Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
03/07/2005 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB95 | |
| HB149 | |
| HB85 | |
| HB148 || HB101 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 95 | ||
HB 149 - SALE OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSORS 2:54:22 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 149, "An Act relating to further regulation of the sale, possession, and delivery of certain chemicals and precursors used in the manufacture of methamphetamine." REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 149, Version 24-LS0596\L, Luckhaupt, 3/4/05, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version L was before the committee. 2:55:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, characterized methamphetamine as a scourge on society, noting that it is very prominent in today's world. House Bill 149 will increase criminal penalties for manufacturing and delivering methamphetamine; it will make it a crime of manslaughter if a person manufactures or delivers a controlled substance to another person who then dies from the controlled substance; and it will make the manufacture of methamphetamine in a building where one or more minor children under the age of 18 resides or stays a class A felony. He noted that the manufacture of methamphetamine involves and creates toxic chemicals, which contaminate the building or structure in which it is manufactured; such buildings and structures can include homes, apartment complexes, campers, vehicles, and hotel rooms, to name a few. Many such locations are where children live - sleeping, eating, breathing, and drinking while being exposed to these toxic environments. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS mentioned that every pound of methamphetamine manufactured creates seven pounds of [toxic] waste. He relayed that he is very interested in reducing the exposure of children to these substances by creating deterrents. The bill also addresses the issue of supply by limiting the amount of drugs containing [ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine], or the amount of iodine or iodine crystals that can be purchased or possessed by an individual. Noting that he did not want to disturb commerce, he relayed that the bill would require that a logbook be signed and that identification be provided by those purchasing the aforementioned substances. He opined that such a requirement will inhibit manufacturers of methamphetamine and those that purchase methamphetamine ingredients for them. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS mentioned that Oklahoma has seen nearly an 80 percent drop in methamphetamine laboratories ("labs") - and other states have similar statistics - because of efforts to "choke down" the supply of methamphetamine ingredients. He also indicated that the bill will add certain anabolic steroids to the list of schedule VA controlled substances. He relayed that an article from Oklahoma relayed that Pfizer Inc. - a manufacturer of Sudafed - has stated it does not oppose restrictions on "the medication," and that a spokesman for the company is quoted as saying, "Every state has got to get the balance right between access to legitimate consumers and preventing access to criminals." Representative Ramras offered the following which he indicated was a quote by [a representative from the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS)]: The National Association of Chain Drug Stores does not necessarily believe the Okalahoma law is the way to go. ... Customers miss out on hundreds of pseudoephedrine products that cannot be displayed behind a pharmacy counter, and the group believes the law's apparent success may have more to do with impeding backdoor sales of cases of pseudoephedrine by rogue retailers. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS offered his belief that in Alaska, small groups of people are buying, for example, $20 worth of ingredients, which are then used to produce several hundred dollars' worth of "street-valued" drugs. He opined that Alaska is suffering from small methamphetamine labs everywhere, including rural areas. He characterized methamphetamine as insidious because small amounts of it can be sold to generate just enough money to create more. He mentioned that the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) relayed to him that just a few weeks ago, a methamphetamine lab was "busted" right above the district attorney's office in Fairbanks. 3:03:57 PM RONALD J. WALL, Sergeant, Supervisor, Fairbanks Areawide Narcotics Team, Alaska Bureau of Alcohol & Drug Enforcement, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed that the DPS is very supportive of HB 149, believing that the restrictions regarding ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, as well as iodine, will provide a dramatic step forward in reducing methamphetamine labs. The DPS also feels that controlling and documenting sales of the aforementioned methamphetamine ingredients will enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and limit methamphetamine labs. He mentioned that the DPS has worked with the Department of Law (DOL) in providing support and guidance [to the sponsor] on the issues of selling and restricting amounts of necessary methamphetamine precursors, as well as on the issue of requiring the identification of those purchasing such ingredients. He added, "We also believe that by requiring these items to be stored behind counters, it will prohibit the theft [of such items]." 3:05:27 PM LIBBY DANNENBERG, State Relations Counsel, Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA), after noting that the CHPA represents manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and nutritional supplements, relayed that the CHPA is supportive of the sponsor's goal of attempting to find solutions to the problem of methamphetamine labs, but does have a concern with the bill in that it would place all pseudoephedrine products "behind the counter." She went on to say: [The] CHPA understands the scope and complexity of the methamphetamine problem [and supports the] need for comprehensive, multi-disciplinary legislation. We believe such legislation should include a mix of the following. A retail sales limit of six grams for products that contain pseudoephedrine - and that would be per transaction. Rather than placing [pseudoephedrine products] behind a counter, we believe in-store placement options for retailers would be a better solution; that allows retailers to monitor ... their pseudoephedrine drug products and know what's coming in and out of their store, and do it in a way that doesn't place a burden on them. There should also be a "notice of intent to sell pseudoephedrine" requirement, and that would just be a simple notice that says you're going to sell that product. There should