Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/05/2021 09:00 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB155 | |
| HB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 5, 2021
9:02 a.m.
9:02:28 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Sara Rasmussen
ALSO PRESENT
Mike Mason, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck; Doug
Wooliver, Deputy Administrative Director, Alaska Court
System; Representative Sara Hannan, Sponsor; Stephanie
Andrew, Staff, Representative Sara Hannan; Nancy Meade,
General Counsel, Alaska Court System.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
James Stinson, Director, Office of Public Advocacy; Katie
Steffens, Deputy Program Manager, Tobacco Prevention and
Control, Department of Health and Social Services; Joe
Darnell, Investigator III, Tobacco Section, Division of
Behavioral Health, Department of Health and Social
Services.
SUMMARY
HB 110 AGE FOR NICOTINE/E-CIG; TAX E-CIG.
HB 110 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 155 COURT SYSTEM PROVIDE VISITORS & EXPERTS
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to court-appointed visitors and
experts; relating to the powers and duties of the
office of public advocacy; relating to the powers and
duties of the Alaska Court System; and providing for
an effective date."
9:03:02 AM
MIKE MASON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, introduced
himself. He read the prepared statement:
"Good morning. I'm Mike Mason, staff to Representative
Chris Tuck. He apologizes for not being here this
morning.
The development of House Bill 155 is the result of a
meeting Rep. Tuck had scheduled with James Stinson,
the Executive Director of the Office of Public
Advocacy in early March of this year. Unfortunately,
Rep. Tuck got called away at the last minute and I
ended up taking the meeting. After a short
conversation I was convinced to try and help, and Rep.
Tuck agreed. We had the bill drafted and introduced.
Very simply, House Bill 155 transfers the Alaska Court
Visitor Program from the Office of Public Advocacy to
the Alaska Court System. This transfer would move a
program from the executive branch of government to the
judicial branch of government. However, it takes this
branch of government to make it happen.
Rep. Tuck decided to sponsor House Bill 155 after
learning two facts. There is no legislative history
explaining why the Court Visitor Program was placed
under the direction of the Office of Public Advocacy
(OPA - part of the executive branch). The Alaska Court
System and the Office of Public Advocacy support the
transfer of the program. (Both sides will testify to
that fact).
Currently, the Office of Public Advocacy is required
by law to provide court visitor services. A court
visitor is a neutral person with specialized training
or experience. (Law, medical care, mental healthcare,
pastoral care, social work) The individuals chosen to
serve as court visitors conduct independent
investigations and make recommendations to the court
system about guardianships or conservatorships.
Guardianships are used to protect individuals who
cannot care for their well-being due to incapacity or
disability. Conservatorships are used to manage an
incapacitated person or minor's financial and personal
affairs. Court visitors also participate in
psychotropic medication proceedings during involuntary
commitments to investigate whether the patient can
give or withhold informed consent.
The Court Visitor Program was created in 1984, and in
recent years it has become apparent that the program
should be under the direction of the Alaska Court
System. As its name implies, the Office of Public
Advocacy does advocacy. Court visitors do not function
in an advocacy position.
As you will hear in just a moment from the
representatives of the Office of Public Advocacy and
the Court System? there is a fundamental inefficiency
within the Court Visitor Program. As currently
written, state law gives the Office of Public Advocacy
the responsibility of providing court visitors in
guardianship and involuntary medication proceedings.
(OPA pays the bills). The Alaska Court System
contracts and pays for the court visitors that serve
in conservatorship proceedings. (Court system pays the
bills)
House Bill 155 solves this inefficiency by
transferring the entire Alaska Court Visitor Program
to the Alaska Court System.
As you will hear in just a moment, House Bill 155 is a
collaborative effort between the executive branch and
the judicial branch, asking the legislative branch to
fix a flaw in state law that hampers a good program's
effectiveness. Invited testimony includes James
Stinson, the Director of the Office of Public
Advocacy, and Doug Wooliver, the Deputy Administrative
Director for the Alaska Court System.
The Office of Public Advocacy's budget for the Court
Visitor Program is $854,400. (Included in the
Governor's FY 22 budget request). The fiscal note from
the Court System notes that cost plus 1 additional
staff person to oversee the training, supervision, and
scheduling of court visitors. ($960,600 Included in
the Court System's FY 22 budget request). If the bill
passes, the funding would be reflected in the fiscal
note section of the budget bill, HB 69."
Mr. Mason was available for questions.
