Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

02/06/2015 01:00 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:03:25 PM Start
01:04:30 PM Presentation: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (fasd) & the Equivalence of Intellectual/developmental Disorder
01:15:55 PM HB79
02:05:52 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ HB 5 CONSERVATOR OF PROTECTED PERSONS TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
*+ HB 83 JUDICIAL COUNCIL: CIVIL LITIGATION INFO TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 79 MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Presentation: "National Organization on Fetal TELECONFERENCED
Alcohol Syndrome - Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorder (FASD) & the Equivalence of
Intellectual/Developmental Disability" by
William Edwards
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                        February 6, 2015                                                                                        
                           1:03 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair                                                                                          
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair                                                                                           
Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                         
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
Representative Neal Foster                                                                                                      
Representative Matt Claman                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Charisse Millett                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
PRESENTATION: FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER (FASD) & THE                                                                      
EQUIVALENCE OF INTELLECTUAL/DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
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."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 79                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
01/26/15       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/26/15       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/26/15       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
01/26/15       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/26/15       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
01/28/15       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
01/28/15       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/28/15       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
01/30/15       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
01/30/15       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
02/02/15       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/02/15       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
02/06/15       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
WILLIAM EDWARDS, Deputy Public Defender                                                                                         
Offices of the Los Angeles County Public Defender                                                                               
Los Angeles, California                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented  testimony regarding Fetal Alcohol                                                             
Spectrum Disorder (FASD).                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
THOMAS BROWN, Staff                                                                                                             
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Presented  CSHB 79 on  behalf of  the House                                                             
Judiciary  Standing Committee,  sponsor  by  request, chaired  by                                                               
Representative LeDoux.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
TIM HINTERBERGER, Ph.D., Chair                                                                                                  
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska                                                                           
Washington, D.C.                                                                                                                
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Speaking  on behalf  of Dr.  Hinterberger,                                                             
Rachelle  Yeung, Legislative  Analyst,  Marijuana Policy  Project                                                               
(MMP)   paraphrased  Dr.   Hinterberger's,   February  5,   2015,                                                               
Memorandum which discusses MMPs concerns regarding CSHB 79.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Public Defender                                                                                       
Appellate Division                                                                                                              
Public Defender Agency                                                                                                          
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  on CSHB  79, expressed                                                             
concerns.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
BRUCE SCHULTE, Spokesman                                                                                                        
Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  on CSHB  79, expressed                                                             
concerns.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:03:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  GABRIELLE  LEDOUX  called  the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                             
Committee meeting to order at  1:03 p.m.  Representatives Keller,                                                               
Lynn, Gruenberg  and LeDoux  were present at  the call  to order.                                                               
Representatives Claman and  Foster arrived as the  meeting was in                                                               
progress.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
^PRESENTATION:  Fetal  Alcohol  Spectrum Disorder  (FASD)  &  the                                                               
Equivalence of Intellectual/Developmental Disorder                                                                              
   PRESENTATION: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) & the                                                               
       Equivalence of Intellectual/Developmental Disorder                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:04:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
WILLIAM  EDWARDS,  Deputy Public  Defender,  Offices  of the  Los                                                               
Angeles County Public  Defender, stated he is one  of the leading                                                               
experts in  the country in  terms of criminal justice  issues and                                                               
Fetal Alcohol  Spectrum Disorder (FASD).   Alaska is  the leading                                                               
state  in the  country  dealing  with issues  of  FASD, with  the                                                               
highest prevalence rates and more  diagnostic teams attempting to                                                               
have children and adults diagnosed.   He recommends the committee                                                               
consider  changing  Alaska's  definition of  what  constitutes  a                                                               
developmental  disability  to  include  "fetal  alcohol  spectrum                                                               
disorder."     He  pointed  out   that  AS   47.20.290  discusses                                                               
developmentally  delayed  children  and  mentions  fetal  alcohol                                                               
syndrome,  but  it  does  not   apply  to  a  misdiagnosed  adult                                                               
requiring services.  Furthermore,  he offered, there are findings                                                               
that  only  20  percent  of  all  children  and  adults  who  are                                                               
diagnosed actually  have the facial features  and an intelligence                                                               
quotient (IQ) below  70.  "If your  IQ is not below  70, you will                                                               
not  qualify  for  services  as   if  you  were  someone  with  a                                                               
developmental disability.   Which means your IQ is  below 70, the                                                               
age of onset before that disability  started was prior to the age                                                               
18."  He opined that all children  born with FASD are born with a                                                               
developmental disability  and he urged the  committee to consider                                                               
Minnesota's   statute   that    deals   with   individuals   with                                                               
developmental disabilities.  Minnesota Statute 252.27 reads:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     252.27 CHILDREN'S SERVICES; PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
      Subd.  1a.Definitions.  A  "related  condition"  is  a                                                                    
     condition: (1) that  is found to be  closely related to                                                                    
     a developmental disability,  including, but not limited                                                                    
     to,  cerebral palsy,  epilepsy,  autism, fetal  alcohol                                                                    
     spectrum disorder ...                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:07:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. EDWARDS continued that the  definitional change does not mean                                                               
that  an individual  is guaranteed  to receive  services, but  it                                                               
helps to  open the  door.   Any child or  adult in  Minnesota, he                                                               
offered, can  use this  statute once they  have a  proper medical                                                               
diagnosis to receive the services  they need.  Children or adults                                                               
without  supportive services  will  end up  in  juvenile hall  or                                                               
prison, he  opined.   Urging legislative  change to  include FASD                                                               
and  what constitutes  a developmental  disability  is the  right                                                               
