Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
03/06/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB79 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 79-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
1:02:10 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to controlled substances;
relating to marijuana; relating to driving motor vehicles when
there is an open marijuana container; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX further announced that the Juneau Police
Department (JPD) would demonstrate and offer visuals of various
forms of cannabis, and that the committee would not be speaking
to the actual bill.
1:02:26 PM
LEE PHELPS, Detective, Drug Enforcement Unit, Juneau Police
Department (JPD), said he was asked to bring marijuana to the
committee meeting in different forms and weights. [Throughout
his presentation he did not identify which package of cannabis
he was referring.] He held up clear baggies that represented:
one or more pounds of cannabis; one ounce; one gram; five grams;
and seven grams of cannabis.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned the cost on the street.
DETECTIVE PHELPS replied that one gram of marijuana is roughly
$20, an ounce is roughly $50-$60, and one-half pound is roughly
$180-$240. He advised that many of the prices vary on how well
an individual knows the dealer as it is not an industry
standard.
1:05:07 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked for clarification that one ounce is roughly
$50-$60.
DETECTIVE PHELPS answered "I believe so, yes."
CHAIR LEDOUX advised she had heard that in Anchorage an ounce is
roughly $300.
1:05:29 PM
DETECTIVE PHELPS qualified what he had advised the committee by
stating "I don't really deal with marijuana that much. My focus
is on heroin, and meth amphetamines." He advised that he spoke
with a prisoner in order to understand the different prices. "I
am basing this off of what he told me." He reiterated $20 per
gram, $50-$60 per one-eighth, $100-$120 per one-quarter ounce,
$180-$240 per one-half pound.
1:06:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how much is legal for an individual to
possess.
DETECTIVE PHELPHS said he was not sure with the voter initiative
and advised that JPD and the Alaska District Attorney's Office
(DA) is waiting to see what to do.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised Representative Lynn that it is one ounce.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN held up a package and asked whether amount
in the baggie was legal.'
[NO VERBAL RESPONSE.]
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked the cost of marijuana on the street.
DETECTIVE PHELPHS responded that he was not sure.
1:07:22 PM
DETECTIVE PHELPS answered Representative Claman that the cost
for one-quarter ounce is approximately $100-$120, and one-half
is $180-$200 ounce.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that in referring to one-half
ounces the likelihood of multiplying the one-quarter by four and
there would be a range of the price for an ounce.
DETECTIVE PHELPS answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he was passed a note that one ounce is
approximately $300 on the street.
DETECTIVE PHELPS offered that Anchorage prices are different
than Juneau prices as they vary and that Juneau is more
expensive.
1:08:26 PM
DETECTIVE PHELPS demonstrated a one ounce of hash and a baggie;
plus five grams that was representative of hash oil, and stated
that JPD destroyed all of their recent evidence. He also
presented different pipes to smoke cannabis and hash.
1:09:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if the pipes were purchased in
stores or seized as property in cases.
DETECTIVE PHELPS said he was demonstrating different pipes that
were unused and seized, but no longer evidence.
1:10:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that under Ravin v. State, 537
P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975), an individual is allowed four ounces in
their home.
DETECTIVE PHELPS advised that he was not exactly sure.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that Ravin does not actually
articulate any quantities, but subsequent legislation
articulated that four ounces at home was legal under Ravin.
1:10:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Ravin is modified downward by
the initiative so the legal amount is no longer four ounces but
one ounce.
1:11:24 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Alaska Department of Law (DOL), responded to Representative
Gruenberg that she concurs with Representative Claman in that
Ravin set a small quantity for personal use in the home.
Subsequent to Ravin, the legislature passed a law that said four
ounces, and a case after that said "it was reasonable." The law
has been changed several times since then and the initiative is
currently the law which says one ounce or less, she explained.
She further explained that the initiative allows for one ounce
of marijuana and six plants for personal use where those plants
are grown. She offered that there appears to be no real limit
in the home in cultivating and harvesting those six plants.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG assessed that one ounce applies to
processed marijuana rather than the actual leaf.
MS. SCHROEDER said "that is correct," as it is counting plants
and weighing the leafy substance.
1:12:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX remarked that it is at least arguable that if a
person has more than one ounce of marijuana in their home and no
plants, that the individual would be in violation of the law.