9:07:01 AM
Representative Johnson asked if someone online would be
available to review the fiscal note. Mr. Mason responded
that the Alaska Court System and the Office of Public
Advocacy could provide details of the fiscal note.
Representative Johnson asked if the bill was a transfer
from one department to another with no additional costs.
Mr. Mason stated that everyone worked together on the bill
and the parties could explain what was reflected in the
fiscal note. The court system would take over the current
costs. He noted there was an additional position reflected
in the note. The Office of Public Advocacy's budget for the
Court Visitor Program was $854,400 which was included in
the governor's FY 22 budget request. The fiscal note from
the Alaska Court System reflected that cost plus the cost
of one additional staff person who would oversee the
training, supervision, and the scheduling of court
visitors. The amount was $960,600 and was included in the
Alaska Court System's FY 22 budget request. If the bill
passed, the funding would be reflected in the fiscal note
section of the budget bill. Mr. Stinson and Mr. Wooliver
could provide additional details. Representative Johnson
thought she might have additional questions at a later
time.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee would be hearing
invited testimony.
9:09:05 AM
AT EASE
9:09:34 AM
RECONVENED
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, agreed that the change had been overdue. The Alaska
Court System had had several meetings over the years with
OPA about transferring the Court Visitors Program from OPA
to the Alaska Court System. The transfer made sense. He
explained that when OPA was created, it was responsible for
things related to guardianships and the Court Visitors
Program was lumped into the office. However, the Court
Visitors Program was really a court function. Court
visitors served as experts for the court. They reported to
the court and were neutral evaluators investigating cases
to ensure that the request for guardianships or
conservatorships were appropriate.
Mr. Wooliver continued that both entities had wanted to
make the change for several years, but it fell off of the
radar. Commissioner Dave Donley contacted him to try to get
legislation passed in the current session. It had
originally showed up as a budget item. There was a deficit
in OPA's budget and an increment in the Alaska Court System
Budget. However, it took legislation to make such a change
which was reflected in the fiscal note. The request had
been removed in the budget and into the present fiscal
note. Should the bill pass, the transfer would take place.
If not, he would address the bill again in the following
year.
Mr. Wooliver informed the committee that the court system
normally did not take positions on bills. However, HB 155
was an exception because it had been a joint effort between
the Alaska Court System and OPA. He addressed the fiscal
note. The difference in the note was that the Alaska Court
System would add a staff person that would do the training,
scheduling, and hiring, of the court visitors. If the bill
did not pass, OPA indicated it would hire a person which
was reflected in the office's budget request.
Co-Chair Merrick noted Representative Wool had joined the
meeting.
Representative Josephson asked if Mr. Wooliver would need
space in the court house to house the employees. Mr.
Wooliver replied that the court visitors were contractors
who did not need to be housed.
Representative Johnson asked where the new employee would
be housed. Mr. Wooliver replied that the position would
likely be housed in the Anchorage Court House.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Wooliver for being in the
meeting. Mr. Wooliver thanked the committee for hearing the
bill.
9:14:26 AM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY (via
teleconference), echoed Mr. Wooliver's comments. When he
became director of OPA about 3 years prior, the program
struck him as an oddity. He spoke with people who had
institutional knowledge and had been around OPA for several
years. They shared the same opinion. There seemed to be a
consensus and a legislative audit that agreed that it was a
strange program to house in the executive branch under the
Department of Administration (DOA). The only inference to
OPA had to do with guardianships. Therefore, it was placed
with OPA rather than the court system. He noted the court
system did conservatorships which was the reason it never
made much sense for an arm of the court system to be house
in OPA. It did not matter how effectively OPA tried to
communicate with an arm of the court system, ultimately,
the court system would be able to communicate with its own
arm more efficiently.
Mr. Stinson conveyed that OPA provided respondent counsel
in proceedings often arguing against a court visitor's
opinion. Conservatorship was a serious restriction to a
person's financial liberty, and guardianship was the
highest form of a person's liberty restriction. In such
cases, a person had the right to an attorney. The Office of
Public Advocacy provided that attorney which created
additional tension. He was not sure if it created an actual
conflict but certainly the perception of a conflict. The
Alaska statutes outlined that OPA could not exercise undue
influence over court visitors. The boundaries were clear in
statute. However, they were murkier around OPA's oversight
of court visitors. Several issues had allowed the program
to stumble along without much meaningful oversight or
training.