thing to do, he expressed.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:08:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  inquired as to the  legal ramifications                                                               
of the  definitional change, what statutes,  programs, and people                                                               
it will affect, and the cost  to the state.  Once those questions                                                               
are answered, he  pointed out that the legislature  would have to                                                               
determine   programs  to   cut   in  order   to  accomplish   the                                                               
definitional change.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  EDWARDS  opined  that for  individuals  not  qualifying  for                                                               
social  security  insurance  (SSI)  and/or  state  services,  the                                                               
definitional change  would open  the door to  people who  are not                                                               
allowed  to receive  services unless  they  have a  developmental                                                               
disability.    He  offered  to  defer to  an  individual  in  the                                                               
audience  who may  be able  to answer  Representative Gruenberg's                                                               
questions regarding costs.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he did  not expect Mr. Edwards to                                                               
answer  his  questions,  just  to  be  aware  of  the  prism  the                                                               
legislature is looking through.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. EDWARDS reiterated  that services for these  people will keep                                                               
them out of  the prison systems in every state.   He posited that                                                               
when  services  are in  place  it  will  help  the child  out  of                                                               
juvenile hall, and into the  community, and not move further into                                                               
the criminal justice system.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:10:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER requested  a short history of  why FASD was                                                               
not  included  originally  in  the  definition  of  developmental                                                               
disabilities.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  EDWARDS  remarked   that  he  did  not   know  why  Alaska's                                                               
legislative  history does  not "include  it in  your bill  that I                                                               
mentioned."  He offered that  Alaska's child welfare statute only                                                               
mentions the word "fetal alcohol  syndrome" which closes a lot of                                                               
people out  of services, as  only about 20 percent  nationally of                                                               
all people  actually have an IQ  below 70.  He  continued that if                                                               
an  individual  has  an  IQ  above  70,  they  will  not  receive                                                               
services.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:11:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX  presented  a  scenario  of a  person  with  an  IQ                                                               
hovering around  70, and  questioned whether  that person  is any                                                               
worse off than anyone else with an IQ around 70.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. EDWARDS, in  response to Chair LeDoux, stated  that under the                                                               
federal definition, an individual with an  IQ of 70 or below with                                                               
low adaptive behavior deficits that  can demonstrate the onset of                                                               
disability prior to  the age of 18 would qualify.   He noted that                                                               
the term  "mental retardation" has been  changed to "intellectual                                                               
disability."  An individual with an  IQ of 98 could have very low                                                               
adaptive   behaviors   in   that    they   cannot   take   public                                                               
transportation, live on  their own, have a bank  account, or work                                                               
without a job coach.  He  called attention to two issues, in that                                                               
an  individual  can  be  diagnosed   as  having  an  intellectual                                                               
disability versus an individual who has FAS and FASD.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:13:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  specified that  there are  several different                                                               
standardized tests to determine  intellectual disability, such as                                                               
the  Stanford-Binet  (SB),  or the  Wechsler  Adult  Intelligence                                                               
Scale (WAIS),  or others.   He asked  which test is  used because                                                               
when different IQ tests are  used there will be different results                                                               
for the same person.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  EWARDS agreed  and  advised  that if  an  individual has  an                                                               
intellectual  disability with  an IQ  of 70  or below,  they will                                                               
receive  services  in  their  state.     He  reiterated  that  an                                                               
individual  with FASD  could have  an IQ  of 98,  and still  have                                                               
severe cognitive deficits with problems  in the executive area of                                                               
the  brain  and not  able  to  perform  [as  stated above].    He                                                               
conveyed  that these  individuals  require an  exterior coach  to                                                               
remind them  constantly about  "doing things"  which is  why they                                                               
require special services.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:14:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN again requested  the name of the standardized                                                               
test  used  as in  the  Stanford-Binet  (SB), and  that  possibly                                                               
Alaska  uses WAIS,  and some  other test  in another  state.   He                                                               
reiterated  that with  different  tests there  will be  different                                                               
numbers on the same person.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  EDWARDS expressed  that the  IQ score  is only  part of  the                                                               
diagnosis  of  FASD, as  it  includes  a medical  diagnosis,  and                                                               
neuropsychological testing.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN reiterated  his question as to  which IQ test                                                               
is used.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. EDWARDS  stated that IQ  is very  misleading for FASD  and it                                                               
cannot be said that because an individual  has an IQ of 70 or 75,                                                               
they will have FASD.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
        HB  79-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:15:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX announced  that the last 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."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that  on February 24, 2015, according to                                                               
the   initiative,   marijuana    becomes   legal   for   personal                                                               
consumption.  She  opined that the legislature would  like a bill                                                               
in  which  the   provisions  are  clear  to   the  citizens,  law                                                               
enforcement  community, and  the legal  community.   Chair LeDoux                                                               
specified it  is her intent that  the bill that is  passed out of                                                               
the House Judiciary  Standing Committee heeds to the  will of the                                                               
people who  voted for Ballot Measure  2.  She proffered  that the                                                               
bill is 70 percent of the way there.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:18:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLER  moved  to adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS)  for HB 79, Version  29-LS0409\E, Martin, 2/4/15,                                                               
as the working document.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX,   in  responding  to   Representative  Gruenberg's                                                               
question,  advised that  the sectional  analysis  relates to  CS,                                                               
Version\E.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:19:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
THOMAS BROWN, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska                                                                    
State Legislature, paraphrased the following testimony [original                                                                
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     House  Bill  79  revises   some  of  Alaska's  criminal                                                                    
     statutes to ensure  that the will of  the electorate is                                                                    
     respected by cleaning up  some of the now-contradictory                                                                    
     laws regarding marijuana.  The  purpose of this bill is                                                                    
     to  provide our  law enforcement  community with  clear                                                                    