be increased criminal penalties for [methamphetamine] traffickers; authorization and funding for community "Meth Watch" programs; funding for environmental cleanup, law enforcement, education, and training; community demand reduction programs; as well as strong laws protecting drug-endangered children. As Representative Ramras mentioned, a lot of states have taken ... different approaches. I'm happy to hear that you're not interested in going to the [schedule VA controlled substances], which we believe is very restrictive and reduces access. We believe that there are other ways than placing things behind the counter, as well. MS. DANNENBERG added: I wanted to highlight just a couple of states quickly that have taken less restrictive measures and have seen significant drops in their number of [methamphetamine] lab incidents. California is one example. In 2002, [California] law enforcement reported 1,769 [methamphetamine] lab incidents, and by 2004, they were down to 639 [methamphetamine] lab incidents. California places a three-package or nine- gram limit on each retail transaction, and they also take significant steps toward tracking the supply chain of pseudoephedrine - and that is tracking through manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors so that law enforcement in the state, [the] state pharmacy board in particular, can be aware of what products are coming in and out of their state and be aware of any discrepancies in numbers. Washington State has also taken a similar approach. They adopted [anti-methamphetamine] legislation [in] 2001; they've seen a very (indisc.) reduction in the number of [methamphetamine] lab incidents. In 2002, they recorded 1,409 [methamphetamine] lab incidents; by the end of 2004, they were down to 687. Like California, ... [Washington places] restrictions on sales - and that's a three-package or nine-gram limit per retail transaction, and they prohibit an individual from purchasing more than nine grams in a 24 hour period. MS. DANNENBERG continued: Washington also has done quite a bit in tracing the path of pseudoephedrine into their state. Reports must be submitted to the state board of pharmacy by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers on the sales and transfers and ... receipt of pseudoephedrine products from out of state sources. ... Washington also requires manufacturers and wholesalers to report suspicious transactions in writing to the board of pharmacy, and are required to maintain records of their pseudoephedrine sales. They use a number of different approaches without placing the products behind a counter. Additionally, we believe demand reduction and education are essential towards ... trying to prevent [methamphetamine] labs from occurring and then reoccurring. [The] CHPA has been working on a number of programs - one is a voluntary program with retailers and law enforcement, called "Meth Watch" - and [the] CHPA helps provide grants to the state to set up training programs and distribute materials - those are materials that would go in stores and on the shelves by ingredients that are used to make [methamphetamine], not just pseudoephedrine, but actually any of the ingredients - so that if the retailer or clerk is working in the store and they've had the training, their going to know what to watch for, for suspicious transactions ... - [for example], a high volume of pseudoephedrine purchase or other items - and know how to safely report that to law enforcement to follow up on it. [The CHPA] also works with the Partnership for a Drug Free America and the American Academy of Pediatrics on a program that right now is in [the] early stages - it's been test-marketed in Phoenix, Arizona, and St. Louis - that tries to get at the education of both parents and young people, to learn more about [methamphetamine] and what the dangers are. We've been successful in that program; the Partnership for a Drug Free America and the American Academy of Pediatrics both feel it's been successful and have asked [the CHPA] ... as well as [the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)] to help them expand that program into a lot of other major markets in the U.S. MS. DANNENBERG concluded: We certainly understand and support your efforts in trying to find a way to contain the [methamphetamine] problem within your state, but we also believe that the legislature should balance the need to restrict access to these [methamphetamine] precursor chemicals against a family caregiver's need to purchase cost- effective, over-the-counter cough and cold medicines. Certainly there's no quick fix to [the] problem, but we look forward to working with this committee to try [to] hopefully find a reasonable balance. Thank you. CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that the committee is in receipt of the CHPA's written remarks. 3:12:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, said he is very much in favor of HB 149, and relayed that he has sponsored a very similar bill. However, he remarked, HB 149 still lacks a reporting requirement with a centralized database, and so therefore lacks the teeth with which to accomplish its goal of addressing the "scourge" of [methamphetamine labs]. He added: We need a place for all of this information to come to, and when we first started working on this bill, the [DPS] was telling us that we're already going after [methamphetamine and methamphetamine] labs and so it shouldn't cost any extra, that it would, in fact, give them a tool to work with to try to stop this methamphetamine craze that's going across the state. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that currently, HB 149 just requires businesses to maintain a logbook that details who is buying which products, and then the DPS would have to go out to each business and get that information from the logbooks. If this information was simply mailed in every six months or once a year, he suggested, the information could be stored in a centralized location. He opined that such a reporting requirement would not place too big a burden on business owners. In conclusion, he characterized HB 149 as a wonderful bill, and urged the committee to pass it. REPRESENTATIVE GARA thanked Representatives Ramras and Crawford for addressing this issue. 