Mr. Stinson suggested that by placing the program within
the court system judges and court visitors could be trained
together. The court system could cater the program to
regions that had different challenges outside of urban
areas. He thought the legislation was a win for all parties
and would result in better outcomes. He believed there
would be a more efficient administration of the program as
a court function saving the state money.
Co-Chair Merrick commented that the committee loved saving
money. She directed Mr. Stinson to review the fiscal note.
9:18:07 AM
Mr. Stinson indicated the Office of Public Advocacy would
be transferring contract dollars to the Alaska Court
System, as there were no dedicated PCNs. The work was
performed by independent contractors rather than State of
Alaska employees. The program had grown substantially
primarily due to an aging population. He conveyed when
someone was under guardianship there was a 3-year review in
which a court visitor provided an update to the court
system as to whether the person still needed guardianship.
There was an important liberty interest at stake. It
ultimately stacked costs because guardianships had the
potential to last a long time. A person could require
guardianship or conservatorship for their natural life. The
court system wanted to have a sufficient amount of money to
fund paying court visitors, but they also needed some sort
of administrative oversight position to make the program
function well and to ensure training. He reported that OPA
did not have such a position. He thought it was reasonable
for the Court System to request an added position. If OPA
were to continue administrating the program, it would want
to add a position to provide the best possible service
despite the challenges.
Representative Johnson asked Mr. Stinson to identify some
of the savings. Mr. Stinson responded that savings would be
attained through increasing efficiencies. He thought the
program would grow, as it was a a mandated service. He
suggested that the Alaska Court System would be a better
steward of funding because they would be able to set
standards of practice, directly supervise its own arm, get
rid of problem contractors, help improve problem
contractors, set minimum standards, and set reporting
requirements. It was a direct court function. He thought
the result would be less waste and more efficiency.
Representative Johnson disagreed. She thought it might work
better within the court system and be a better program
overall. She wanted to be clear that if the legislature was
increasing costs, the program should improve.
9:22:30 AM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
9:22:40 AM
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated amendments were due in the
current day by 6:00 p.m.
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act raising the minimum age to purchase, sell,
exchange, or possess tobacco, a product containing
nicotine, or an electronic smoking product; relating
to transporting tobacco, a product containing
nicotine, or an electronic smoking product; relating
to the taxation of electronic smoking products; and
providing for an effective date."
9:23:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN, SPONSOR, explained HB 110 taxed
vaping products or electronic smoking devices. There was a
section included in the bill that defined electronic
smoking devices. The bill raised the minimum age for
purchasing tobacco in Alaska to 21. It also prohibited the
sales of tobacco products over the internet and required a
third party verification for a delivery. If a person were
to order tobacco products from a shop in Anchorage to be
delivered to Nome, they would have to verify their age with
the delivery person upon arrival. It would not be
considered an internet sale.
Representative Hannan relayed that the bill also placed
vaping products into Alaska's tobacco taxation structure.
In Alaska, tobacco taxes were uniform by type. However, the
statutes distinguished cigarettes, cigars, and chewing
tobacco by type. Vaping was not taxed, as it was not a
thing the last time tobacco taxes were modified. Vaping was
not mentioned in the statute and therefore not taxed. She
thought vaping was similar to all of Alaska's nicotine
products, and currently vaping was extremely popular among
underage smokers. Between 2017 and 2018 the Centers for
Disease Control's National Youth Tobacco Survey saw a 78
percent increase in the use of e-cigarettes by high school
students. Many people knew, and she knew as a high school
teacher, that the United States had done a really good job
in its campaign to reduce smoking. Several kids would be
aghast if they were accused of smoking a cigarette, as they
would never consider it. However, kids did not view vaping
in the same tone or tenor or with the same risk-level or
concern.
Representative Hannan continued that young people were
price-sensitive in everything they did, and tobacco taxes
had always been part of a regime to reduce youth
participation in smoking. She reported that 80 percent of
high schoolers that smoked e-cigarettes did not perceive it
as a risky behavior. She asserted that vaping was just as
risky to a person's long-term health as other smoking. The
time to stop a person's addiction was prior to starting the
habit. She thought price sensitivity was good if it kept a
person from becoming a participant.
Representative Hannan concluded that HB 110 would have the
effect of keeping someone from starting to vape. It would
reduce youth entering the smoking arena. As a side effect
it would also improve the revenue picture for Alaska. It
would not be a huge revenue producer but would be expected
to produce about $2.5 million in revenues. She was
available for questions.