     instructions so  that innocent people are  not punished                                                                    
     for following the law.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          The first version of this bill was deeply                                                                             
     unpopular  and  I'd like  to  emphasize,  as the  chair                                                                    
     already remarked,  that the CS  before you,  version E,                                                                    
     is still  a work  in progress.   The  central complaint                                                                    
     against the original draft was  that it merely provided                                                                    
     a defense  for conduct involving marijuana,  instead of                                                                    
     making  the conduct  itself lawful.    We believe  that                                                                    
     this  draft goes  a long  way towards  establishing the                                                                    
     legality  of   marijuana  and   associated  activities.                                                                    
     Again,  this bill  is not  a  final but  merely a  step                                                                    
     forward and we view this  hearing as an opportunity for                                                                    
     the public  and the affected departments  to make their                                                                    
     opinions heard and to actively solicit their advice.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          I would like to present a brief summary of what                                                                       
     the CS  for HB 79  would do.   I am prepared  to answer                                                                    
     some of  your questions  and we have  experts available                                                                    
     here  or  online  who can  answer  the  more  technical                                                                    
     questions the committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
          First, it should be noted that a good portion of                                                                      
     the sections  of the  CS House  Bill 79  are conforming                                                                    
     amendments and that many of  the other sections are the                                                                    
     result  of  specific  choices we  made  and  asked  the                                                                    
     drafters  to  consider.       Since  the  bill  removes                                                                    
     marijuana  from the  list of  controlled substances,  a                                                                    
     large  number of  statutes  had to  be  amended to  re-                                                                    
     include  marijuana  as  those statutes  now  no  longer                                                                    
     apply  to  marijuana.    Basically,  since  the  voters                                                                    
     seemed to want marijuana  regulated like alcohol it was                                                                    
     felt that they  still wanted some uses  of marijuana to                                                                    
     be illegal.   So some new  crimes had to be  created to                                                                    
     reflect that new reality.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          It is a priority for the bill to conform as much                                                                      
     as possible  to the  initiative and to  marijuana's new                                                                    
     legal status.  We still have some way to go on that.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          So with your patience I'd  like to present a rough                                                                    
     sectional analysis of the CS for House Bill 79.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:21:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROWN paraphrased the  following sectional analysis regarding                                                               
CSHB 79:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section  1, 2  -  re-include marijuana  as a  substance                                                                    
     which a  person may not  be under the influence  of and                                                                    
     operate an aircraft, or use ski trails or equipment.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section 3 - amends  the licensing requirement for nurse                                                                    
     practitioners  to  re-include   marijuana  abuse  as  a                                                                    
     condition  for  denial,  suspension  or  revocation  of                                                                    
     license.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:21:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  referred  Sec.  3, page  2,  line  21,                                                               
"habitually abuses"  and asked whether  there is a  definition of                                                               
abuse.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROWN advised there  is not a definition in HB  79, but it is                                                               
in other statutes.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  further asked  if it  is defined  in AS                                                               
08.68.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROWN  stated it is not  defined in AS 08.68,  in the portion                                                               
in HB 79.   He deferred to someone from  the Department of Health                                                               
& Social Services (DHSS).                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:23:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROWN continued his paraphrased analysis:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section 4  - removes schedule 6A  controlled substances                                                                    
     from  the   list  of   agents  an   optometrist  cannot                                                                    
     prescribe.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  5  -   prohibits  pawnbrokers  from  knowingly                                                                    
     entering  into a  transaction  with  someone under  the                                                                    
     influence of marijuana.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section   6  -   defines  illegal   activity  involving                                                                    
     marijuana as a reason for abatement of certain places.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section 7  - re-includes operating a  vehicle under the                                                                    
     influence of  marijuana as a serious  criminal offense.                                                                    
     He noted  this is  not statute titles  for DUI  laws as                                                                    
     this is  a separate  section altogether.   That section                                                                    
     will  need  revisiting  in   order  to  ascertain  that                                                                    
     driving  under the  influence of  marijuana is  in fact                                                                    
     part of the regular DUI statutes for Alaska.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Section  8 -  re-establishes the  liability of  someone                                                                    
     driving under  the influence of marijuana  for personal                                                                    
     injury or wrongful death.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section  9,   10  -  removes  schedule   6A  controlled                                                                    
     substances  from the  statutes defining  murder in  the                                                                    
     second degree and murder of an unborn child.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Section  11, 12  - re-incorporates  marijuana into  the                                                                    
     statutes defining  weapons misconduct in the  third and                                                                    
     fourth degrees.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section  13,  14 -  removes  marijuana  from crimes  of                                                                    
     misconduct  with a  controlled substance  in the  third                                                                    
     and fourth degrees.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section 15-20 are conforming amendments.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section  21  -  specifies   marijuana  in  the  general                                                                    
     provisions definition of intoxication.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section  22,  23  -  allows   for  the  prohibition  of                                                                    
     marijuana use as a condition for pre-trial release.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section  24 -  is  a  conforming amendment,  clarifying                                                                    
     definitions to match the initiative language.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section 25  - establishes  that law  enforcement agency                                                                    
     laboratory  reports  are  evidence  of  the  weight  of                                                                    
     marijuana.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  26,  27  -  allows   for  the  prohibition  of                                                                    
     marijuana as  an authorized sentence  or for a  term of                                                                    
     probation.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  28 -  describes the  punishment allowable  for                                                                    
     possessing marijuana in violation of statute.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section  29-31 -  clarifies that  marijuana  can be  an                                                                    
     aggravating or  mitigating factor in the  sentencing of                                                                    