3:15:01 PM DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said that the administration supports any efforts to stem the tide of methamphetamine being used and produced in Alaska. He posited that the primary thrust of HB 149 is to place limitations on purchasing and possessing pseudoephedrine, and opined that such limitations will be particularly effective in Alaska; additionally, the DOL considers this limitation to be appropriate. He recapped Representative Ramras's comments regarding the success other states have experienced in lowering the number of methamphetamine labs. He offered the DOL's belief that pseudoephedrine products are the primary source of the ingredients used by Alaska's small methamphetamine labs. MR. GUANELI relayed that the DOL also believes that the public will support the proposed limitations on pseudoephedrine product sales, and mentioned that a survey conducted in Iowa showed that the majority of people buy only one package of pseudoephedrine products at a time and do so only a few times a year, though a very small percentage of people do buy two packages of pseudoephedrine products at a time - again, only a few times a year. The aforementioned survey also showed that two out of three people thought that limiting the amount of pseudoephedrine products that could be bought at any one time wouldn't pose any inconvenience, and only one out of five people thought that such a limitation might pose just a slight inconvenience; additionally, there were similar statistics pertaining to how inconvenient people thought it would be if pseudoephedrine products were kept behind the counter. He indicated that the aforementioned study showed that a majority of people at least moderately supported limitations on pseudoephedrine product sales, as well as the maintaining of records pertaining to such sales and requiring purchasers to show ID. MR. GUANELI opined that the changes the bill proposes will be effective, and reiterated his belief that the public will support such changes. He remarked, however, that it is also fair to say that from the DOL's viewpoint, the bill needs work. One of the issues that needs to be addresses is, what is it, exactly, that is being restricted. Some of the bill's provisions speak to restricting pseudoephedrine, while others speak to also restricting ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine, and still others speak to restricting iodine. There should be more consistency in the various provisions with regard to what exactly is being restricted and what the limitations will be for possession, he opined. MR. GUANELI indicated that another issue that should be addressed is, are there exceptions in the bill that will result in loopholes; Version L, for example, includes an exception for pediatric products, wherein the recommended dosage is about half that of the adult dosage. He opined that this exception will create a loophole that will be exploited. Other issues that should be addressed further are, how much of the drug can be purchased and how much can be in someone's possession; he opined that the amounts the bill currently allows for purchases - six grams - and for possession - nine grams - is far more than people typically buy [or keep] for personal use, that it is instead the amount that is typically found in a lot of methamphetamine labs, and therefore he thinks that the bill's limitations should specify smaller amounts. MR. GUANELI relayed that the bill raises questions in his mind regarding what the obligations of retailers and legitimate businesses are; he offered his view that a strict reading of the bill's provisions could cause legitimate businesses some concern. For example, one of the bill's provisions exempts a licensed pharmacist from the proposed six-gram limitation, but no such exemption exists for others who work for that same pharmacy; therefore, he opined, there should be exemptions for employees of pharmacists. He noted that there is also inconsistency with the language pertaining to retailers, and surmised that perhaps the bill's inconsistencies are a result of the different provisions being taken from laws in other states. MR. GUANELI said that there is also ambiguity regarding the limitations on iodine, and that a question is raised in his mind regarding whether the provision requiring businesses to register with the DPS is necessary, since businesses involved in pseudoephedrine distribution, wholesaling, and retailing are already required to register with the Board of Pharmacy or some other state agency. He said that from his standpoint, the criminal provisions of the bill that speak to knowingly selling and delivering precursors of methamphetamine and listed chemicals uses too high a standard; instead the standard should be reckless disregard, he opined, because law enforcement is noticing that a lot of manufacturers of methamphetamine are getting their ingredients from those whom they turn around and sell the finished product to. MR. GUANELI, in conclusion, offered his belief that the bill needs more study and its drafting and inconsistency problems fixed. He also offered his belief that the bill will not pose any constitutional problems. He said he did not think that the governor's bill that addresses this issue should be held up in favor of HB 149, because HB 149 still needs more work. REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that Representative Crawford has suggested that information from the aforementioned logbooks be sent into the DPS periodically, while HB 149 requires the DPS to contact business to get that information. He asked whether the DOL has a preference. MR. GUANELI posited that keeping in mind the state's limited resources, the state must strike a balance between what can be accomplished from a practical standpoint by the DPS and what constitutes a reasonable burden for the retail industry; he suggested that finding this balance is ultimately what the bill must do. He surmised that much of the data collected by retailers will not be [of interest] to the DPS. He predicted that the DPS will probably do spot checks with retailers and focus investigative efforts on suspicious activities, and offered his belief that the DPS favors the approach proposed in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether either current statute or the bill as written will allow pharmacists to voluntarily provide information regarding suspicious activity to the DPS. 3:29:51 PM MR. GUANELI said the bill doesn't address that issue specifically, but remarked that the DOL's hope is that such cooperative information sharing would occur. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he didn't think that businesses would be allowed legally to share customers' healthcare information without there being a specific provision in the bill authorizing such. MR. GUANELI opined that since the bill requires retailers to maintain a logbook and check ID, it isn't a big leap to ask retailers to volunteer information about suspicious activity to the DPS. Though if the committee thinks the bill should include specific authorization of such, then such a change would be appropriate, he ventured. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that Washington requires that type of reporting. She offered her hope that the DOL will offer specific suggestions for improving the bill. CHAIR McGUIRE said that HB 149 [Version L] would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|