
situations that have arisen with the liquor licensing system to
find the best possible path.
4:10:13 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the ABC Board had the ability to
design those licenses outside of statute.
MS. FRANKLIN, in response, stated that the regulation writing
process was already set forth in AS 44, and that it was a
process which allowed public input. She anticipated that the
board would wrestle with the decisions and would include public
input. She shared that, generally speaking, AS 17.38 did not
give much authority to the board beyond making the rules, so
that a job for the legislature was to determine whether this
would be written by the ABC Board or a marijuana control board,
and then outlining the authority of that board. This outline
would allow the Alaska State Legislature to determine any
amendments to the statute for further definition to types of
licenses and transferability of licenses. She stated that the
board believed that many of these decisions were appropriate for
the regulation making process, as this was a public process, and
that any changes were more easily made through the regulation
process.
4:13:59 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked about the idea for one license, which did not
segregate sales, cultivation, product manufacture, extraction,
or infusion.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that the board anticipated several tiers of
licenses, including cultivation, retail sales, and processing,
similar to the alcohol licenses. She relayed that the board had
not anticipated a separate license or endorsement for marijuana
concentrates, although the board agreed that cultivation, retail
sales, and some type of processors licenses were appropriate.
She reported that businesses in other states could hold more
than one type of license. She reiterated that she hesitated to
create a separate licensing category for marijuana concentrates
because the definition for marijuana in the initiative included
the entire plant. She reminded the committee that all of this
was still speculative as the rules were not yet written.
4:17:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referenced confusion by the public for what
was legal, what an individual could do, and what required a
license. She asked if there was a vision for additional public
meetings to ensure a lot of feedback and understanding for the
impacts to Alaskans.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that the ABC Board had posted frequently
asked questions on its website, as well as a form for the public
to request additional updates. She relayed that the board's
staff were available to answer questions, noting there were only
10 employees statewide.
4:20:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about consumption on a licensed
premise, similar to wholesale and retail, and the way other
states had handled this.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that initial consideration was given for
the interaction of smoking, a common use, and smoking rules in
semi-public places, and that it was determined it would be
difficult to establish marijuana smoking premises. She offered
her belief that this would happen eventually, whether these
licenses were issued initially or later. She noted that the
only mention for consumption in AS 17.38 was to prohibit
consumption in public. She suggested that the board may address
the definition for public, in this case, as consumption of
marijuana with others in an invited public place was not
specifically addressed. She opined that it may not be licensed
in the initial round.
4:23:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked how many states had legalized
marijuana.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that there were four states: Washington,
Alaska, Oregon, and Colorado. She reported that she and her
group, the Coalition of Legalized Marijuana States, had met with
the Colorado regulators to compare and discuss ideas. She
relayed that Alaska did not have many of the problems and issues
which Colorado had, whereas Oregon was moving in a different
regulatory direction, not allowing any local controls. She said
that Alaska would be the first state to write regulations for
legalized marijuana operations from ground zero.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether other states had issued
regulations on marijuana concentrates.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that Colorado had to re-write its rules for
concentrates during its first year of legalization, 2014. She
explained that edible products, as well as other products, used
concentrates, but that some products needed more rules than
others. She offered her belief that the motivation behind
proposed HB 59 was because edibles needed the most rules.
Noting that these were new in a retail setting, she discussed
the importance for defining a serving size and for certifying
the level of THC in each serving. She pointed out that
consumers needed to have a good understanding of what they were
eating and what effects it could have. She reported that other
marijuana concentrate products, such as tinctures or homeopathic
drops, were more straightforward as they did not enter the body
through the stomach. She stated that, as the edibles often took
longer to act, larger than necessary doses were ingested. She
shared that Colorado had to re-write its rules, and the state
had removed all of the higher strength edibles, those with more
than 100 milligram (mg) of THC, from the shelves, leaving only
the lower concentrate products. The serving sizes could contain
no more than 10 mg of THC. She said that Colorado had discussed
5 mg serving sizes, with a maximum of 50 mg in the package,
which was a serving size that Alaska was reviewing. She
mentioned the Colorado campaign, "Start low, go slow," which
suggested to start with a low amount of THC, and go slowly
before you consume any more. She compared this to the effects
of alcohol on the system.
4:30:20 PM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the vision for one retail license, and
asked whether communities would then be able to select options.
He offered his belief that the license would allow everything
retail that can be sold would be permitted to be sold at that
premises.
MS. FRANKLIN explained that, although this was the Colorado
system, it was still to be determined whether Alaska would
follow this format. She offered her belief that there would be
more rules for the processing, serving size, and labeling of the
edibles, than for the processing of the leaves. She shared that
the local governing bodies would still be able to require that
all goods sold be approved through all the regulatory channels.
She said that "there was no distinction between the bud and the
leaves and any of the other products containing marijuana" so
the licensing for retail sale applied to all products containing
marijuana in the Colorado shops.
4:33:18 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the single license form would work
well with local communities. He referenced earlier testimony in
the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee that
there were instances of marijuana in combination with other
drugs, and he asked if the ABC Board was reviewing other
delivery restrictions for the use of THC in combination with
other drugs.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that the board had not yet considered this,
although they anticipated testing requirements and a need to
determine who would conduct the testing. She reminded the
committee that there was the technology to track the plants from
first growth to point of sale. She suggested that there was
"little chance of it being contaminated or combined with other
drugs because it is quite recognizable in its bud form."
Regarding the mix of marijuana concentrate with other drugs in a
food product, she declared the need to rely on lab testing and
the licensee not to contaminate or adulterate their product.
She said that she was not aware that this had been a major
problem.
4:36:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referenced on-line reports [indisc] that
were found to be untrue. She asked if these reports of adverse
health reactions were occurring at a frequency [indisc] and even
an infrequent event received a lot of attention. She asked
whether the number of incidents had reached a public health
concern.
MS. FRANKLIN reported that her conversations with doctors at the
Children's Hospital in Colorado revealed that the statistics for
children having a "bad trip" from edibles showed that the actual
numbers reported went from zero to 14 over a three year period.
She relayed that the doctors had stated that there were many
more children admitted to the emergency room with poisoning from
ibuprofen, house hold chemicals, or their parents' prescription
drugs. She reflected that numbers were sometimes reported by
news agencies as a percentage of increase, which would make the
number of children admitted appear to be much larger.
4:39:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether there had been research for
the sales and use of marijuana in Amsterdam.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that, as her agency had not received a
supplemental budget for a visit to Amsterdam, she had only been
able to study this from afar and she did not anticipate a visit.
She acknowledged that, although Amsterdam had had its rules in
place for a long period, there was a different rule making
process and she had not gleaned as much from Amsterdam as from
other states in the United States.
4:40:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether Washington and Oregon had
issued separate regulations for marijuana concentrates.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that she was not aware that either state
had separated marijuana concentrates from its definition of
marijuana. She noted that the ballot measure in Alaska had a
similar definition for marijuana as the definition in both those
states. She reiterated that, as these were the first rules
which Colorado had to revise, Alaska now had the advantage and
benefit of reviewing the revised rules from Colorado.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether all marijuana edibles
contained concentrates.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that there was no effect from chopping up
the marijuana bud or leaf and baking it into a food. She
explained that the THC had to be heated in an oil to be
effective as an edible. She described the trichomes, or glands,
in the marijuana plant which contained a higher concentration of
THC. In order to most effectively remove the THC, the marijuana
could be simmered in butter or coconut oil for 15 hours, and
then strained, before using the butter or oil for cooking. She
said it was also possible to extract the trichomes with
chemicals, CO2, butane, or ice water. She said that her group
had witnessed CO2 and ice water extraction in Colorado, and in a
licensed facility there was a safe, regulated environment for
this extraction. She noted that these dangerous extractions
which often resulted in explosions were performed in homes after
watching a You Tube video for the process.
4:45:20 PM
BRUCE SHULTE, Spokesperson, Coalition for Responsible Cannabis
Legislation, directed attention to a summary handout from the
Coalition [Included in members' packets] and said that the
coalition respectfully disagreed with the sponsor statement
which asserted that the regulation of concentrates was overly
complex and should be delayed. He expressed agreement with the
testimony from Ms. Franklin that the regulations could be
finalized in the timeframe specified in the ballot measure. He
expressed concern with the proposed bill as it appeared to
redefine marijuana and its concentrate derivatives separately.
He pointed out that, as the ballot initiative clearly
articulated the products under consideration, the proposed bill
would be contrary to the intent of the initiative. He reminded
the committee that the discussion was for an agricultural
product and that each plant produced a core material, the
flowers, as well as a significant portion of byproduct, the
trim. He relayed that the trim could represent 30 - 50 percent
of the total product volume and was used in the creation of
concentrates and edibles, a significant secondary market from
the growers to the processors. He offered his belief that the
delay of this segment of the market for one year would force the
growers to destroy 30 - 50 percent of the crop, which could make
the industry economically untenable. He opined that this was
not in line with the initiative, which he read, in part: "such
regulations shall not prohibit the operation of marijuana
establishments either expressly or through regulations that make
the operation unreasonably impracticable." He contended that
this enforcement for the destruction of 30 - 50 percent of the
crop with no compensation was contrary to the initiative. He
stated that this was the main concern of the coalition. He
reiterated that the marijuana flower had direct marketability
and that the rest of the plant was a secondary product. He
reported that Alaska marijuana was renowned for its quality,
and, as it was grown indoors under controlled, but expensive,
circumstances, it was economically necessary to have use of the
entire plant. He suggested that the proposed bill could
effectively kill the industry.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the marijuana industry had not been
economically viable in the past, as it was not possible for the
concentrate extractions. He expressed surprise that the
proposed bill would create an economically unviable situation.
MR. SHULTE replied that the industry was presently economically
viable, although, as it was not currently regulated in any
manner, the black market was processing all parts of the plant.
He pointed out that, as this very large industry was now moving
toward a regulated, legitimate business model, those people
participating in a legitimate industry were bound by the
regulations and would be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked to clarify whether a lack of
regulations would allow the price to absorb the loss from
disposal of product, or that there was processing and sales on
the black market. He opined that the price was able to
compensate for the loss.
MR. SHULTE replied that it was "probably a bit of both." He
offered his belief that the black market had less incentive to
re-capture the value of the trim, as there was not an excise tax
and other costs associated with regulated industry. He
expressed agreement that the trim did get used, often processed
into hash and hash oil for sales.
4:53:04 PM
[HB 59 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 59_Ver E.PDF |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59_Draft Proposed Blank CS Ver P.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 Sectional Analysis_ Ver P.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 Letter of support_APOA.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |
| HB059-LAW-CRIM-01-30-15.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |
| HB059-DCCED-ABC-01-30-15.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59_Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |
| CRCL WhitePaper Jan28-2015.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 Marijuana |
| HB 59_Opposition Testimony_Marijuana Policy Project.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59_opposition_CRCL-CommentsOnHB59-Feb-2-2015.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |
| HB 59 Explanation of changes_ver E to P_draft.pdf |
HHSS 2/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 59 |