     certain crimes.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section  32 -  is  a  conforming amendment,  clarifying                                                                    
     definitions to match the initiative language.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section 33,  34 - clarifies that  synthetic drugs which                                                                    
     resemble marijuana  are still  illegal.  He  noted that                                                                    
     previously  they were  illegal only  because they  were                                                                    
     facsimiles of a controlled  substance.  Marijuana is no                                                                    
     longer a  controlled substance and the  synthetic drugs                                                                    
     must  be made  illegal  in and  of  themselves and  not                                                                    
     because they resemble marijuana.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section 35-37 - eliminates  the requirement to defer to                                                                    
     federal substance  scheduling standards in the  case of                                                                    
     marijuana.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  38  -  provides  an  affirmative  defense  for                                                                    
     registered caregivers charged  with offenses related to                                                                    
     marijuana.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section  39 -  is  a  conforming amendment,  clarifying                                                                    
     definitions to match the initiative language.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section 40 - establishes that  a person 21 years of age                                                                    
     or  older  may own,  operate,  be  an  agent of  or  be                                                                    
     employed  by  a retail  marijuana  store  with a  valid                                                                    
     registration and perform all  of the related duties and                                                                    
     activities and not  be prosecuted for it or  have it be                                                                    
     a basis for seizure or forfeiture.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Section 41 - establishes that  a person 21 years of age                                                                    
     or  older  may own,  operate,  be  an  agent of  or  be                                                                    
     employed  by a  marijuana cultivation  facility with  a                                                                    
     valid  registration  and  perform all  of  the  related                                                                    
     duties and activities  and not be prosecuted  for it or                                                                    
     have it be a basis for seizure or forfeiture.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Section 42 - establishes that  a person 21 years of age                                                                    
     or  older  may own,  operate,  be  an  agent of  or  be                                                                    
     employed by a  marijuana product manufacturing facility                                                                    
     with  a  valid  registration  and perform  all  of  the                                                                    
     related  duties and  activities and  not be  prosecuted                                                                    
     for  it  or   have  it  be  a  basis   for  seizure  or                                                                    
     forfeiture.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section 43 - establishes that  a person 21 years of age                                                                    
     or  older  may own,  operate,  be  an  agent of  or  be                                                                    
     employed by  a marijuana testing facility  with a valid                                                                    
     registration and perform all  of the related duties and                                                                    
     activities and not  be prosecuted for it or  have it be                                                                    
     a basis for seizure or forfeiture.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Section 44 - technical changes to initiative language.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section  45   -  describes  the  crime   of  misconduct                                                                    
     involving marijuana  in the  1st degree  and classifies                                                                    
     it as  a class  A misdemeanor;  describes the  crime of                                                                    
     misconduct  involving marijuana  in  the second  degree                                                                    
     and classifies  it as a class  B misdemeanor; describes                                                                    
     the  crimes of  misconduct involving  marijuana in  the                                                                    
     third  and  fourth  degrees   and  classifies  them  as                                                                    
     violations;  allows for  bail forfeiture  for marijuana                                                                    
     related  violations;  describes   offenses  defined  by                                                                    
     amounts;  provides  for   an  affirmative  defense  for                                                                    
     medical    marijuana    related   offenses;    provides                                                                    
     definitions.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Section 46 - defines marijuana concentrate.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section 47  - allows  for protective orders  to require                                                                    
     the  respondent  to   participate  in  marijuana  abuse                                                                    
     treatment programs.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section  48,   49  -   prohibits  the   violent  crimes                                                                    
     compensation  board  from  denying a  victim  based  on                                                                    
     their  use of  marijuana  or from  being  injured in  a                                                                    
     vehicle  operated by  someone  under  the influence  of                                                                    
     marijuana.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section 50 - for  insurance purposes defines drug abuse                                                                    
     to include marijuana dependency.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section 51  - for labor practices  defines drug testing                                                                    
     to include marijuana as defined in the initiative.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Section 52  - allows for parental  visitation rights to                                                                    
     be conditioned on the abstention of marijuana use.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Section 53-55  - prohibits driving  in a  motor vehicle                                                                    
     with an  open marijuana  container that  is not  in the                                                                    
     trunk of the vehicle;  defines the term open container;                                                                    
     allows  for   the  transport   of  an   open  marijuana                                                                    
     container on  a motor driven  cycle or behind  the last                                                                    
     upright seat in a trunkless vehicle.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section  56,  57  -  allows   for  the  prohibition  of                                                                    
     marijuana  use  or  the entering  of  an  establishment                                                                    
     where marijuana is sold as a condition of parole.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Section  58  -  is   a  conforming  amendment  defining                                                                    
     controlled substance.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section  59, 60  - prevents  prisoners from  possessing                                                                    
     material related  to the  manufacture of  marijuana and                                                                    
     allows  for the  consideration  of marijuana  use as  a                                                                    
     determinant for terms of imprisonment.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section  61-65  -  defines illegal  activity  involving                                                                    
     marijuana and  prohibits tenants from engaging  in such                                                                    
     while renting property;  provides technical changes and                                                                    
     conforming amendments.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section  66   -  removes  marijuana  as   a  controlled                                                                    
     substance.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section 67 - defines marijuana as an intoxicant.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section  68 -  criminalizes minor  access to  marijuana                                                                    
     establishments.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section 69  - requires infant care  providers to report                                                                    
     marijuana exposure of an infant.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section  70-74  -  requires  persons  incapacitated  by                                                                    
     marijuana  in   a  public  place   to  be   taken  into                                                                    
     protective  custody  and  brought  to  a  treatment  or                                                                    
     health facility;  requires such persons to  be released                                                                    
     once no  longer incapacitated; requires next  of kin of                                                                    
     such  persons  to be  notified  upon  admission to  the                                                                    