9:28:29 AM
Representative Thompson asked whether a military exemption
could apply. Representative Hannan replied that the federal
government had already changed the legal smoking age to 21
through an initiative, T-21, by President Trump. As of
December 2019, the federal smoking age was 21, and the
Department of Defense was required to restrict smoking on
bases to anyone under 21 and restrict the sale of products
to 21 years of age or older.
Representative Thompson clarified that a person under 21
would be breaking the law if they were in possession of
smoking products or caught smoking. He asked if he was
correct. Representative Hannan responded in the
affirmative. The federal law was currently 21. The bill
would bring Alaska statutes into compliance and alignment
with the federal government's actions in 2019.
Representative Thompson wondered whether the state should
also change its law for smoking Marijuana, as it did not
conform with federal law. Representative Hannan responded
that Alaska did not have to change the law around the
smoking age. Alaska sometimes blatantly disregarded federal
law. It was a policy question. She asserted it was a good
thing to do in order to discourage young people from
smoking. She indicated, when she first introduced a vape
tax bill a couple of years ago, she did not include an age
change. The age change came about from the federal
government. It seemed appropriate to be aligned with the
federal government. It also created a larger age gap
between high schoolers and adults. By the time a person
turned 21 they were in a different population setting. She
thought the bill was constructive in discouraging smoking.
Representative Thompson did not disagree. He planned on
introducing an amendment.
9:32:11 AM
Co-Chair Merrick noted Vice-Chair Ortiz had joined the
meeting.
Representative Wool shared some of the same concerns of
Representative Thompson. He had more of a Libertarian
approach to the issues. He grew up in an era where at 18 a
person could vote, drink, smoke, join the army, or carry a
gun. At 18 a person could go to war and kill people. He was
of the mindset of someone being an adult at age 18. He
stated that currently a person could smoke at age 18 and
could purchase cigarettes at age 19 (to avoid tobacco
products being brought into school). At his high school he
could smoke outside. He came from a different generation.
His problem was that if a person had to be 21 in order to
buy or smoke tobacco or vape products, a 20-year old would
be breaking the law.
Representative Wool continued that the other problem he had
was that if a person got caught, they would enter the
criminal justice system. He did not think Alaska needed
more kids in the criminal justice system. He also asked
about enforcement and whether it would be selective. He
suggested that minorities would more likely be charged with
infractions. He was glad the fine was removed from the
bill. However, an offender would be required to attend
cessation classes. He did not have a problem with taxing
vaping products. However, he did have a problem with a
young person having to attend a class or entering the
criminal justice system. He asked the bill sponsor to
comment.
9:36:16 AM
Representative Hannan thought most teenagers in Alaska
first entered into the court system through parking
infractions. Smoking infractions would be treated similarly
as a civil penalty rather than a criminal penalty. a
smoking infraction would be a ticketed offense much like
parking violations unless they reached a criminal level. A
violation for drunk driving was different than a parking
violation. Traffic citations were part of the civil system.
Ms. Mead from the Alaska Court System was available for
questions.
Representative Hannan noted Katie Steffens, a tobacco
expert from the the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), was available online who might be able to
address the comments made about the under 18 population
receiving citations for tobacco violations.
Representative Wool would be happy to hear from Ms.
Stephens and wanted to hear from Ms. Mead as well. He
disagreed that the infraction was like a parking ticket.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated Ms. Mead was an invited
testifier who would be presenting to the committee
momentarily.
9:38:52 AM
KATIE STEFFENS, DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER, TOBACCO PREVENTION
AND CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), deferred to Joe Darnell who could better
address the question.
Representative Wool did not know the numbers. He wondered
who would pay for cessation classes. He suggested that if
he were a kid, he would not want to have to pay for them.
9:40:28 AM
STEPHANIE ANDREW, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN,
thought Ms. Steffens spoke more to public health concerns.
She suggested she speak to the question the representative
had about the health impacts of an 18 year old versus a 21
year old. She suggested Ms. Mead could speak to the court
implications.
Representative Wool assumed the health impacts for an 18
year old and a 21 year old were similar.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee would move to a
question from Representative Josephson and then would have
Ms. Mead come to the table.
Representative Josephson recalled Senator Stevens being
involved in reform efforts. He noted two bills SB 15
[Legislation passed in 2018 - Short Title:
E-Cigs/Tobacco/Nicotine and Minors; Sales] and SB 182
[Legislation introduced in 2020 - Short Title: Age for
Nicotine/E-Cig; Tax E-Cig]. He recalled sitting in the
Labor and Commerce Committee and looking at a PowerPoint
about dismantling one of the vaping devices and what
portion of the device could be sold. He asked for some
context around other laws that have affected e-cigarettes.
