Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
01/27/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB326 | |
| HB321 | |
| HB314 | |
| HB379 | |
| HB343 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 379 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 343 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 326 | ||
| = | HB 321 | ||
| = | HB 314 | ||
HB 379 - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, INCL. ANALOGS 2:58:27 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 379, "An Act relating to controlled substances." REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 379, relayed that the bill was engendered by an incident wherein a 16-year-old girl died and an 18-year-old was severely injured after a group of older men slipped an analog of GHB into their drinks. This legislation, he explained, elevates gamma- hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) and its analogs to a schedule IA controlled substance from its current listing as schedule IVA controlled substance. He opined that GHB should be elevated to a schedule IA because the primary purpose of GHB is for use in date rape. Furthermore, the drug is potent, almost impossible to detect, and easily slipped into a drink. Specifically, GHB induces a feeling of severe intoxication and enables others to take advantage of the vulnerable and incoherent individuals who are under its influence. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER highlighted that HB 379 also includes analogs in the statutory definitions of controlled substance. He further noted that the legislation does exempt compounds approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) as well as those compounds involved in specific medical tests and used for human consumption. He specified that HB 379 attempts to cleanup the statutes while sending a message that [use of] the compounds in GHB are unacceptable and dangerous. 3:01:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the sponsor would be willing to narrow the title. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied, "Yes." REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that the purpose of HB 379 "seems appropriate." However, the list of chemicals considered illegal drugs under HB 379 is lengthy, and therefore he expressed the need to hear from someone that the chemicals listed should be considered illegal. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that there are individuals available who can address that question. 3:02:24 PM TRINKA PORRATA, President, Project GHB, began by noting that she is a retired Los Angeles police officer. She explained that Project GHB is a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating people about GHB, a drug that she has dealt with for the past 10 years. She noted that she is considered the nation's expert on GHB and thus has worked with some of the top researchers of this drug. Ms. Porrata said that she is glad that this issue is being addressed. Furthermore, the analog provision is very important because GHB has many analogs, even more than the three listed in the bill. The analog provision provides the [state] the opportunity to address them without the time required to pass legislation for each drug. She explained that analogs are chemical cousins and thus have similar/related chemical structure and effects. 3:06:41 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), relayed that the DOL supports HB 379, although she said she cannot speak to some of the technical aspects of it. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, drew the committee's attention to page 2, lines 1-10, and relayed his reluctance to adopt this language because it may be subject to a challenge of void for vagueness. MS. PORRATA pointed out that the language [on page 2, lines 1- 10] is similar to that adopted by both California and the federal government to address analogs. Ms. Porrata explained that an analog of a controlled substance would automatically refer to the controlled substance. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that his concern is whether such language has already been interpreted by the courts. He questioned how [the public] could be given fair notice that they may be prosecuted for possessing something that isn't even in existence or listed [as prohibited]. 3:10:29 PM MS. PORRATA interjected that the point of that language is that when a comparable drug to one listed is created, it's automatically covered. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that his concern is whether such can be done from a constitutional perspective because due process requires fair notice. He expressed interest in seeing case law on the aforementioned, though he noted his support of the legislation. MS. PORRATA relayed that similar language has been tested in federal court and has been consistently upheld. She acknowledged that each time [an analog is added] there has been a challenge, but the law itself has been upheld. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that the DOL research his concerns. He also expressed his desire to hear from the public defender on this matter. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered her understanding that because the drug involves chemical formulas, [the bill has been] narrowed to refer to similar molecular structures. 3:12:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is wondering whether the language "substantially similar" has been upheld by the courts and, if so, how has it been upheld. He then pointed out that the language on page 2, lines 7-10, refers to any substance that has a particular effect on the central nervous system. 3:13:26 PM MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, House Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, surmised, then, that Representative Gruenberg is concerned about providing notice when a chemical compound is made illegal without specifically being mentioned in law. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG further clarified that he is concerned because these analogs aren't even referenced in a list that's established by regulation. He then noted that the bill contains a provision repealing AS 11.71.170(b)(28), and asked why. MR. PAWLOWSKI specified that it refers to the chemical name for GHB as it is currently listed in the schedule IVA controlled substance statute. REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed the need to be reassured be a chemist that each of the chemicals listed in the legislation is GHB. The language on page 1, line 6, specifies that also illegal is any salt or isomer contained in one of the listed drugs. In regard to that language, he expressed the need for [a chemist] to specify whether any of these drugs contain a sub- isomer that may be legitimate. [HB 379 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|