     heath or  treatment facility;  and prevents  action for                                                                    
     damages to be  taken upon the decision  to deliver such                                                                    
     persons to a facility.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section  75 -  allows for  the commitment  of a  person                                                                    
     incapacitated by marijuana to  a public health facility                                                                    
     for emergency treatment.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section 76, 77 -  allows for certain authorized persons                                                                    
     to petition  for a 30-day  involuntary commitment  to a                                                                    
     public treatment  facility of someone  incapacitated by                                                                    
     marijuana;  allows  for  the extension  of  involuntary                                                                    
     commitment.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section 78  - defines drug abuser  to include marijuana                                                                    
     dependency.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section 79 - excludes  marijuana from the definition of                                                                    
     drug.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section 80 - defines the incapacitation by marijuana.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section  81 -  defines  intoxicated  person to  include                                                                    
     impairment by marijuana.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section 82  - conforming amendment to  define marijuana                                                                    
     as in the initiative language.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Section  83,  84  -  allows   for  the  prohibition  of                                                                    
     marijuana  use  as  a  condition  of  participation  in                                                                    
     substance abuse programs  and sets testing requirements                                                                    
     of marijuana by these programs.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section 85  - conforming amendments of  the definitions                                                                    
     of  intoxicated person  and marijuana  as described  in                                                                    
     the initiative language.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Section  86  -  repeals  multiple  statutes  no  longer                                                                    
     necessary as a result of the initiative or this bill.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section  87 -  clarifies the  applicability of  certain                                                                    
     sections.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section 88 - provides the effective date.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:32:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LEDOUX  used  Section  77,  which  refers  to  involuntary                                                               
commitment proceedings,  as an example.   Previously,  she noted,                                                               
because marijuana  was considered  a controlled substance  it was                                                               
already included.   She  advised that sections  such as  this are                                                               
considered conforming amendments as  opposed to a situation where                                                               
an individual  could not be  involuntarily committed as  a result                                                               
of marijuana use.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BROWN agreed  and indicated  that the  word "marijuana"  was                                                               
specifically added  as it  is no  longer a  drug or  a controlled                                                               
substance.  He  further indicated that "if we want  to be able to                                                               
continue  treating  people  who  have issues  with  a  substance,                                                               
controlled or not, we need to be very specific."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX  conveyed that as  she reviewed the bill  it appears                                                               
"there were  all sorts  of things" in  which now  marijuana would                                                               
subject  an individual  to involuntary  commitment, et  cetra, et                                                               
cetra, wherein it  hadn't been able to happen before.   She asked                                                               
if her assessment was correct.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROWN answered "correct."                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:34:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the  basic intent is to enact                                                               
the  language the  voters  approved in  the  initiative and  then                                                               
basically  supplement  the rest  of  the  statutes to  make  them                                                               
consistent with what the voters approved.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROWN  answered in the  affirmative and stated  that removing                                                               
marijuana as  a controlled substance basically  leaves everything                                                               
open and it must be made specific in the statute.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:35:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TIM HINTERBERGER,  Ph.D., Chair,  Campaign to  Regulate Marijuana                                                               
Like Alcohol in Alaska.   Speaking on behalf of Dr. Hinterberger,                                                               
Rachelle  Yeung, Legislative  Analyst,  Marijuana Policy  Project                                                               
(MMP)   paraphrased   Dr.   Hinterberger's,  February   5,   2015                                                               
Memorandum  directed   to  Thomas  Brown  as   follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
       We appreciate the opportunity to review the early                                                                        
     redraft of HB 79.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     The  draft  revision  that  became  available  for  our                                                                    
     review  on February  4 takes  a substantially  improved                                                                    
     approach compared  to the earlier version.  Rather than                                                                    
     merely  creating  a   defense  against  state  criminal                                                                    
     charges, the revision would exempt  most of the conduct                                                                    
     allowed by Measure 2 from Alaska criminal statutes.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     While  this  draft  is far  better  overall,  it  still                                                                    
     includes provisions  we view  as not conforming  to the                                                                    
     will  of  voters.  Our  concerns  and  suggestions  are                                                                    
     detailed  in  the  following pages.  Perhaps  the  most                                                                    
     concerning elements of the redraft are:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          legal protections for adults. Measure 2's AS                                                                          
          17.38.020 makes marijuana-related conduct                                                                             
          lawful it protects adults from not only state                                                                         
          charges but also municipal offenses; and it                                                                           
          prevents seizures and property forfeitures. In                                                                        
          contract, the redraft would merely remove state                                                                       
          crimes.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          including lowering to one ounce the amount of                                                                         
          marijuana adults can lawfully possess in the                                                                          
          location where they cultivate plants.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          of extracts for making edibles.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Thank you again for  the opportunity to comment. Please                                                                    
     let us know if you have any questions.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Sincerely,                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Dr. Timothy Hinterberger, Chair                                                                                            
     Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Karen O'Keefe, Director                                                                                                    
     State Policies                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Alaska Marijuana Policy Project                                                                                            
     Regarding: Draft Revisions to HB 79                                                                                        
     Position: Oppose Unless Amended                                                                                            
     Specific Concerns With the Draft Redraft of HB 79                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     1.   As was  the case with  the original version  of HB                                                                  
          79, the proposed redraft would repeal Measure 2's                                                                   
          comprehensive legal protections for adults and                                                                      
          replace them with inadequate protections.                                                                           
          (Sec. 86)                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:39:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at ease from 1:39 to 1:41: p.m.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:41:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     [DR.  HINTERBERGER'S  testimony  continued]  Measure  2                                                                    