But, she opined, it is also arguable under the Ravin decision
that the individual might not be in violation of the law. She
asked if that was a fair statement.
MS. SCHROEDER responded "that is fair."
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the initiative and stated that clearly
whether an individual has the plants or does not have the
plants, one ounce or less is legal in an individual's home.
1:13:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that it appears Detective Phelps is
more involved in heroin and other street drugs, and not so much
marijuana. He questioned Detective Phelps if he has expertise
in terms of marijuana processes and how it is used in different
forms.
DETECTIVE PHELPS said that he spoke with an inmate who advised
it takes approximately six ounces of marijuana buds to produce
approximately one ounce of hash oil.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that in terms of his regular
work, Detective Phelps is mostly relying on a cooperating
witness.
1:15:10 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX confirmed from Detective Phelps that the liquid
provided by him is not really hash oil.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked a person does with [hash oil].
DETECTIVE PHELPS provided that it can be smoked even though it
is liquid as it can be mixed with tobacco, or marijuana, or
burned on a piece of metal and the fumes smoked.
DETECTIVE PHELPS responded to Chair LeDoux that it can also be
used in cooking as the THC content in oils are much higher than
marijuana. He advised one gram will last a user between one and
three weeks depending upon their tolerance.
1:16:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to concentrates and edibles and asked
whether the sample is being used.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned whether the concentration of
THC is the same from one oil to the next, or whether it depends
upon manufacturing.
DETECTIVE PHELPS responded that the quality of the oil is
different with the various concentrations of THC. It depends
upon how the THC is being pulled out of the marijuana plant, how
much butane or CO2 is used, how much is vaporized off, and the
amount of THC is dependent upon the cook, he explained.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked the difference between [hash] oil
and hash.
DETECTIVE PHELPS advised he could not speculate.
1:18:25 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX used the example of a cookie that had been around
for two-six weeks, whether it loses its potency.
DETECTIVE PHELPS said "I would guess not but I am not 100
percent sure."
1:19:19 PM
BRUCE SCHULTE, Board Member, Coalition for Responsible Cannabis
Legislation, responded to Chair LeDoux that the shelf life
depends on whether it is an edible or a raw form product. Many
marijuana products improve over time as it cures, sometimes for
months or a year or more, he said, and edibles will gradually
diminish over time depending upon how it is stored. It is a
food product so the quality of the food would probably diminish
at a greater rate than the potency of the THC within, he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Mr. Schulte's statement "that
it would improve" and questioned whether the value was getting
more or less potent.
MR. SCHULTE responded that the potency would not necessarily
diminish, but the taste would. He explained that when the plant
is harvested there is a brief drying period and then a more
extensive curing period. He further explained that during the
curing period there are some complex compounds that break down
and produce different chemicals that give rise to the
distinctive taste and flavor of different strains of marijuana.
He noted that the chemical break down can last many months
depending upon how it is stored. He then stated that
exceptionally high quality products are often cured for several
months before they are ready to use and for that reason they are
preferred.
1:21:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN assessed that it was actually a matter of
taste as opposed to potency that he was referring to.
MR. SCHULTE responded in the affirmative and opined that the
percentage of THC is fairly consistent for the first several
months, but after a few years it would start to diminish due to
a breakdown of chemicals.
MR. SCHULTE confirmed to Chair LeDoux that he would expect the
potency to go down after a couple of years, whereas the quality
of the product infused would degrade far more rapidly than the
potency of the infusion itself.
1:22:06 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether infusion is different than
baking.
MR. SCHULTE answered "No," it is a different terminology for the
same process. He offered that he thinks of infusion as a
broader, more general term that encompasses different processes,
and not necessarily baking.
1:22:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted her suspicion that when an individual bakes a
brownies, or cookies, that they put marijuana in as a spice.
She held up a sample and questioned whether there would be a
needle that infused the sample into the already manufactured
Hershey or Snickers bar.
MR. SCHULTE related that if they were making a chocolate bar,
the manufacturer would have heated chocolate that would then be
mixed with some quantity of hash oil to achieve the desired
level of potency, which would then be poured into molds and
allowed to cool. He explained that it is very sensitive to heat
so manufacturers are careful to control the temperature as heat
is a key factor in producing edibles.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that a person would not take an already
manufactured Milky Way, Snickers or Baby Ruth and stick a needle
into it and infuse it with marijuana.
MR. SCHULTE said that it involves both a process and a
philosophy. He stated he would not envision an existing edible
product being simply injected with hash oil as it would probably
taste disgusting. In terms of philosophy, he remarked, there
has been much discussion regarding adulterated products in
taking existing food products with a familiar form and simply
infusing it with THC. He related that it is not something his
group supports due to the potential confusion over infused
versus not infused products.
1:24:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX confirmed that while Mr. Schulte's group does not
support it, theoretically as a process could be done.
MR. SCHULTE answered that she is correct, and his group saw in
Colorado where some businesses were taking familiar products and
either infusing them or coating them with a mixture that
included THC. He noted that the process received negative press
and lead to some confusion on edibles in a direction he would
not like to see continue.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the people were sued by the product
manufacturers that had the original unadulterated products.
MR. SCHULTE said he did not know for certain, but imagined the
companies were gearing up to do just that. He stated there was
much public outcry against that practice and opined that it has
been all but curtailed. Certainly from a regulatory
perspective, that is something his group is hoping will not
happen in Alaska, he further opined.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that it probably didn't taste very good.
1:26:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if infusion is allowed under the
initiative and bills.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that infusion is not specifically
mentioned in the initiative, but there is nothing prohibiting it
as it reads that a person can manufacture marijuana products.
She said she would have to look at the definition of products
and accessories, but infusion would be decided on a regulatory
basis.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested an answer in the future as to
whether it is prohibited, and whether it should be prohibited.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that Ms. Schroeder's answer stated it is
not prohibitive.
MS. SHROEDER responded to Representative Gruenberg that she
would have to look at the definitions to determine how broad it
is and believes it is very broad. She advised there is nothing
that prohibits it specifically.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for clarification that with a
broad definition it would not be prohibited. In the event, it
is not prohibited, he related that he would like advice as to
whether the law should or should not prohibit it.
1:28:28 PM
MR. SCHULTE opined that infusion into the production of edible
products is absolutely contemplated and allowed under the terms
of the initiative. That being said, he offered, he
wholeheartedly agrees that it should be allowed as the manner of
consumption of marijuana has evolved quite a bit. Hash was a
rarity and hash oil was almost non-existent [approximately 30
years ago]. These days, he pointed out, a significant portion
of the consumer base is edibles, oils, and tinctures. He
remarked he had spoken with medical patients who could not smoke
the products and consumed it to keep their appetite up and
maintain their body weight. He further pointed out that the
market and habits of consumption are skewed toward edibles and
concentrates.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned his testimony in that
Detective Phelps had said that people thought infusion should be
prohibited.
MR. SCHULTE replied that previously he was referring to the
secondary application of THC to an existing familiar product,
such as, gummy bears.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for clarification that Detective
Phelps was speaking about one specific type of process, whether
that type of process is now allowed under the initiative, and if
it is, should that limit the type of infusion prohibited.
MR. SCHULTE submitted that the adulteration of existing familiar
products specifically, those that are child friendly, should be
banned.
1:31:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned if it was permissible to do
that under the initiative.
MR. SCHULTE responded "I believe it is."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to pursue that issue.
MR. SCHULTE reiterated that he was not speaking of all edibles,
just the very narrow issue of potential safety of minors.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would ascertain whether that
was allowed under the initiative.
1:31:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what type of infusion would be banned under
the initiative.
MR. SCHULTE opined that the initiative allows for reasonable
limits on packaging, which constitutes packaging. In hoping for
a responsible industry, he agreed that nothing should be
packaged that unnecessarily invites children that could lead to
misuse by those under 21.
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that there must be laws on the books
regarding adulterating an existing product. She further stated
that someone cannot take a candy bar, and without the
manufacturer's permission, infuse it with vodka or gin. She
remarked there are other health and safety laws that probably,
with the federal or state government, prohibit those actions
already.
MR. SCHULTE replied that he could not agree more and, if someone
[adulterated] existing products he would expect them to receive
a letter from a lawyer in short order.
MS. SCHROEDER responded to Chair LeDoux that the question is
outside of criminal contacts, although it sounded reasonable and
she agreed with Mr. Schulte.
1:33:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN observed that there was a distinction
regarding criminal statutes having to do with possession versus
what may be a regulatory matter. He asked what information
should be listed on the labels on the packaging and offered a
scenario of a person that is allowed to have one ounce of hash
oil in their house invites their friends over to dip gummy bears
in the hash oil to eat. He further asked whether the person is
protected under the statute because a person is allowed to do
what they like at home, rather than someone infusing Hershey
bars that are put in a Hershey bar wrapper and sold in a
marijuana store. He said it is a different topic than what
people may choose to do in their homes with quantities of
marijuana or marijuana derivatives wherein they are allowed to
do "pretty much" what they want to even though it might taste
bad.
MR. SCHULTE responded that he agrees they are different
considerations in whether it is criminal or regulatory. He
opined the initiative clearly envisions a commercial industry
operating under reasonable guidelines of packaging and labeling,
which his group wholeheartedly endorses. In turn, it makes
provisions for cultivation and possession in a person's home.
He related that the initiative is largely silent as to what one
does with those products in their home. He surmised that the
Libertarian in him would probably ague that is the individual's
right as long as they are not endangering children, but it is
beyond his legal expertise, he said, and the scope of the
initiative. He agreed they are different issues and is not sure
what the proper answer would be.
1:36:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked when Detective Phelps stops a car
due to suspicion of the person being under the influence of
marijuana, whether that gives him a right to search the entire
car without a warrant.
DETECTIVE PHELPS responded that when a person is pulled over law
enforcement does not know what substance causing impairment,
just possibly the person is too impaired to be driving.
Speaking with the person helps them to ascertain whether it is
alcohol, a medical condition, or something else. He related
that when a person is arrested for being under the influence of
marijuana, law enforcement can search the car because it would
be a search incident to arrest.
DETECTIVE PHELPS responded to Representative Gruenberg that law
enforcement could not search the trunk of the car, just the
person's immediate surroundings otherwise it would require a
warrant.
1:38:32 PM
MS. SCHROEDER replied to Representative Gruenberg that Detective
Phelps and law enforcement are on the ground doing this every
day and his testimony sounded correct but she would check. She
noted there is a larger expectation of privacy in one's trunk
than in the body of the car, and there is a safety in the wing
space within a person's reach.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said over the years there has been
"second generation" legislation in that questions have to be
answered after the initial legislation, one of which
generically, is the scope of the search. He requested something
in writing on the marijuana samples before the committee, and
what may be different with other drugs and alcohol. He opined
it may be similar to other drugs but there will be more people
smoking and using.
1:40:29 PM
MS. SCHROEDER responded that the initiative does not change how
the state would investigate or prosecute driving under the
influence as far as search and seizure laws so it would all be
the same.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned paraphernalia possession.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that under the initiative, possession of
paraphernalia alone is not a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised there is no probable cause.
MS. SCHRODER responded "Right."
1:41:26 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Dennis Casanovas, Alaska State Troopers, if
he agreed with the responses from Detective Phelps and Ms.
Schroeder.
1:41:44 PM
DENNIS CASANOVAS, Major, Deputy Director, Central Office,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety,
said he does not disagree with the testimony thus far.
1:42:25 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the explosiveness of butane and hash
oil and asked whether hash oil is particularly explosive, or
more explosive than cooking oil or any other oil.
MR. SCHULTE responded that hash oil itself is not explosive as
it is a fairly benign product. He opined that the confusion
could be related to the reference of butane hash oil, which
refers to the oil product and one of many processes used to
extract it. He pointed out that butane misused is a volatile
and explosive gas, as in aviation fuel, or propane as all are
potentially dangerous. The hash oil itself, properly extracted
and purged of residual butane is not at all volatile.
1:43:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a "cheat sheet" in the
committee member's packet and asked why a person would add
butane to hash oil.
MR. SCHULTZ responded that a person would not deliberately add
butane to hash oil, but residual amounts of butane can end up in
the hash oil. He said there is a process of purging butane by
warming it slightly or putting it in a vacuum chamber to allow
it to off gas and rid it of residual butane. He pointed out
that in a commercial environment many operators do not use
butane at all and instead use high pressure CO2 in a close loop
extraction system.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for clarification that the use of
butane does not make it particularly more explosive.
MR. SCHULTE replied that the use of butane in the extraction
process does not necessarily make the oil volatile because the
residual amounts of butane are measurable but almost negligible.
It is the process of extract that has proven to be hazardous and
should be discouraged, he explained.
1:45:33 PM
MR. SCHULTE responded to Chair LeDoux that butane is used for
lighters and there are probably other uses for compressed butane
that he is not aware of.
CHAIR LEDOUX said in these other uses of butane whether butane
is dangerous in other processes.
MR. SCHULTE answered that the use of butane with marijuana is
potentially hazardous because it is done inside with normal
lighting, light switches, and cell phones, of which all are
ignition sources and potentially very dangerous. He contends
the best way to diminish that practice is to ensure there is a
retail industry where a person could simply go to the store and
buy [hash oil] that is extracted by trained professionals in a
suitable environment using safe equipment at a much lower price
and a better product. Ultimately, he opined, that is the way to
really get at the problem of inadvertent fires from butane hash
oil extraction.
1:47:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned if it would also be getting
into the area of negligent burning.
MS. SCHROEDER replied that if a person was to do something in an
unsafe manner that caused property damage or harm to other
people they would be subject to a whole slew of potential
criminal charges. She said it would be hard to narrow down
exactly which ones they would be charged with as it would be
very fact specific.
1:48:20 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that the possibility of a $300 fine probably
isn't going to be the thing which tells the person "I can't do
it, we've got a $300 fine to worry about," when there is the
possibility of blowing up a person's house, blowing the person
up, and blowing children up. Obviously, she further noted, it
would be a good idea to discourage people from attempting the
butane method through education and another [extraction] method.
She was not sure that a fine would be the dispositive thing in
someone's consideration.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked the difference between hash and flowers.
MR. SHULTE responded that he had passed around a small jar with
hash in it.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked if his sample of hash oil was the normal
smell of hash as it smelled cinnamon-y and smelled good.
MR. SCHULTE noted that hash oil has a very distinctive smell and
he placed a sample of dried flowers and hash oil before him in
parallel. He explained that the two concentrated forms, hash
and hash oil, are derived from the flowers by using different
processes and in each case sometimes several processes are
available. The flower itself is organic and there are small
resin glands on the surface of a mature female plant which
contains THC baring resins. The goal of both concentrates, he
remarked, is to extract the THC baring resins from the rest of
the organic material and used the analogy of separating the
wheat from the chaff.
1:51:17 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether a person purchases a male or a
female plant.
MR. SCHULTE responded that the female plant is the plant that
produces the desirable resin glands, and male plants are used
for no purpose other than pollenating the female plants. In
fact, he explained, most commercial settings do not want the
female plant pollenated because when it is not pollenated it
will produce more resins. When the female plant produces resin
it is a reproductive response in that the female is trying to
effect pollen from the males and if there are no males around it
goes "nuts" in producing resin until it is finally chopped down
and harvested. He described that the males are typically ripped
up and thrown away and that it is possible to produce only
female plants. In a commercial setting if a person has 100
plants and has ensured that they are all female, a way of
promulgating them is to take cutting from those plants, root
them, and generate more plants. The cuttings largely have the
same genetic characteristics as the original plant, therefore,
they are all females. He remarked the only time a person would
want a male plant is if they are in the process of developing
strains wherein they want to generate seeds and spawn a new crop
by genetically combining two different strains. A good example
is the medicinal strain called "Charlotte's Web" which contains
CBD (Cannabidiol) that has proven to be beneficial regarding
epilepsy. He noted that some marijuana strains are high in THC
and some are high in CBD. He explained that THC is a psycho-
active component and CBD is the more medicinal component. He
pointed out that the initiative allows for businesses such as
that and he could envision hard core horticulturists finding the
market in Alaska to develop new strains. The female plant holds
very tiny crystals which, he described, are the resin glands
which by now have been dried and cured slightly. He noted that
when the flowers are put into a bucket of ice it causes the
resin glands to be brittle which tend to be heavier than the
rest of the organic material. The resin glands then drop to the
bottom where they are filtered off and dried. He offered that
his sample is called ice water hash.