Representative Hannan did not believe SB 15 became law, as
she and Senator Stevens had companion legislation. The
bills were not identical, as there were two definition
changes. Senator Stevens' bill mentioned e-hookahs while
HB 110 referred to them as e-smoking devices. His bill
changed the age and taxes and currently sat in the Senate
Finance Committee. She asked if Representative Josephson
wanted to know more about the devices.
Representative Josephson would look to see what other
recent bills became law and impacted the industry. He
wanted to get an overall sense of the issue. Representative
Hannan did not believe anything had been passed in the
Alaska Legislature on the subject. She noted that when
cannabis industry regulations and laws were put into place
vaping of cannabis was taxed and vape products were defined
in relation to cannabis taxation. She thought
Representative Josephson's recollection might be from 6
years prior.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought there was a reference made to Mr.
Darnell who might be able to address enforcement. Co-Chair
Merrick replied that the committee could hear from Mr.
Darnell following Ms. Mead's testimony. The committee had
been joined by Representative Edgmon.
9:44:01 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, thought
the concern was centered on AS.11.76.105 on page 2,
starting at line 21 of the bill. The provision made
possession of tobacco, electronic smoking products, or
nicotine products by someone under 21 a violation. The
provision was being changed from age 19 to age 21.
Electronic smoking products were added to the provision 2
years prior. The section was enforced by local law
enforcement officers and Alaska State Troopers who could
issue a citation for a violation. The court system received
such citations in some years but none in other years.
Occasionally, the court system would receive a bubble of
citations likely related to a sting operation. She could
supply specific data to anyone interested. There was a
contrasting provision in AS.11.76.100 through AS.11.76.109
giving authority to the Division of Behavioral Health
within the Department of Health and Social Services to
issue citations. She elaborated that DHSS could cite
vendors and sellers and take license action if there was a
conviction.
Ms. Mead continued that AS.11.76.105, the possession of a
minor, was a violation which required a mandatory court
appearance. Some traffic citations allowed for a person to
send in a payment for a fine and plead guilty to close
their case. However, possession of a minor required a court
appearance. The statute outlined that a person would be
subject to a fine of between zero and $500.
Ms. Mead pointed to page 15 of the bill which stated the
court could refer the defendant to a tobacco education
program in lieu of a fine. The court system had some
concern with the provision, as it did not keep track of
tobacco education programs. If the court ordered a minor or
a 20 year old to participate in such a class, it would be
lacking information about enforcing the provision and any
necessary follow-up. The court was not in a position to
provide information to a person ordered to take a class.
The court was not sure if the programs were available
statewide. She reiterated the provision was somewhat
concerning for the court system. She was available for
questions.
9:48:13 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz responded to Ms. Mead's comment about the
statute requiring a court appearance. He wondered if
Representative Wool had a valid concern about a young
person being entered into the legal system creating a
permanent record.
Ms. Mead replied that anyone who was issued a ticket
received a minor offence. A person under 21 who received a
violation for possession of tobacco or electronic cigarette
products would need to appear in court. Whereas, a person
receiving a traffic violation would not necessarily be
required to appear in court.
Representative Hannan relayed that the violation was
already in statute; only the age would change from 19 to
21. The bill was not creating the violation.
Representative Josephson spoke of a bill by Senator
Micciche offered in a prior legislative session. The bill
would have softened the penalties for a minor consuming
alcohol. He wondered if such penalties required court
appearances. Ms. Mead replied in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson suggested the two violations
paralleled each other in terms of court appearances. Ms.
Mead responded, "Somewhat." She explained that the
processing of a minor consuming alcohol changed to a
straight violation in 2016 with the passage of SB 165
[Short Title: Alcohol: Board; Minors; Marijuana Checks].
The underaged person received a citation. There was an
accompanying oddity with the violation penalty that stated
the penalty would be $500. However, a young person had the
option of taking an alcohol education course and having
their fine reduced to $50.
9:52:18 AM
Representative Wool asked if an alcohol violation would
stay on a person's record. If so, he wondered if there was
an option to get the violation removed from their record
under certain conditions. Ms. Mead explained that
everything stayed on a person's official criminal record in
Alaska. Expungement was not an option. There was a special
provision for minors consuming in SB 165 that specified the
records could not appear on Court View. However, they would
remain in a person's official record maintained by
Department of Public Safety.