     makes it lawful under Alaska  state law and the laws of                                                                    
     all  of its  political subdivisions  for adults  21 and                                                                    
     older  to  possess,  give away  to  other  adults,  and                                                                    
     cultivate  marijuana for  personal use.  (AS 17.38.020)                                                                    
     It also  explicitly provides that that  conduct may not                                                                    
     be a  basis for  seizure or  asset forfeiture.  HB 79's                                                                    
     Section  86  would  repeal  these  comprehensive  legal                                                                    
     protections.   While  the   redraft  removes   criminal                                                                    
     penalties  for  most  (but  not  all)  of  the  conduct                                                                    
     allowed  by  Measure  2,  doing so  is  not  nearly  as                                                                    
     comprehensive  as   the  protections  provided   in  AS                                                                    
     17.38.020.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     It is essential  that AS 17.38.020 remain  on the books                                                                    
     to  make  sure  that adults'  personal  use  activities                                                                    
     related  to  marijuana  are not  subject  to  penalties                                                                    
     under  local  ordinances  and   to  protect  them  from                                                                    
     seizure and  forfeiture. It is also  crucial that these                                                                    
     activities be explicitly "lawful"  under state law. Any                                                                    
     number  of state  and municipal  statutes may  refer to                                                                    
     "illicit" or "illegal" activity.  AS 17.38.020 makes it                                                                    
     clear  that the  marijuana-related activity  covered by                                                                    
     that  section   is  indeed  lawful  under   state  law,                                                                    
     notwithstanding federal law.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     2.   As was  the case with  the original version  of HB                                                                  
          79, the proposed redraft would criminalize                                                                          
          conduct Measure 2 makes legal, including by                                                                         
          reducing the amount of marijuana adults could                                                                       
          possess.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     The  current version  of HB  79  deletes marijuana  and                                                                    
     hash  from  controlled  substances and  creates  a  new                                                                    
     crime  for marijuana  offenses: AS  17.38.200. This  is                                                                    
     generally  a  very   sensible  approach.  However,  the                                                                    
     specifics  of what  is  criminalized are  unacceptable.                                                                    
     The  current  draft  of HB  79  dramatically  restricts                                                                    
     adults'    freedoms    relating   to    marijuana    by                                                                    
     criminalizing conduct that voters made lawful.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          • Measure 2's AS 17.38.020 (b) provides that                                                                          
          adults aged 21 and older may grow six plants                                                                          
          (three of which may be mature) and possess all of                                                                     
          the marijuana produced from those plants on those                                                                     
       premises. AS 17.38.200 (a)(1) and (2) reduces the                                                                        
          amount they can possess or manufacture by                                                                             
          criminalizing    "one   or    more   preparations,                                                                    
          compounds,   mixtures,   or   substances   of   an                                                                    
          aggregate weight of more than one ounce                                                                               
          containing marijuana." While AS 17.38.200's                                                                           
          language is somewhat ambiguous, it also appears                                                                       
          to conflict with the provisions of Measure 2 that                                                                     
          allow possession of up to an ounce at locations                                                                       
          other than the personal cultivation location,                                                                         
          excluding    the     weight    of    non-marijuana                                                                    
          ingredients. AS 17.38.200(a)(1) and (2) appear                                                                        
          to include the non-marijuana ingredients when                                                                         
          calculating the weight.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          • The redraft would delete Measure 2's criminal                                                                       
          penalties for cultivating marijuana where it is                                                                       
          visible to the public, where it is not secured,                                                                       
          or without the consent of aproperty owner. (AS                                                                        
          17.38.030) Instead, it would criminalize mere                                                                         
          possession    or   display    (in   addition    to                                                                    
          cultivating) in any of these types of locations.                                                                      
          (AS 17.38.220(a)(1)) Measure 2 specifies that a                                                                       
          private property owner may prohibit marijuana,                                                                        
          but that is very different from requiring an                                                                          
          adult to get a property owner's affirmative                                                                           
          consent prior to entering their restaurant,                                                                           
          private parking lot, home, or car with a small                                                                        
          amount of marijuana on his or her person. In                                                                          
          addition, creating a new crime for doing so is                                                                        
          inappropriate and not on par with how alcohol is                                                                      
          treated.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
          • The redraft, like the original HB 79, conflicts                                                                     
          with Measure 2 by penalizing mere display of                                                                          
          marijuana by those over 21. (AS 17.38.230)                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     3.   A  significant   improvement  over   the  original                                                                  
          version of HB 79, the proposed redraft would                                                                        
          still prohibit certain safe methods of extraction                                                                   
          by adults. (AS 17.38.200(a)(4))                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     We  do  not  object  to  imposing a  ban  on  the  home                                                                    
     production  of  extracts  using  methods  that  can  be                                                                    
     dangerous when  conducted at  a residence.  However, an                                                                    
     exception  also  needs  to   be  made  for  water-based                                                                    
     extractions,    which    cannot    cause    explosions.                                                                    
     Extractions  are important  to  patients  who use  non-                                                                    
     smoked methods of administration.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     4.   As was  the case with  the original version  of HB                                                                  
          79, the proposed redraft would not make any                                                                         
          exceptions allowing for individuals under 21 on                                                                     
          the premises of a licensee. (AS 17.38.200(a)(5))                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Three types of exceptions should be included:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
          • for individuals who are not employed by the                                                                         
          marijuana business and do not work directly with                                                                      
          marijuana, but who have legitimate work at the                                                                        
          establishment, such as EMTs, regulatory staff,                                                                        
          maintenance personnel, elected officials, and                                                                         
          members of the media. Notably, there are several                                                                      
          far broader exceptions to a similar statute for                                                                       
          persons under 21 who enter the premises of an                                                                         
          establishment selling alcohol. (AS 04.16.049)                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          • for registered medical marijuana patients under                                                                     
          the age of 21, who currently have no safe way to                                                                      
          obtain the medicine Alaska voters have allowed                                                                        
          them to use since 1998.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          • to include a defense for retailers who have a                                                                       
          good faith belief that a customer is 21 and older                                                                     
          - based on the presentation of an ID card that                                                                        
          appears to both be valid and to be the person who                                                                     
          presents it - as is the case for alcohol sales.                                                                       
          (AS 04.21.050)                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     5.   As was  the case with  the original version  of HB                                                                  
          79, the proposed redraft would criminalize                                                                          
          driving with a marijuana accessory or a container                                                                   
          of marijuana in one's vehicle if there is                                                                           
          evidence it has been consumed in the vehicle.                                                                       
          (AS 28.35.029(a))                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                              
     Measure 2 explicitly  makes transportation of marijuana                                                                    
     by adults 21 and  older lawful. (AS 17.38.020(a), which                                                                    
     the  redraft  would  repeal.) The  redraft  -  and  the                                                                    
     original  version of  HB 79  - includes  an unnecessary                                                                    
     restriction on  "open containers"  that appears  to run                                                                    
     counter to  Measure 2 and  which would  be particularly                                                                    
     onerous on patients.  Private establishments, including                                                                    
     nursing homes, may restrict  their residents from using                                                                    
     marijuana.   (See:  "Medical Marijuana  Not Allowed  At                                                                    
     Nursing   Home"   http//www.elderlawanswer.com/medical-                                                                    
     marijuana-not-allowed-at-nursing-home-4954)   A  parked                                                                    
     vehicle may be  the only place where a  patient is able                                                                    
     to   administer   their  medicine   (sublingually,   by                                                                    
     consuming edibles, by vaporization, or otherwise).                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     To address concerns about  driving under the influence,                                                                    
     which of  course remains illegal,  we would  not object                                                                    
     to  penalizing smoking  or  vaporizing  marijuana in  a                                                                    
     moving vehicle.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:46:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TRACEY  WOLLENBERG, Deputy  Public Defender,  Appellate Division,                                                               
Public  Defender  Agency,  Department of  Administration,  stated                                                               
that  CSHB 79  removes  the defense  to  prosecution for  certain                                                               
marijuana  related  conduct which  is  more  consistent with  the                                                               
intent of the  voters.  She expressed that  of particular concern                                                               
is  Section   45,  which  creates   new  marijuana   offenses  as                                                               
misconduct involving  marijuana in  the first, second,  third and                                                               
fourth  degree.   Generally, she  related, this  section rewrites                                                               
the  legal protections  from  marijuana  related conduct  enacted                                                               
specifically  in AS  17.38.020 of  the initiative.   Essentially,                                                               
she stated, it  continues to criminalize some  aspects of conduct                                                               
that the voters elected to  legalize.  She referred to misconduct                                                               
involving marijuana  in the first degree,  proposed AS 17.38.200,                                                               
which criminalizes  knowingly possessing  more than one  ounce of                                                               
marijuana or knowingly manufacturing  or delivering or possessing                                                               
with the intent to manufacture or  deliver more than one ounce of                                                               
marijuana.    When  an  individual  purchases  marijuana  from  a                                                               
marijuana licensed facility, the limit  for doing so is one ounce                                                               
but,  she  stated,  marijuana as  defined  under  the  initiative                                                               
includes plants.   This provision,  she noted,  would effectively                                                               
eliminate other  portions of AS  17.38.020, specifically  (b) and                                                               
(c),  which allows  for the  cultivating of  a certain  number of                                                               
plants or the  transfer of a certain number of  plants to another                                                               
person, the  weight of  which is  almost certain  to be  over one                                                               
ounce.    The initiative  makes  legal  the possession,  growing,                                                               
processing or transporting of no  more than six marijuana plants,                                                               
up to  three of  which can  be mature  flowering plants,  and the                                                               
possession of all of the  marijuana produced from those plants if                                                               
possessed on the premises where those plants were grown.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:50:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. WOLLENBERG pointed out that  AS 17.38.200 [CSHB 79] prohibits                                                               
possessing more  than one ounce  of marijuana and  conflicts with                                                               
the  initiative.    Similarly,  the  initiative  allows  for  the                                                               
transfer of one  ounce or less plus up to  six immature marijuana                                                               
plants  to   someone  21  or   older  without   remuneration  [AS                                                               
17.38.020(c)], she  conveyed.  By  definition, she  advised, that                                                               
portion  of the  initiative would  be  more than  one ounce  and;                                                               
therefore,  CSHB 79  conflicts with  intent of  the voters.   She                                                               
suggested  the  committee  graft  onto  the  proposed  misconduct                                                               
statutes  the provisions  from  the  initiative that  essentially                                                               
govern growing and  transferring marijuana and the  limits set by                                                               
the  voters.   She  then  referred  to AS  17.38.210,  misconduct                                                               
involving  marijuana  in the  second  degree,  and advised  there                                                               
appears to be an attempt to  import the portion of the initiative                                                               
that allows  for the  transfer of  up to  one ounce  of marijuana                                                               
plus  six  immature marijuana  plants  to  another person.    She                                                               
expressed that AS 17.38.210(a)(2)(a)  conflicts with AS 17.38.200                                                               
which does  not allow for  the delivery of  over one ounce.   She                                                               
opined  that  those  two  provisions  as  drafted  appear  to  be                                                               
inconsistent.   She moved to AS  17.38.220, [misconduct involving                                                               
marijuana in the third degree]  and stated that the initiative is                                                               
intended to  set certain restrictions on  personal cultivation of                                                               
marijuana in  the home.   She described  this section  as broader                                                               
than  in  the  initiative  by  also  restricting  possession  and                                                               
displaying  marijuana  plants  in  certain  circumstances.    She                                                               
provided that  this is problematic  because it  would essentially                                                               
prohibit possessing marijuana  in a place subject  to public view                                                               
even though the initiative allows  people to possess marijuana in                                                               
or  out of  the  home  up to  certain  amounts  and to  transport                                                               
marijuana up to  a certain amount.  In order  for this section to                                                               
comport  with   the  initiative  it   needs  to  be   limited  to                                                               
manufacturing  with the  idea being  that if  someone is  growing                                                               
plants  it should  conform to  the  restrictions set  out in  the                                                               
initiative to shield those plants  from public view.  She pointed                                                               
out  that  with regard  to  AS  17.38.230, [misconduct  involving                                                               
marijuana in  the fourth degree] the  initiative prohibits people                                                               
21 or older from using any  amount of marijuana in a public place                                                               
and doesn't prohibit transporting  certain amount of marijuana in                                                               
public.    She  suggested  that  in order  to  comport  with  the                                                               
initiative, remove the word "displays."                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:54:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WOLLENBERG  related  that AS  17.38.020  of  the  initiative                                                               
appears  to have  been removed  with regard  to personal  conduct                                                               
offenses.   Although,  she noted,  it  is still  maintained to  a                                                               
certain  extent in  Sections 40-43  which deal  with offenses  by                                                               
commercial marijuana facilities.   The language there makes clear                                                               
that the  conduct which is legalized  shall not serve as  a basis                                                               
for  seizure or  forfeiture of  assets  under Alaska  law.   That                                                               
language is not repeated in  the personal use misconduct statutes                                                               
and the  concern is that  removing the  language in one  area but                                                               
leaving  it in  another area  may cause  courts, parties,  or law                                                               
enforcement to  read in  some significance to  the fact  that the                                                               
language about  seizure has  been removed  from the  personal use                                                               
offenses.   She opined  that would not  be consistent  with voter                                                               
intent.    She  stated  that the  initiative  intended  that  the                                                               
conduct  that is  made  lawful not  constitute  an offense  under                                                               
state  or local  law.   It  appears  to her  that  the change  in                                                               
language from  "shall not  be an offense"  to "are  not offenses"                                                               
does not  have much significance.   Although, she  offered, there                                                               
is  a chance  that  the  subtle change  in  language would  leave                                                               
conduct  that  is  otherwise  intended   to  be  lawful  open  to                                                               
potentially  being made  unlawful by  local municipalities.   She                                                               
suggested that the  committee consider keeping the  "shall not be                                                               
an offense" language in tact as it was in the initiative.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:56:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WOLLENBERG referred  to Section  68 and  advised it  removes                                                               
from  the  realm  of juvenile  jurisdiction  certain  conduct  by                                                               
minors,   in   particular    using   false   identification   and                                                               
misrepresenting   age  with   regard   to  registered   marijuana                                                               
premises.    She  advised  that removing  it  from  the  juvenile                                                               
jurisdiction statute  would essentially  mean that it  is pursued                                                               
in  adult   court  and  open   to  public  view  and   no  longer                                                               
confidential.  She proffered that  prosecuting juveniles for this                                                               
conduct  without  making  the  records  confidential  could  have                                                               
unintended  consequences for  job  prospects or  otherwise.   She                                                               
suggested   the   committee    consider   making   this   conduct                                                               
confidential which is  more in keeping with the  goal of ensuring                                                               
there is some consequence for  minors, but not a consequence more                                                               
severe than what is intended.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:58:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BRUCE  SCHULTE,  Spokesman,  Coalition for  Responsible  Cannabis                                                               
Legislation,  referred  to  his  2/6/15  Memorandum  directed  to                                                               
Representative   Gabrielle    LeDoux   and   advised    that   AS                                                               
17.38.200(1)(a)  and  AS  17.38.200(2)  of   CSHB  79  refers  to                                                               
definitions of marijuana  and its related compounds  by weight as                                                               
being one ounce.   He suggested rewording based on  the fact that                                                               
certain edibles,  baked goods, or  liquids, may well be  over one                                                               
ounce  and yet  contain  a  small fraction  of  marijuana.   With                                                               
regard  to  AS  17.38.200(4),  the coalition  does  not  support,                                                               
condone, or recommend  the use of butane to extract  hash oil and                                                               
suggested a language change to  specifically refer to volatile or                                                               
explosive gases.  He mentioned that  paragraph 4 of the memo is a                                                               
grammatical issue.   He opined  that the heart of  the initiative                                                               
for many voters is AS 17.38.020  and 030 which speaks to personal                                                               
use of marijuana and cultivation.   In that regard, he concluded,                                                               
those sections should  be preserved as originally  written in the                                                               
initiative.   He  remarked that  in the  realm of  "public place"                                                               
versus "private" the coalition does  not condone anyone consuming                                                               
marijuana  in  the  street,  in  front  of  restaurants,  or  any                                                               
obviously  public  place.     He  pointed  out   that  there  are                                                               
variations on  the definition of  "public place"  versus "private                                                               
place" that should  be clarified.  With regard  to special events                                                               
operating under a permit or license  at the state or local level,                                                               
he  suggested,  a  specific provision  written  that  allows  the                                                               
consumption  of marijuana  products at  the special  events site.                                                               
He advised that  local officials have asked the  state to provide                                                               
an  overarching  definition  of "public  place"  versus  "private                                                               
place."   He then  acknowledged that  sections of  the initiative                                                               
should  be repealed  where they  were  replaced by  corresponding                                                               
legal language.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:04:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:05:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  removed his objection.   Version \E was                                                               
before the committee.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
[HB 79 was held over.]                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:05:52 PM                                                                                                                    
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB79 Committe Material - AS 11.81.900.pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB79 Committee Material - AG Letter.pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB79 Committee Material - GLO Letter.pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB79 Draft Proposed CS ver E.pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB79 Supporting Documents - DOL Brief.pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB79 Supporting Documents - Letter Vern Gunter.pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB79 Supporting Documents - MPP.pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB79 Supporting Documents - Ballot Measure 2 (2).pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB79 Supporting Documents - FNSB Letter.pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79
HB79 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 2/6/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 79