1:55:10 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether that it is a much safer process
than butane.
MR. SCHULTE agreed but, he said, butane would be used to extract
hash oil which is why he put the flowers and hash parallel as
they are similar chemically, but not the same product at all. A
person might use ice water or dry ice to isolate the crystals to
produce hash or use another solvent like butane or CO2 to
basically wash the crystals from the leaf and produce hash oil.
With regard to Representative Claman's earlier question, he
replied that one would use quantities of the sample to produce
edible products, although a person can use hash as well. The
sample could be mixed in with butter to produce baked products
because it is free of organic material and is not all the leaf
and cellular structure associated with the sample.
1:56:10 PM
MR. SCHULTE responded to Chair LeDoux that the sample is
actually fat soluble so if it is put in butter, it will
dissolve.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to the initiative which refers to one ounce
and questioned whether the "green stuff" was measured in volume
ounce or a weight ounce, and asked whether the liquid is
measured by weight or a liquid measurement.
MR. SCHULTE stated "I'm not sure," typically an ounce of flowers
and a couple grams of hash would be by weight, but he was not
certain.
1:57:33 PM
MS. SCHROEDER responded to Chair LeDoux that the initiative does
not distinguish between liquids and solids and how marijuana is
supposed to be weighed. Under the state's current drug
offenses, most of the things that are liquid are classified so
high that they are not measured by any amount. For instance,
she said, it is against the law to have any amount of certain
things and liquids generally fall into that category. Law
enforcement is not doing a lot of weighing of liquids which is
why there is a question as to how hash oil should be weighed.
She offered that the most common way things are weighed right
now is by mass.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thought an ounce, pound, grams
and kilograms are measurements by weight, whereas when
discussing volumes it could be a teaspoon or tablespoon, cup,
gallon and so forth. He questioned whether the law uses that
type of measurement of "an ounce" to measure liquids.
MS SCHROEDER reiterated that most liquids fall into the "any
amount" provision so it does not have to be weighed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that the use of the term ounce
would normally be a measurement of weight.
MR. SHULTE hesitated to offer a definitive answer due to the
difference between a measured ounce and a fluid ounce. He said
he will research the issue and come up with a more definitive
distinction.
2:00:03 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed with Representative Lynn in that within
pending marijuana legislation a committee should put definitions
into the language.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said things like fuel are taxed a
certain amount per gallon.
2:01:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that within the Federal Criminal
Code and possibly the Alaska Criminal Code that it is weighed by
mass and not by volume as the mass is easier to be consistent.
He stated that after researching the issue, if it turns out that
weight is not determined by mass as opposed to volume it should
be fixed.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how much an ounce of hash oil in a liquid
measuring cup would weigh.
2:03:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND, Alaska State Legislature,
related that one liquid cup has eight ounces of liquid, and an
ounce of water does not weigh an ounce when put on a scale
because a liquid ounce is different from a mass ounce. She
opined that marijuana and its derivatives are measured by THC
and CBD content.
MR. SCHULTE offered that in commerce the percentage of THC is
rarely discussed, although in Colorado they do label various
products for the percentage of THC. He said that a person would
not conduct a transaction other than secondarily as certain
products may be higher in one than the other and it may be a
different price.
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that beer has a different alcohol content
than does vodka or whiskey, but still the transaction is not
offered in alcohol content.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND related that some states have "near
beer" with a very low alcohol content, and noted there is plenty
of beer with a higher alcohol content that begins to approach
hard liquor.
2:05:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed to AS 45.75.190 and advised it
is a chapter in the Weights and Measures Act that specifically
discusses methods of sale of commodities and how that should be
measured.
CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated that Representative Lynn is correct in
that this area requires clarification and it is this committee's
job to determine how to sensibly clarify it.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said that one gram of water is one
milliliter of water in the metric system so one liter of water,
which is 1,000 milliliters of water weighs one kilogram and a
liter is almost the same as a quart. Therefore, if you weighed
a water bottle and deducted the weight of the bottle it would
weigh approximately 2.2 pounds and roughly 250 grams of water
equals one cup.
2:07:48 PM
MR. SHULTE offered that airplane fuel is measured by pounds and
not by the weight because the volume varies with atmospheric
conditions. For purposes of this discussion, there are only two
scenarios where this will come into play, personal possession
and commercial production. When it comes to personal possession
the question may arise whether the person has an ounce of hash
oil or 1.5 ounces of hash oil. The other circumstance would be
at a commercial setting where there may be several gallons of
hash oil because they are producing large quantities of edible
products. He noted it is not a criminal issue and more of a
matter of commerce. He agreed it as an issue that should be
nailed down but in practice it actually impacts this discussion
only in a very narrow circumstance.
CHAIR LEDOUX voiced her concern for the law enforcement officer
who is thinking of arresting a person based upon a certain
amount of hash oil as it would be a good idea to make sure
everyone knows the rules before engaging in the practice.
2:10:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to the "cheat sheet" and asked
the definition of "keef" and how is it different from hash.
MR. SHULTE responded that keef is a slang term which refers to
the accumulated resin glands known in botanical circles as
tricombs which are not unique to the cannabis plant as many
plants produce them. The tiny resinous tricombs can be
extracted through various means, ice water and/or dry ice
processes. He advised if he was to take a mature marijuana
plant with crystals and glands on it and hang it upside down,
and shake it, the tricombs that fall out onto the table is keef.
If a person gathers them up into a little pile and compress it,
it becomes hash.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether [the tricombs] falling off
the mature but fresh plant would have a different characteristic
than after it has been dried, or is drying part of the process,
she questioned.
MR. SHULTE related that keef and hash really do not change that
much even though they do cure. He explained there is a chemical
breakdown of various products within and that the taste and
smell changes over time. He referred to the dried sample in
front of him and said that due to the way it was extracted, it
was very wet and damp and had to dry for a time and if a person
uses dry ice as an alternative it dries in a matter of hours.
2:12:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND clarified that hash doesn't really dry
out because it is oil soluble so it is oily.
MR. SHULTE responded that it largely does dry but remains
pliable and not very sticky, yet when on the plant it is very
sticky but does dry out a bit. He described it as dense clay
but a little drier, like clay and sand together. He showed an
example of a tincture and advised it is fairly popular amongst
medicinal users. A medicinal user can take very concentrated
hash oil and dilute it with an alcohol and the tincture can then
be sprayed or dropped into a beverage, he explained.
MR. SHULTE responded to Chair LeDoux that it could be used
recreationally as well.
2:13:38 PM
MR. SHULTE responded to Chair LeDoux that the alcohol he
referred to was like rubbing alcohol, and very small amounts.
Definitely not rum or whiskey and, he expressed, he is not
suggesting for a moment to combine marijuana products with
anything bought at a package liquor store as it is more of a
laboratory process.
CHAIR LEDOUX described the tincture as a spray as in putting on
perfume.
MR. SHULTE said that it is an atomizer.
2:14:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to keef and asked whether it is
also called shake and bud.
MR. SHULTE said "not exactly," and referred to samples in front
of him of which was the core of a flower of a mature plant with
dense leaf structure and all of the reproduction components of
the plant. He described that shake is all of the leaf that
falls off of the plant and is much lower in potency. In order
of potency per unit weight there is shake, bud, and hash in
ascending order of potency. Although, he said, if the sample
was crushed and shaken eventually there would be a small layer
of what appeared to be sand which would be keef.
2:15:51 PM
MR. SCHULTE said he referred earlier to the different forms of
consumption and the various samples were bud, leaf, hash and
hash oil, [and tincture]. He explained that the consumption of
hash oil includes using it in edibles or smoking the oil. A
person could put a few drops on a joint or on a cigarette to
give it a burnable medium.
MR. SCHULTE responded to Chair LeDoux that hash oil could be put
on a marijuana cigarette or a tobacco cigarette. He then
referred to tobacco E-cigarettes as being the same technology
for marijuana consumers. He demonstrated a battery pack from
one such device and said it is notable in two ways in that it
has become a more common method of consumption, and has very
little residual smoke and uses a diluted form of hash oil as the
combustible material. He remarked that he brought it up due to
public consumption being allowed in specific designated areas
and businesses. He said it is valuable to consider that E-
cigarettes are a growing method of consumption in the marijuana
community.
2:18:05 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opined that with regard to smoking marijuana,
unless a person takes a drag, inhales it, and pulls it into
their lungs that it doesn't really accomplish its goal. She
questioned how the E-cigarette vaporizer does any good.
MR. SCHULTE answered that the terminology is misleading in that
it is a vaporizer in the sense that it takes the material, heats
it rapidly to several hundred degrees and vaporizes the oil
which the person does inhale.
CHAIR LEDOUX quiered that the person would still have to breathe
deeply and have it in their lungs.
MR. SCHULTE responded "Yes," in that scenario, whereas with a
tincture a person could spray it on their tongue.
2:19:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the battery pack and advised
is called "vaping," and that a criticisms of vaping is the
chemicals used in the fluid. He noted that little is known and
vaping is unregulated, so there is an issue of what a person is
actually inhaling.
MR. SCHULTE answered that his question relates to more than the
marijuana industry as E-cigarettes have lead the way in that
regard. Mr. Schulte agreed that there are questions about
secondary products, the catalyst, or the vehicle used to deliver
the oil. He offered that he is not an expert in the devices but
could research the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted if there was a marijuana control
board that vaping may be an appropriate subject for regulation.
MR. SCHULTE agreed that it should be addressed in regulation.
2:21:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to Mr. Schulte's wealth of
knowledge and asked whether he took a class to become so
knowledgeable.
MR. SCHULTE related that he is not a large consumer in that his
work makes it impractical because he is drug tested, and stated
that he has friends and he has performed research.
2:22:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Alaskans are willing to
discuss things that in earlier years were controversial.
2:23:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to "black market" marijuana as
opposed to legal market marijuana and questioned whether Mr.
Schulte had any suggestions or recommendations that would make
the transition from a black market to a legal market for
marijuana.
MS. SCHULTE said his group shares the goal of taking an existing
$100 million industry in Alaska and moving it to a legitimate
business model. In order to encourage that process Alaska
should have a regulatory structure that appropriately addresses
public safety and health, but is not so onerous that it keeps
people out of the industry. The goal is to encourage the casual
participant grower or seller to obtain a permit, file tax
returns and pay excise tax. Keeping things reasonable simple,
he noted, is a huge part of it, plus keeping the cost down. The
initiative identifies a $50 excise tax and, he remarked, this
industry should not be subsidized by the state. He opined that
it can be self-supporting and hopes that the application fees
and permit fees, and so forth, are kept to a reasonable minimum.
In that regard, the legitimate industry would want to
participate and it can compete effectively with the black
market. He described it as a fine balance and noted that it may
have to be evaluated through trial and error. He referred to
the IRS rules and banking rules, and so forth, and advised that
all of those things taken together could make this business
viable ... a business plan around this industry will diminish
the black market. He reiterated that it may take several years
but if the state makes it attractive to legitimate businesses
the state will see a huge reduction of the black market.
2:26:13 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether Mr. Schulte had any idea where the
banking industry is right now [on the marijuana issue], and
whether there has there been any movement on that level. [Her
concern] is that the state will continue to see an industry
dealing solely in cash because it can't put its money in a bank.
MR. SCHULTE responded that federally it is a problem as
federally insured banks have problems handling anything related
to marijuana. He remarked that his group is hopeful the federal
government will reschedule marijuana as that would positively
affect many federal laws around banking rules, IRS rules, and so
forth.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted there is nothing the state legislature can
do.
MR. SCHULTE agreed and offered that Colorado has a state
sponsored bank model that is either being implemented or very
close to implementing.
CHAIR LEDOUX opined that Alaska has the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries and Agriculture Bank (CFAB), and marijuana could be
viewed as agriculture.
2:28:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated North Dakota is the first and
only state to have an official state bank owned by the state
government. He opined that Hawaii is looking into doing the
same thing, and that Representative Kawasaki is looking into it
in Alaska. He remarked that this committee or another committee
should have a hearing to see what can be done.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she found the initiative process and committee
process interesting in that the legislature's feelings have run
the gamut. Even so, she noted, there has been no effort made to
torpedo the process. She opined that everyone believes the
legislature must acknowledge the will of the people, and the
people have spoken, and she related she is thankful for her
colleagues.
[HB 79 was held over.]
2:30:26 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|