Representative Wool responded to Representative Hannan's
comment. He understood the law was already in existence but
did not support the bill or more kids going to court. He
was skeptical about the costs of the mandated classes and
wondered if a new industry would pop up. He was curious how
classes would be offered and paid for. Representative
Hannan would ask DHSS for a list of programs. She referred
to page 15 regarding deferment to class. There was a member
in another committee who did not want a fine imposed. Their
approach to amending the bill was to do away with the
violations completely and to simply impose a tobacco
education program instead. She had heard tobacco education
programs were available in some places in Alaska. She
believed Katie Steffens could provide additional
information.
Ms. Steffens spoke to how the program was currently
structured. The program had 23 grant-funded organizations
throughout the state who helped support the tobacco
prevention and education efforts in Alaskan communities.
She spoke of the grantees going into classrooms to talk
with kids. The program also had statewide partners such as
the American Lung Association who offered online courses
such as its' In-Depth program. The program offered a youth
component and a component for parents or guardians to
access information about certain products through the
Alaska Tobacco Quit Line. She indicated that the community-
based efforts helped in preventing kids from starting a bad
habit.
9:56:47 AM
JOE DARNELL, INVESTIGATOR III, TOBACCO SECTION, DIVISION OF
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
(via teleconference), asked Vice-Chair Ortiz to repeat his
question.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked, under the current situation and
absent the passage of the bill, what enforcement looked
like in relation to enforcing the state's regulations
around tobacco - specifically the possession of tobacco. He
asked if it would change in any way with the adoption of
the bill.
Mr. Darnell responded that the department did not
administer enforcement citations. Rather, the Alaska State
Troopers and local police officers issued citations. He
spoke with several local police departments and found that
sometimes there would be no citations and suddenly several
citations. Typically, the increase was due to the school
administration noticing a problem and requesting that the
school resource officer start issuing tickets. He thought
raising the age possession would help with issues at the
school. It would create a greater age gap between high
school students and 21-year-olds making it more difficult
for kids to get tobacco products. He suggested that a
21-year-old was less likely to hang out with high school
kids. The peer-to-peer aspect would go away. He also noted
for retailers it would be much easier to be in line with
federal law.
Representative Wool noted Ms. Mead reported up to 80 minors
under 19 had been cited. He asked for the make-up of the
kids that had been cited. He opined that minorities and
lower income folks were more likely to have to go through
the court system rather than be expulsed in a non-criminal
way. He asked if it was the same for tobacco citations. Ms.
Mead deferred to Mr. Darnell.
10:00:55 AM
Mr. Darnell responded that some schools in Anchorage had
requested that the school resource officers issue
citations. One of the schools was South High School in the
Hillside area - a wealthy neighborhood in Anchorage.
Representative Josephson had seen many national stories
that e-cigarettes were more dangerous than regular
cigarettes. He wondered if he was accurate.
Representative Hannan indicated Representative Josephson
was correct. In 2018 or 2019 there had been a flurry across
the United Stated of black market vape cartridges that
resulted in some lung damage for young people. However,
they were not commercially produced nicotine or cannabis.
They were a hybrid garage-manufactured on a large scale.
She did not want to engage in what she saw as issues on the
periphery about taxation of vape products. There were
certainly people who advocated that they were healthier
than cigarettes. However, there was a significant amount of
research that showed they were damaging. She noted that the
Alaska statutes on taxing tobacco products exempted
cessation products from that taxation such as nicotine gum
and patches. If vaping was found to be a cessation strategy
and devise by the FDA, they would be exempt from the taxes.
She thought it was the reason why Alaska taxed the products
and why it tried to defer young people from using them. She
did not think vaping was a health-producing activity.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the bill sponsor and the invited
testifiers. She reviewed the agenda for the afternoon.
Representative Thompson asked if an amendment deadline had
been set for HB 110. Co-Chair Merrick responded in the
negative.
HB 110 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:04:38 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 110 Supporting Documents 4.14.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| CSHB 110 Sectional Summary 4.14.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| CSHB 110 Summary of Changes - 4.14.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| CSHB 110 Sponsor Statement 4.14.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Opposition - Alex McDonald, 4.10.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Public Testimony by 050421.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Opposition - Shaun D'Sylva, 4.10.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Support Received as of 4.10.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 155 Sectional Analysis 3.30.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Sponsor Statement 3.30.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Testimony Office of Public Advocacy 4.3.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 5/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |