Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/12/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB70 | |
| SB74 | |
| HB149 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 70 | ||
| = | SB 74 | ||
| = | HB 149 | ||
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 12, 2006
9:04 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Lyda Green convened the meeting at approximately 9:04:45
AM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Con Bunde, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Also Attending: REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS; DARWIN PETERSON, Staff
to Senator Lyda Green; WILLIAM TANDESKE, Commissioner, Department
of Public Safety; DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law
Attending via Teleconference: FROM OFFNET SITES: DR. LESTER
GRINSPOON, Professor, Harvard University and the American Civil
Liberties Union; DR. EARLYWINE, Professor, New York State
University; WES MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, American Civil Liberties
Union
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 70-CRIMES INVOLVING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
The Committee briefly addressed the bill and held it in Committee.
SB 74-CRIMES INVOLVING MARIJUANA/OTHER DRUGS
The committee heard from the Department of Public Safety, the
American Civil Liberties Union, and experts in the study of
marijuana. The bill was held in Committee.
HB 149-CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
The committee heard from the sponsor, the Department of Public
Safety, the Department of Law, and Committee Staff. A committee
substitute was adopted. Four amendments were considered with two
being adopted, one being withdrawn, and one failing adoption. The
bill reported from Committee.
9:05:29 AM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 70(JUD)
"An Act relating to controlled substances regarding the crimes
of manslaughter and misconduct involving a controlled
substance; relating to listing certain anabolic steroids as
controlled substances; amending Rule 41, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
This was the fourth hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Green ordered the bill SET ASIDE.
9:05:56 AM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 74(JUD)
"An Act making findings relating to marijuana use and
possession; relating to marijuana and misconduct involving a
controlled substance; and providing for an effective date."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Green stated that public testimony pertaining to this
issue would be provided.
9:06:38 AM
DR. LESTER GRINSPOON, Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard
University testified via teleconference from an offnet site. He
informed the Committee that he has studied marijuana for 40 years
and is the author of numerous books and other publications on the
subject. He declined to testify, stating that the 15-minute
timeframe being afforded for his testimony would be an insufficient
amount of time in which to adequately address the 18 separate
Findings presented in Sec. 2 of the bill. Each finding would
individually "demand" a minimum of 15-minutes of "careful
discussion since they are so off-target from a scientific point of
view that they have to be carefully discussed; together they seem
to comprise a kind of modern day reefer madness." He opined that
the limited timeframe being provided to this legislation was an
indication that the Committee had "no interest in what we
[testifiers] have to say" and that the Committee had "already
prejudged this, because the nature of your Findings are so absurd
that if you're really serious about those Findings" sufficient time
would have been allotted for discussion.
In response to a comment from Co-Chair Green, Dr. Grinspoon stated
that it was not that he has chosen not to testify, it was that he
"can't testify"; he could "barely introduce himself" in the time
allotted and, as a result, the Committee would be denied the
"benefit" from his remarks. He wished "the citizens of Alaska good
luck; I hope they're not burdened with this bill the way it is."
DR. EARLYWINE, Professor, New York State University, testified via
teleconference from an offnet site. His credentials included the
authoring of a book titled "Understanding Marijuana" which was
based on his review of approximately 500 marijuana studies.
9:11:53 AM
Dr. Earlywine characterized the history of marijuana as being
"extensive," with cannabis use being documented as early as 8000 BC
and its medical use documented as early as 2800 BC. While no lethal
dose of marijuana has been established to date, research estimates
that an individual would be required to smoke a minimum of two
pounds of marijuana in that regard.
Dr. Earlywine shared that one of the concerns that has been raised
during his presentations on marijuana is "the notion that today's
marijuana has an increase in potency" when compared to its potency
in the 1970s. While it is "true that marijuana today is probably a
little stronger than it was back in the 1970s … the increase is no
where near as big as what some of us have been led to believe" via
"certain alarmist media reports". Rather than today's estimates
being "awry, it's that the estimates" conducted in the 1970s "were
inaccurate." It was unknown at that time, how tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), which is the active chemical ingredient in marijuana, "broke
down." Therefore, the one percent THC reading estimates that are
considered "typical of that era" were based on marijuana "that had
been thrown in pot police evidence lockers and allowed to degrade"
before being sent for laboratory analyses.
Dr. Earlywine informed that, in a laboratory setting, a person who
smoked marijuana with a one-percent THC level might simply
experience a headache and thus think they had been provided a
placebo. Marijuana "is not psychoactive at that level"; it could be
compared to the "THC levels in hemp and things used for clothing…"
The consensus could be that the 1970s studies underestimated the
THC strength.
9:14:31 AM
Dr. Earlywine continued that while one might hear reports today of
marijuana with THC levels ranging between 15 and 20 percent, the
average would be in the four to six percent range. He shared that,
in the 1970s, an independent laboratory that did not rely on police
marijuana evidence, had reported average THC readings in the two to
four percent range. Thus "a doubling" of the THC concentration
might be the appropriate manner in which to consider the strength
of the increase.
Dr. Earlywine stated that, "underlying all this is the tacit
assumption that … stronger marijuana is somehow more dangerous."
While, "it's true that stronger proof" alcohol might lead to
"problems more readily", that is not the case with marijuana.
Laboratory research indicates that when people smoke marijuana with
higher THC content, "they subconsciously take shorter and smaller
puffs" in an effort to control their level of intoxication. In
addition, "the impact of any inhaled smoked drug is very rapid" so
that an individual could determine "what the dose is within a few
seconds rather than the case with alcohol" consumption where it
might take more than half an hour to experience the effect.
Numerous factors such as the "state of your stomach" would come
into play with alcohol. "This idea that more potent marijuana is
necessarily more dangerous is also worth questioning." Some people
would argue "that more potent marijuana has a kind of protective
effect because it would lead to smoking less in total". Therefore
there would be less lung exposure to carcinogens.
9:16:59 AM
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that contrary to the ten to
14-percent THC potency range reflected in Sec. 2(1) page two lines
eight through 18 of the bill, Dr. Earlywine's testimony would be
that today's marijuana THC content would be in the four to six
percent range. To that point, he asked whether different regions of
the country might produce higher potency levels than another.
9:17:52 AM
Dr. Earlywine responded that there is "an incredible variation
across different strains and like any other plant, it responds to
good care and light" and other factors. While there is marijuana
with 14 percent THC levels, it is "extremely rare". Most of the
samples he has reviewed range between two and five percent. Other
researchers' support a four to six percent THC range.
Co-Chair Wilken pointed out that language in Sec. 2(1) page two
lines 13 and 14 states that, during the period from 1997 to 2004,
the THC level of Alaska marijuana ranged from ten to 14 percent.
9:19:09 AM
Dr. Earlywine next addressed the respiratory effects of marijuana.
"Lungs are designed to breath fresh clean air and anything that's
inhaled into them" could cause potential problems. The media
portrays marijuana as being four or eight times more carcinogenic
than cigarettes. However, there is insufficient data to support
such claims. A California study found that while those who solely
smoked marijuana "didn't have any real differences in their rates
of lung cancer", they did portray "an increase in some respiratory
problems" such as coughing and bronchitis. However, their 36
percent rate of these problems was only slightly higher than the
33-percent rate of those who did not smoke anything at all. Even
though the increase is minor, efforts to reduce respiratory issues
are being furthered. To this point, new technology "for consuming
cannabis" has been developed to prevent respiratory problems. This
device, referred to as a "Vaporizer", would "capitalize" on the
fact that marijuana could be heated to a point at which it releases
THC and other chemicals in mist form, without igniting the
marijuana; thus no carcinogens, which are the sources of
respiratory problems, would be released into the air. Therefore,
while the respiratory issues associated with cannabis are nowhere
"near as bad as cigarettes", "the advent of the vaporizer" would
negate any respiratory issue relating to marijuana use.
9:21:42 AM
Dr. Earlywine also addressed "the idea of marijuana as being a
gateway drug." It is commonly believed that once a person uses
marijuana they would be "propelled downwards towards a desire to
use cocaine and heroin and" other drugs. However, he has determined
that this is not the case. While there are people who use heroin
who say that they "used marijuana first, the vast majority of folks
who use marijuana have never even seen heroin or hard drugs".
Rather than there being "a pharmacological connection between using
cannabis and hard drugs", the connection is that "they are just
part of the same underground market."
Dr. Earlywine stated that another California study indicates that
certain personalities are risk-takers: not only might they use hard
drugs, they would also not wear their seat belts, they would have
unsafe sex, and they would ride in the front car on a roller
coaster. Such individuals would tend to be the ones using a variety
of different drugs and doing other risky things. Therefore,
marijuana usage would not predetermine that the user be on "an
inevitable quest towards hard drugs, it's just that there is a
whole subset of folks who happen to use marijuana first and then go
on to use hard drugs."
9:23:25 AM
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that evidence would indicate
that for the "vast majority" of marijuana users, the drug is not a
gateway. However, marijuana use might be a gateway for a minority
of the State's population; perhaps more so in Rural areas as
evidenced by the amount of problems the State is experiencing in
those areas. There might also be a physiologically propensity for
Native Alaskans in this regard as well.
9:24:10 AM
Dr. Earlywine responded that this would depend on the definition of
gateway. The original studies used the term "stepping stone"; the
idea being that people would use marijuana prior to using other
drugs. Over time, the idea has transitioned to the belief that
marijuana use "leads to these other drugs." However, no studies
would support that position. It could be that marijuana users are
exposed to other drugs due to the fact that the wares are available
in "the same underground market.
Co-Chair Wilken acknowledged.
9:24:44 AM
Dr. Earlywine next addressed the theory that cannabis use could
lead to aggression by voicing surprise that this theory has
resurfaced as laboratory research conducted 30 years prior negated
the theory. Research has been conducted in which an aggressor has
been "planted" in the laboratory setting to test the response of
the user when aggressed upon, wronged, or subjected to things such
as having their hand placed in cold water. "Counter to the affects
that we get with alcohol, marijuana either has no impact on the
aggressive response or in one study actually decreased the
aggressive response, relative to the folks who smoked a placebo."
It should be pointed out that there could be "a subset of
aggressive" personalities who happen to use marijuana; however,
research would support "that marijuana does not increase
aggression, and if anything it stays the same or actually lowers."
9:26:09 AM
Senator Dyson thanked the testifier for providing his expertise to
the Committee. He asked whether an individual's judgment might be
impaired by marijuana.
Dr. Earlywine responded that the studies that have been conducted
have focused on tasks that might not be relevant to the key issues
being experienced in Alaska. Research involving complex reaction
time tasks such as requiring a person under the influence of
marijuana to press, for instance, the red light when it lights up
or the green button when it lights up, have found that a person's
reaction is somewhat impaired. However, findings do not indicate
that a person would be willing "to take more risks" or "engage in
anything potentially dangerous". One study found the opposite
affect.
Senator Dyson clarified that, rather than to the affect on one's
coordination, his question was to whether a person's judgment of
right or wrong might be affected. He recalled theories attesting
that marijuana use inflated egos and changed "cultural norms".
There has been testimony to the fact that some users might be less
capable of making judgments about what would be "appropriate
conduct and response".
Dr. Earlywine communicated that a person intoxicated on alcohol
could "lose some of your connection to your idea of your stated
morals". In other words "the super ego is alcohol soluble".
Unfortunately the literature on marijuana is unclear on this
matter, as it is difficult to study in a laboratory setting. People
in test studies are not willing to make risky decisions "even when
they are intoxicated".
9:28:30 AM
Senator Dyson understood therefore that a person intoxicated on
marijuana might not be impaired in the matter of making good
decisions on their own behalf.
9:28:44 AM
Dr. Earlywine affirmed that to be the result of laboratory testing.
However, he noted that clinical researchers who work with marijuana
abusers have stated that the abusers have reported doing "some
silly things" when they were "high". To that point however,
laboratory testing has indicated "that often people have that
expectation or they use it as an excuse" for doing something that
they had intended to do all along. "In truth, the impact of
marijuana on tasks that require … making the best decision has been
really minimal."
Senator Dyson asked regarding the danger of allowing a marijuana
user to operate heavy equipment.
9:29:49 AM
Dr. Earlywine stated that studies relating to driving abilities of
those under the influence of marijuana have been "very
controversial". He would not recommend that anyone should "drive
after smoking marijuana". The findings of three studies that tested
marijuana users after they were involved in an accident found that
results "were comparable to folks who hadn't smoked marijuana". A
foreign study in which people smoked marijuana in a controlled
setting and drove on the streets of Amsterdam in the Netherlands
reported some small problems such as staying in the center of the
driving lane, but no impairment of stopping distance, direction
following abilities, or turn signal abilities. It appeared that
people were actually compensating in that they increased the
distance between their car and other cars, were unlikely to pass
other cars, and "they drove more slowly than the folks who had
smoked a placebo". Therefore, the study found that people who were
driving under the influence were actually compensating for their
condition.
Senator Dyson acknowledged.
9:31:00 AM
Senator Stedman stated that he would be unwilling to work around
someone who was using marijuana or drinking alcohol and operating
heavy equipment or involved in other dangerous situations.
Dr. Earlywine agreed.
Senator Stedman asked how children and young adults are affected by
using marijuana or by living in a home "where marijuana use is
prevalent", specifically how it might affect their short-term
memory and their ability to learn.
9:31:57 AM
Dr. Earlywine noted that he is currently studying this issue, as it
is the basis for another book he is writing. No one could dispute
the idea that marijuana is not for children. School literature on
this issue is "complicated". There are claims that marijuana use
would cause young people to lose their motivation and that teens
would decide not to continue their schooling or would "do very
poorly" in school. Studies have found that "high school students
who used marijuana had lower grades than their peers who did not
use". However, it was found after reviewing those students' grades
before they began to use marijuana, that their grades "were also
lower then". Therefore, rather than marijuana use lowering their
grades, the thought is that "students who are having trouble in
school end up using marijuana at a younger age. Nevertheless", as
medical tests, including MRIs, are developed, "it is becoming
clearer and clearer that marijuana is hard on the developing brain…
this is not something that teens should play with."
Dr. Earlywine continued that literature regarding short-term memory
clearly indicates, "that during intoxication, it is extremely hard
to learn new material". "Students should not go to class high" as
doing so would impair their ability to "absorb" new information.
Nonetheless, studies indicate that when adults are no longer
intoxicated, both their short-term and long-term memories seem to
be relatively "unaffected" by either occasional or frequent use
over a couple of years.
Senator Stedman stated that while that is good to hear, there would
continue to be concern about youth in high school who use marijuana
during those formative years, as they would have "a substantial gap
in their education".
Dr. Earlywine agreed. Nobody could attend high school and absorb
all that they were being taught if they were high.
9:34:51 AM
Senator Bunde, noting that there is considerable concern about
exposing children to second hand tobacco smoke, asked regarding the
affect of second hand marijuana smoke on children.
9:35:24 AM
Dr. Earlywine stated that no studies have been conducted in this
area. "The issue is an interesting one in part because although
marijuana may have more chemicals in it than tobacco smoke, people
tend to smoke markedly less marijuana than they do tobacco." Thus
the issue might be "relatively minor in comparison". The more
prominent issue might be the idea of smoking marijuana in front of
teens or children. This would be "ill-advised".
9:36:04 AM
Dr. Earlywine addressed the economic costs of the prohibition of
marijuana. Research indicates that absent this prohibition,
billions of dollars could be saved nationwide and law enforcement
efforts could be focused on other important issues, such as the use
of hard drugs like methamphetamine. Another recommendation would be
that law enforcement efforts focus on youth rather than adult usage
as that has more serious consequences, developmentally.
Dr. Earlywine stated that a big social issue is the evolving of
marijuana for medical uses. A number of ailments such as AIDS-
related wasting, cancers, spinal cord injuries, and migraine
headaches respond extremely well to marijuana. Allowing use of
medical marijuana for such things would be "a humane way" of
dealing with them.
Co-Chair Green noted that medical marijuana uses have been
discussed in Alaska for many years.
9:38:16 AM
Senator Olson, a medical doctor, asked whether some research
findings might be outdated; specifically whether Dr. Earlywine
agreed with the "findings that cannabis does not have any affect on
the exhibition of violence".
9:39:04 AM
Dr. Earlywine replied that those findings are "consistent with
laboratory data. There is a subset of folks who seem to be
aggressive who also seem to use marijuana, but actual marijuana
intoxication doesn't increase aggression."
9:39:24 AM
Senator Olson asked whether those finding would be maintained "in
spite of the incidents within the criminal community that has
pointed out or have stated that they do become aggressive when they
do smoke marijuana."
Dr. Earlywine remarked that upon close review, "most of those
antidotes" end up involving marijuana combined with the use of
alcohol. His own data would support that the use of alcohol "is the
contributor to aggression."
9:39:42 AM
Senator Olson revisited Dr. Earlywine's comments regarding the
carcinogens associated with smoking marijuana. A publication by a
researcher named Iverson stated that rather than the issue being
THC, the level of tar in the product is of concern.
9:40:12 AM
Dr. Earlywine agreed. The aforementioned Vaporizer would address
that issue.
Senator Olson noted that research quoted in Iverson's publication
found that pre-malignant lesions occurred when the skin of mice was
exposed to marijuana.
9:40:34 AM
Dr. Earlywine characterized that study as "an interesting one".
However, due to the fact that "the dosage that the mice were
exposed to was so high relative to what a normal human dosage would
be" that he was hesitant to draw a conclusion from those findings.
Senator Olson voiced concern in regards to the impact of marijuana
on pregnancy, particularly in regards to Alaska Native women. This
would not only affect "the generation at hand" it would affect "the
next generation". In his clinical setting experience, he has
observed that THC appears "to exacerbate other mental illnesses".
9:41:38 AM
Dr. Earlywine recounted that a 1990s study involving people who had
been diagnosed with schizophrenia had determined that those people
"should clearly stay away from marijuana", as it tended "to make
their subsequent psychotic breaks happen more readily." The media
however has encouraged the theory that marijuana could cause
schizophrenia. "That's an exaggeration".
9:42:03 AM
Co-Chair Green thanked Dr. Earlywine for his testimony.
Dr. Earlywine voiced appreciation for the opportunity to speak to
the Committee and encouraged them to contact him were there any
further questions.
Co-Chair Green acknowledged.
WILLIAM TANDESKE, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
remarked that his approach to any issue is one of focusing
primarily on whether the action being taken would affect the
Department's "constituents in a positive way and how do we reduce
the incidents that come up in the public's safety arena."
Commissioner Tandeske stated that the Department has identified
some "core missions for the Alaska State Troopers" including drug
and alcohol issues, rural public safety services, and Statewide
criminal investigations.
9:43:41 AM
Commissioner Tandeske stated "drug issues, including marijuana,
tend to reach across all three of those disciplines." The
Department must be provided the tools necessary to address the
issues. Since he has been involved in law enforcement in the State
since 1973, he is aware of numerous Alaska State Court decisions,
specifically the Crocker v. State decision that served to impede
law enforcement efforts to obtain search warrants. "It was an issue
that did not need resolution because the search warrant process is
a check and balance process involving a judicial officer and law
enforcement where information is vetted properly prior to issuance
of a search warrant."
Commissioner Tandeske noted that he had reviewed search warrants
obtained by his drug enforcement staff in regards to "marijuana
grows". While a significant number of those involved very small
amounts of marijuana, 90-percent of the 81 marijuana grows search
warrants in the Matanuska Valley over a four-year period involved
over a pound of marijuana. More than 92-percent of them involved
more than a quarter pound of marijuana. The conclusion is that "the
process that was in place prior to the Crocker decision was working
effectively in addressing the public's expectation of the
Department".
9:45:32 AM
Commissioner Tandeske continued that the second issue of importance
in this legislation "that is long overdue" is how the Department
would "quantify" or "weigh products" without having "to process a
marijuana grow" as a dealer would. The proposed process would allow
the Department to spend more time conducting law enforcement and
intelligence efforts and less time on the "tedious processing
issue".
Commissioner Tandeske stated that this legislation "would maintain
the checks and balances that are appropriate and that the public
expects." It would also allow the Department to conduct its
activities in a manner expected by the public.
9:46:33 AM
Co-Chair Green shared that a concern that has been expressed to her
is the retention of the rights of the recreational user who might
have a small amount of marijuana; therefore she asked whether
safeguards to address this concern have been incorporated into this
legislation.
9:46:53 AM
Commissioner Tandeske responded "absolutely". The fact that 90-
percent of the search warrants that had been served in the Mat-Su
Valley had involved more than a pound of marijuana would indicate
that the efforts are focusing on commercial grows.
9:47:27 AM
Senator Hoffman, recalling that 92-percent of the search warrants
involved at least a quarter pound of marijuana, asked the smallest
amount prosecuted relating to the remaining eight percent.
Commissioner Tandeske stated that that information would require
research. It was his experience that small amounts of marijuana
have not been prosecuted. He deferred to the Department of Law to
address the parameters for what would result in prosecution as well
as "how many convictions for small amounts might have resulted from
plea agreements from larger amounts down to smaller amounts".
Senator Olson asked regarding an earlier testifier's claim that the
THC content of marijuana thirty year's ago might have been one
percent, as this is contrary to the Department of Law's message
that the THC content might range from 14 to 20 percent. To that
point, he asked whether the Commissioner was "disputing" that
information due to shelf life and other factors.
Commissioner Tandeske voiced being unqualified to speak to the
scientific aspects of marijuana. However, he recalled that when he
was an active Alaska State Trooper, "there was a time that
marijuana in the Matanuska Valley was marketed as the best in the
world".
Senator Olson asked opponents' position on the quantifying measures
being proposed in Sec. 6 of the bill, specifically whether the
determination that the end product would be one-sixth of a live
marijuana plant's weight "would be a credible number".
9:49:56 AM
Commissioner Tandeske, while reiterating that science was not his
field of expertise, believed that "imperial data … would support
that as being a reasonable way of quantifying a grow."
Senator Olson acknowledged.
9:50:23 AM
Senator Bunde noted that "alcohol has been a problem" with most
cultures for thousands of years. One of the most common arguments
in defense of not limiting access to marijuana "is that it's no
worse than alcohol; it's not as bad as alcohol". He requested the
Department's view of this; in other words, "why bother with
marijuana" when there are worse issues to address.
Commissioner Tandeske stated that in his 26-years of experience as
a State Trooper, he has seen the affects of both "drugs and alcohol
all too graphically. It is hard to minimize the impact of
marijuana": its impact on Rural Alaska, its involvement in motor
vehicle accidents, gun "shoot outs" and other violence such as
robberies that goes with the drug trade. One of the consistent
things accompanying a marijuana grow is its being accompanied by
weapons and money. There could also be a crossover into other
drugs. He recounted that in a recent case involving a search
warrant obtained for cocaine, marijuana for sale and illegal
weapons and cash were found. Such things usually accompany the drug
trade. In response to an earlier testifier's comments that a
marijuana user who is driving might overcompensate for their
condition, he shared having arrested many people driving under the
influence of alcohol who also overcompensated for their condition.
"There's a lot of parallels."
Senator Bunde asked whether it would "be fair to summarize" that a
marijuana user might "tend to be non-violent" whereas the producer
of marijuana would "tend to be violent".
Commissioner Tandeske "hesitated to make such blanket
characterizations" of users or producers of marijuana; however, he
declared, "there is violence in the drug trade." He has had
physical confrontations with people under the influence of
marijuana as well as those under the influence of alcohol and other
drugs.
9:54:05 AM
Senator Dyson restated the question he had asked of a previous
testifier in regards to the effect that marijuana use might have on
a person's judgment. While acknowledging people's opinion that
marijuana users are "more laid back and less aggressive", he asked
whether they could also be considered as being "more compliant";
specifically whether evidence would indicate that marijuana is
being used as "a vehicle to enhance … sexual seduction".
Commissioner Tandeske responded that differentiating the cause of a
person's behavior is sometimes difficult. In addition to marijuana,
alcohol might have been consumed. Ultimately, the combination of
factors occurring in Rural Alaska resulting in such things as
accidental deaths, suicides, and violent crime must be addressed.
This effort would be part of the solution.
9:55:43 AM
Senator Dyson further clarified his question by asking whether the
Commissioner has ever encountered sexual assault, albeit non-
violent, caused by a perpetrator using marijuana "as a kind of an
access drug".
Commissioner Tandeske responded that due to the fact that he has
not recently worked in the field, he could not specifically recall
encountering such as situation.
9:56:20 AM
Senator Stedman shared that when he was in high school, he and
other students characterized the government's drug education
findings as being "almost comical due to the inaccuracies". While
not as blatant, the findings of this legislation could be viewed as
being "tilted over the line in that direction." With exception to
the Findings, he was more comfortable with the enforcement
components that would assist the Department of Public Safety with
its mission of providing public safety, obtaining search warrants,
and dealing with those possessing four or more ounces of marijuana.
9:58:02 AM
Senator Stedman opined that the Legislature would better serve the
public by concentrating more "on the intent and direction of this
bill" than on the Findings section. While the testimony thus far
has focused on the affect of marijuana on adults, he voiced concern
that the State would face more problems in the future with the
impact of the drug on children. Schoolteachers have told him that
they could smell marijuana on children's clothes in elementary
school.
9:59:14 AM
Senator Hoffman commented to the fact that the Department of Public
Safety indicates in its fiscal note that the passage of this
legislation would have zero fiscal impact. While that might be the
case, in separate testimony, the Department has testified that,
"they are overworked". It could be assumed that the added
responsibilities that would be imposed were this legislation
adopted would result in something else being moved to a position of
lesser priority. Therefore, he asked whether this was a matter of
concern to the Department, in light of the fact that no additional
personnel were being requested.
10:00:16 AM
Commissioner Tandeske responded that the Department is not
concerned as this legislation would reinstitute search warrant
provisions that had been in effect two years prior. Thus, the
probable cause provisions dealing with search warrants for
marijuana grows would be less cumbersome. Nothing else would be
negatively affected.
10:01:11 AM
WES MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, American Civil Liberties Union, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage and shared that, while it did not
work out, efforts had been exerted to have another testifier,
Jeffrey A. Miron, Professor of Economics at Harvard University,
discuss his June 2005 study titled "Budgetary Implications of
Marijuana Prohibition". That study's findings indicate that
legalizing marijuana would save the nation $7,700,000,000 annually
in regards to government spending on efforts to enforce the
prohibition on marijuana. Therefore, it could be extrapolated that
criminalizing marijuana in this State would incur expenses relating
to enforcing anything more that zero marijuana possession issues as
opposed to its sale or manufacturing. A table in the study
indicates that Alaska "spends less than the national average in
terms of marijuana possession arrests, but about in the middle of
the nation percentage wise in terms of sale and manufacturing
enforcement issues". Changing the marijuana possession level to
anything more than zero would not necessarily change those figures.
10:03:17 AM
Mr. Ball asked the Committee to research other drug reform studies
that are available on the Internet including Citizens Against
Government Waste's website at www.taxpayer.net\drugreform and the
American Enterprise Institute's website www.aei.org. These studies
would be informative in regards to the fiscal impact of marijuana
related legislation.
Co-Chair Green ordered the bill SET ASIDE.
AT EASE 10:04:07 AM / 10:13:46 AM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 149(JUD)
"An Act relating to controlled substances regarding the crimes
of manslaughter and misconduct involving a controlled
substance; relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine and
to the sale, possession, and delivery of certain substances
and precursors used in the manufacture of methamphetamine;
relating to listing certain anabolic steroids as controlled
substances; relating to the listing of property that
constitutes an illegal drug manufacturing site; amending Rule
41, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
10:14:13 AM
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt committee substitute Version 24-
LS0596\Z as the working document.
Co-Chair Green objected for discussion.
DARWIN PETERSON, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, informed the
Committee that, "in essence" the Version "Z" committee substitute
is a combination of HB 149 and SB 74-CRIMES INVOLVING
MARIJUANA/OTHER DRUGS, both of which relate to controlled
substances.
Mr. Peterson informed the Committee that the committee substitute
also included Committee action in regards to SB 74 and SB 70-CRIMES
INVOLVING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES that had occurred on Tuesday,
January 10, 2006, as follows.
Language adopted to SB 74 by Amendment #1 was incorporated
into this bill in Sec. 2 page two line nine following
"Alaska." as follows.
"The Legislature has also considered its obligation to carry
out the intent of the voters of Alaska in recriminalizing
marijuana by ballot initiative in 1990, and in defeating
ballot initiatives to again decriminalize marijuana in 2000
and 2004."
In addition, language that was adopted in Amendment #1 to SB
74 was inserted into Sec. 2(9) on page four following "sell;"
on line seven as follows.
"the street value of marijuana today is between $350 and $550
per ounce; the legislature heard evidence that possession of
four ounces or more indicates an intent to distribute; and
therefore this is the appropriate amount to justify a felony
offense"
And furthermore, the following language was added after
"(Alaska App. 2004)" in Sec. 2(9) page four line eleven as per
the adoption of Amendment #1 to SB 74.
"to invalidate search warrants for commercial marijuana-
growing and,"
Mr. Peterson specified that language was deleted in Sec. 8 page 10
following line 2 "that would have made the possession of marijuana
while driving a Class A Misdemeanor". Language was also deleted
from Sec. 9 page 10 following line 13 that "would have made
possession of marijuana as a passenger in a motor vehicle a Class B
Misdemeanor. Both of these deletions are also the result of
Amendment #1 to SB 74".
Mr. Peterson recalled testimony from Mr. Guaneli from the
Department of Law that specified that these deletions "would serve
to streamline the bill since this conduct" is already provided
under Alaska Statutes.
Mr. Peterson stated that the following new section was incorporated
into Sec. 12(b) on page 12 lines 22 through 27 per Amendment #2 to
SB 70. This language would be required to insure the exemptions to
the six-gram limit on pseudoephedrine products for such things as
lodges and schools.
(2) more than six but less than 24 grams of a listed chemical
identified in (a) of this section in an ordinary course of a
legitimate business or nonprofit organization, or as an
employee of a legitimate business or nonprofit organization,
operating a camp, lodge, school, day care center, treatment
center, other organized group activity, and the location or
nature of the activity , or the age of the participants makes
it impractical for the participants in the activity to obtain
medicinal products.
Mr. Peterson communicated that per Amendment #2 to SB 74, the
entirety of Sec. 16, page 15 lines 5 through 31 was added to HB
149. This language would "provide protection for the personal use
of marijuana in a person's home by imposing a fine rather than jail
time for the first two convictions."
* Sec. 16. AS 12.55.135 is amended by adding a new subsection
to read:
(k) A court may not impose a sentence of imprisonment or
suspended imprisonment for possession of marijuana in
violation of AS 11.71.060 if the defendant alleges, and the
court finds, that the defendant was not under formal or
informal probation or parole conditions in this or another
jurisdiction at the time of the offense; that the defendant
possessed the marijuana for the defendant's personal use
within the defendant's permanent or temporary residence; and
that the defendant has not been previously convicted more than
once in this or another jurisdiction for possession of
marijuana. If the defendant has not been previously convicted
as described in this subsection, the maximum unsuspended fine
that the court may impose is $500. If the defendant has been
previously convicted once as described in this subsection, the
maximum unsuspended fine that the court may impose is $1,000.
In this subsection,
(1) "permanent or temporary residence" means a
permanent structure adopted for overnight accommodation;
"permanent or temporary residence" does not include
(A) vehicles, tents, prisons or other
correctional facilities, residential treatment facilities, or
shelters operated by a charitable organization or a government
agency;
(B) any place where the defendant's possession
or use of marijuana violated established rules for residents,
such as a ban on smoking or a ban on marijuana or other
controlled substances;
(2) "previously convicted" means the defendant entered a
plea of guilty, no contest, or nolo contendere, or has been
found guilty by a court or jury, regardless of whether the
conviction was set aside under AS 12.55.085 or a similar
procedure in another jurisdiction, of possession of marijuana;
"previously convicted" does not include a judgment that has
been reversed or vacated by a court.
Co-Chair Green asked that this section be further explained.
Mr. Peterson stated that this language would address the criticism
that has been received that this legislation would negatively
affect the recreational user. It would "clarify that the
Committee's intent is to give the Department of Public Safety the
tools they need to go after the large marijuana growers." An
individual who was "caught using marijuana in the privacy of their
own home would not be faced with any sort of a jail time. There
would only be a fine."
10:18:10 AM
Mr. Peterson stated that per Committee discussion on Tuesday,
January 10, 2006, new language to address the concern regarding
emancipated minors and members of the military under the age of 18
has been incorporated into Sec. 18(c) page 16, lines 20 and 21 in
order "for those individuals to be treated in the same manner as an
adult".
Mr. Peterson noted that the final change to HB 149 would involve
the addition of new language as reflected in Sec. 18(g) on page 17
lines 8 and 9 that reads as follows.
(g) Notwithstanding another provision of law, a municipality
may not enact or enforce an ordinance that is inconsistent
with this section.
Mr. Peterson noted that this section would prohibit a local
government from "preempting State law with regard to the sale or
dispensation of restricted ephedrine products".
10:18:52 AM
Mr. Peterson stated that the rest of the bill is identical to the
work that the Committee conducted in regards to SB 70 and SB 74 on
January 10, 2006.
10:19:11 AM
Co-Chair Green asked whether there were any questions regarding the
bill; specifically whether there were any questions about "the
merger of these two drug enforcement bills". The bills were merged
"for convenience and hearings … as they have so much in common".
10:19:34 AM
Senator Olson concurred that the issues have many similar
properties: "the addictiveness, the dependency, the mind altering
psychoactive component". However, he voiced difficulty in regards
to the public policy question, respectful of the fact that there
are two different substances and that, unlike methamphetamine,
there is a medical prescriptive component to marijuana.
10:21:00 AM
Co-Chair Green, while noting that she would defer to Mr. Guaneli of
the Department of Law, communicated that the purpose of combining
the marijuana and methamphetamine bills was to address "the final
result" of the products, specifically their "harm" and the efforts
having to be exerted by the Department of Public Safety, health
officials, and others "to curb those".
10:21:30 AM
Senator Olson acknowledged Co-Chair Green's comments. His
reservation would be that combining the two bills might jeopardize
a doctor's medical license were the doctor to prescribe medical
marijuana.
Co-Chair Green asked Mr. Guaneli to speak to Senator Olson's
concern.
10:21:54 AM
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
informed the Committee that this bill would address three
controlled substances: marijuana, methamphetamine, and anabolic
steroids. The fact that the bill's title includes the reference to
controlled substances would allow the bills to be combined as that
term would meet the single subject requirement required by law.
Mr. Guaneli continued that separate State Statute "directly
relating to medical use" would address the question pertaining to
the medical use of marijuana. This bill would be limited to illegal
rather than legal uses of controlled substances.
In response to a comment from Co-Chair Green, Mr. Guaneli
reiterated that "there is good grounds for combining the bills and
that the medical aspect is a completely separate issue dealt with
in separate law."
10:23:23 AM
Senator Olson stated that while the legal aspect might be
substantiated, he continued to have concerns in regard to the
public policy issue. He pointed out that while there are medical
reasons to prescribe such things as cocaine, that substance has not
been included in this bill.
10:23:58 AM
Mr. Guaneli voiced appreciation of Senator Olson's public policy
concern; however, specified that he had been directed to address
the legal aspects of the bill. The Alaska Court System has provided
"broad authority to the Legislature to consider any number of
measures of public concerns as long as it fits within a single
subject…" The Courts have provided the broadest authority in
regards to issues involving health and safety concerns.
Mr. Guaneli pointed out that testimony has supported the fact that
the State has a meth, marijuana, and anabolic steroid problem. The
effort to address all of those issues in one bill might "raise
policy questions" but "is certainly legitimate and an efficient way
to proceed".
10:25:21 AM
Senator Hoffman commented that marijuana has been a controversial
issue in the State for more than a decade. Continuing, he noted
that there was "broad support" for the original version of HB 149,
which focused on meth. That is the issue that might cause some
problems for some people. To that point, he asked that
Representative Jay Ramras, the sponsor of HB 149, provide input to
the Committee.
10:26:13 AM
Co-Chair Green conveyed that in discussions with people about
whether combining the two bills might provide a workable solution
the response had been favorable.
10:26:37 AM
Co-Chair Green stated that she is looking forward to the process
and "arriving at a solution" through which to immediately address
the dilemma the State is facing.
Senator Bunde agreed that these are all controlled substances. He
noted that each of them might have some medical application to
which a competent physician would be aware.
10:27:28 AM
Co-Chair Green clarified that the focus of the bill is the illegal
use of these controlled substances.
Mr. Guaneli informed the Committee that there is "a very narrow
medical use for methamphetamine" in that there is an FDA approved
product, which is used to treat severe cases of obesity. He noted
however, that the effectiveness of that product is such that it is
not used very often. Nonetheless, this would support the fact that
a manufacturer could "carve out a little niche for a product". The
illegal use of the drug "far outweighs its legal use".
10:28:39 AM
Senator Olson shared that in his experience, prescribed
methamphetamine is very effective in treating obesity; however its
side affects are the issue.
10:29:00 AM
Co-Chair Green removed her objection to the committee substitute.
There being no further objection, Version "Z" was ADOPTED as the
working document.
Conceptual Amendment #1: This amendment deletes Sec. 18(g) on page
17, lines eight and nine. The language being deleted reads as
follows.
(g) Notwithstanding another provision of law, a municipality
may not enact or enforce an ordinance that is inconsistent
with this section.
Senator Bunde moved Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Wilken objected.
Senator Bunde stated that the organization of government in the
State allows for a multitude of ways to address issues and problems
that arise, including "some fervent local control" as supported by
the fact that some communities in the State do not allow alcohol
and that there are different taxing levels on tobacco. Thus, it "is
unusual" that a provision would be included in this bill that would
prohibit a local community from "changing the law on marijuana and
methamphetamine or steroids". Local people should be allowed the
option to make "more stringent laws" in regards to these substances
if so desired. Alaska Legislators are often frustrated that federal
law limits their ability to make decisions on the State level.
10:32:07 AM
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this might be the first time he has
"spoken against local control". This legislation is "a big step" in
the effort against these substances. The hope is that society would
hear the message that these substances "do much more harm than
good". His concern is that were contiguous communities to adopt
different rules and law, there would be confusion, including the
fact that retailers operating in more than one community would be
required to conduct different training rules. Furthermore, there
could be enforcement problems.
Co-Chair Wilken continued that were local communities able to
impose different laws, a person conducting these activities might
choose to operate in a community having looser restrictions than
another. The fact that this is a Statewide issue would support
there being a single common rule.
10:33:49 AM
Co-Chair Wilken, characterizing this legislation as being "a big
step", stated that the issue could be readdressed in the future.
The confusion that would be created by allowing local communities
to make their own laws and the concern that one community's laws
might negatively affect another community would undermine the
Statewide effort.
10:34:42 AM
Senator Hoffman spoke in support of allowing local control. This
amendment would enable communities to instill "higher protections".
People move to other communities for many reasons including
different sales tax amounts and commerce reasons.
Senator Hoffman informed the Committee that at a conference he and
Senator Bunde had attended, there was support for requiring
logbooks at retail outlets. While requiring that pseudoephedrine
products be kept behind a counter would reduce the problem, the
logs "would provide more protection or reduction in the abuse of
this drug".
10:36:13 AM
Co-Chair Green clarified that the provision included in Sec 18(g)
would only apply to meth-related products.
10:36:36 AM
Senator Stedman also spoke in support of the amendment, as he is
unconvinced that this legislation is "quite going far enough." The
State of Oregon recently passed legislation requiring
pseudoephedrine to be a prescription drug. Unless this drug could
be controlled in our communities, the issue would require
redressing.
10:37:09 AM
Senator Olson stated that this amendment would have a positive
aspect, as it would allow "a proactive community" to implement
ordinances that could assist in "diverting" problems that might be
experienced by a neighboring community. In addition, law
enforcement efforts in many of the communities he represents are
conducted by the Alaska State Troopers. Oftentimes the laws that
they must uphold are of a different magnitude to those of the local
ordinances. A local police force should not be inhibited were a
community to desire to become more proactive.
Senator Olson also pointed out that due to the fact that meth "is
such a rising issue, federal law might preempt our State laws in
the very near future".
10:38:48 AM
Co-Chair Green understood that the federal policy on meth "is tied
to the Patriot Act" and as that Act develops, "a totally different
set of rules" might come into play.
10:39:07 AM
Senator Bunde understood Co-Chair Wilken concerns; however, he
noted that local control is currently allowed in regards to
alcohol. While people might choose to live in one community verses
another due to the local alcohol ordinances, there has been no
effort to remove local control in that regard. Were it found that
removing the local control prohibition in regards to this bill was
in error, it could be readdressed.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Dyson, Senator Hoffman, Senator Olson, Senator
Stedman, and Senator Bunde
OPPOSED: Co-Chair Wilken and Co-Chair Green
The motion PASSED (5-2)
Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
10:40:42 AM
Amendment #2: This amendment deletes the Findings language in Sec.
2(7) page 3 lines 23--26. The language being deleted reads as
follows.
(7) a high percentage of persons arrested in this state,
including adults and juveniles who commit violent offenses,
have marijuana in their system at the time of the arrest; the
percentage is particularly high for adults arrested for
domestic violence who test positive for marijuana at the time
of the arrest;
Senator Stedman moved for consideration of Amendment #2. He
reiterated his earlier comments that some of the Findings were
extreme. This Finding insinuates that the use of marijuana would
lead to violence; however, earlier testimony would not support that
position. "Clearly marijuana has a tendency" to sedate people as
opposed to making them violent. Removal of this language would keep
the issue "on point".
Senator Bunde stated that rather than interpreting this Finding to
indicate that marijuana use causes people to commit violent
offenses and domestic violence, his interpretation is that people
who do those things "may also be marijuana users". Therefore he
would not deem the Finding as being "factually incorrect".
10:42:42 AM
Mr. Guaneli communicated that, "there's nothing in that Finding
that says that marijuana causes violence". He voiced appreciation
for Dr. Earlywine's comments and characterized him as "a very
knowledgeable and thoughtful witness" whose remarks before the
Committee were "very candid and he conceded a lot of points about
marijuana". Nonetheless, there is a difference between studies
conducted in a controlled laboratory setting and those provoked in
a real setting. This Finding is based on a long-term study of
people in the Anchorage jail that was conducted by the University
of Alaska. Urine samples of those arrested were tested for
marijuana. The findings of the total male arrestees found that
approximately 50-percent tested positive for marijuana. The percent
of males arrested on Domestic Violence (DV) charges who tested
positive for marijuana "went up significantly" to approximately 70-
percent. That is what is presented in this Finding. The findings of
the University of Alaska study concluded that a significantly
greater percentage of people arrested for DV tested positive for
marijuana. "The point" that should be recognized is that "most
domestic violence occurs in the home; that's where people are
smoking marijuana; that's where domestic violence abuse occurs, and
there's" some unknown "correlation". This is "the actual finding in
Alaska today".
10:45:33 AM
Senator Stedman opined that Mr. Guaneli's comments supported his
point. While 50-percent of the men tested in the Anchorage jail
study tested positive for marijuana, 50-percent did not. In his
experience in Southeast Alaska, "alcohol is much more pervasive"
than marijuana. He ventured to guess that the people who tested
positive in the University of Alaska jail study also "tested
positive for other illegal drugs and most likely alcohol also."
Alcohol use would be more common in DV situations in Southeast
Alaska. He would support moving away from the beliefs that were
commonplace in the 1960s and 1970s "and move to be more on-point in
this area of the bill and the message that is being sent" to
marijuana users and youth. "The generational disconnect" should be
acknowledged. The intent would be to convey "a clean concise
message" to people, particularly youth, that this product has far
reaching affects on them. He referenced earlier testimony regarding
the impact of marijuana use on youth's memories and their ability
to absorb new information. Such "impacts could last for generations
in terms" of what experiences might have been lost as a result of
marijuana use at one's younger age. The language in Sec. 2(7)
should be excluded from the bill.
10:48:27 AM
AT EASE: 10:48:42 AM / 10:49:39 AM
Without objection, Senator Stedman WITHDREW Amendment #2.
Amendment #3: This amendment deletes "the percentage is
particularly high for adults arrested for domestic violence who
test positive for marijuana at the time of the arrest;" following
";" in Sec. 2(7) on page 3 lines 25 and 26.
Senator Stedman moved to adopt Amendment #3.
Senator Olson asked whether Senator Stedman is implying that the
language being omitted is incorrect.
Senator Stedman allowed that while "there might be validities" to
the language being offered for deletion, he was "more concerned
with the message that it sends". An effort should be made to make
the Findings and the message "more on point". The point is better
made by eliminating the language proposed in Amendment #3 as
opposed to deleting the entirety of Sec. 2(7) as was proposed in
Amendment #2.
Senator Stedman concluded that the adoption of this amendment would
not impact "the ability of law enforcement agencies to do what
needs to get done".
10:52:45 AM
Senator Bunde doubted that few 15-year olds would be reading the
findings in Sec. 2.
Senator Bunde characterized domestic violence as being "a huge
problem" in the State. The University of Alaska findings that
indicate the majority of people who commit DV also have evidence of
marijuana in their system should not be ignored. He opined that if
anything should be removed from Sec. 2(7) it should be the first
portion rather than the second portion of the Finding.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Stedman, Senator Hoffman, and Co-Chair Green
OPPOSED: Senator Bunde, Senator Dyson, Senator Olson, and Co-Chair
Wilken
The motion FAILED (3-4)
Amendment #3 FAILED to be adopted.
10:54:16 AM
Senator Olson observed there being seven references to Alaska
Natives in the Findings presented in Sec. 2 pages two and three.
Testimony pointed out that there was no difference in the results
of studies relating to Alaska Natives verses other population
groups within the State. He questioned whether there was intent to
target the Alaska Native population, as there are no references to
other minorities such as Blacks. Therefore, he asked to the reason
for including these references.
10:55:40 AM
Co-Chair Green noted that each year, there is discussion during
Legislative drug, alcohol, and substance abuse hearings about "the
designation of great sums of money on a racial basis" to Native
Alaskan and Rural Alaska programs. This could not continue to be
done while claiming "that it's not a problem".
10:56:10 AM
Mr. Guaneli stated that this Finding was not intended to "denigrate
Alaska Natives or any other group"; rather the intent was "to make
the case that we're dealing with a problem in Alaska". Marijuana in
this State "is particularly potent". In order to address the issue
fairly, the fact that "there are certain populations within Alaska
that seem to be more disproportionably affected by this than
others" must be recognized. The Finding that "more than half being
children under 18 years of age and more than a third being Alaska
Natives" as depicted in Sec. 2(2) page 2 lines 25 and 26, was
derived as a result of testimony presented by the Division of
Behavioral Health, Department of Health and Social Services to the
Senate Health and Social Services and Judiciary Committees the
previous Legislative session. The statement in the Finding
pertaining to pregnant women was based on a recent Department of
Health and Social Services study.
Mr. Guaneli noted that this information is consistent with
information compiled several years earlier. The averages of Alaska
Native high school youth users came from Youth Risk Behavior
surveys which indicate that Native use in this age group "is 20
percent higher than non-Native use. Those were the most striking
differences among various groups." Variations between Blacks,
Asian, and Pacific Islanders and other non-Native groups as
compared to Native youth are minor. "This is a recognition that in
Alaska we have particular problems that would justify a solution
for Alaska only". Testimony provided by the Alaska State Troopers
contended that Alaska Native villages would likely be impacted by
marijuana production and availability. "It's all joined together
and no disrespect" was intended. The Finding is simply "recognition
that there are Alaska specific problems that need to be dealt
with."
10:59:23 AM
Senator Olson asked Mr. Guaneli whether he would support an
amendment to remove the Native references.
10:59:58 AM
Mr. Guaneli responded that he could not "agree with the
characterization that those are pejorative references. They are an
accurate reflection of what is happening in our society." The
question would be in regards to the reason for removing the
language. Were the language removed, a Court in the future might
determine that the Legislature had not perceived there to be a
problem in Rural Alaska and that the problem was less than thought.
The Findings were developed "to reflect what the experts and the
statistics show". There was no disrespectful intent.
11:00:58 AM
Senator Olson opined that this language would have a "subconscious
effect" on non-Native individuals of targeting Alaska Natives.
Mr. Guaneli, acknowledging being non-Native, noted that this was
not his interpretation of the language.
11:01:39 AM
Senator Dyson voiced being impressed by Senator Olson's comments.
Therefore, he questioned whether the implications of the data might
be "more geographic than racial". He suggested that replacing the
term Native with the term "Rural" might address Senator Olson's
concerns.
11:02:22 AM
Senator Olson responded that the difficulty with Senator Dyson's
proposal is that people in the studies identified themselves as
Native rather than Rural.
Mr. Guaneli commented that the people in the Department of Health
and Social Services studies "self-report" themselves as being
Alaska Native.
11:03:05 AM
Mr. Guaneli noted that he would not be opposed to making changes to
address this concern as long as it was "clear that the reason for
the deletion of references to Alaska Natives is because of concern
that somehow the findings were disrespectful or pejorative, not
that there is a doubt about the statistic." The studies would speak
for themselves and could be argued in Court regardless of the
exclusion of the references to Alaska Natives in these findings.
11:04:04 AM
Senator Bunde stated that, "with all due respect to Senator Olson
and the Native people of Alaska, denial is one of the huge parts of
treating drug dependency and alcohol abuse." No one has argued
that, "these facts are not true". Therefore, an attempt "to gloss
over or ignore the problem, Native or non-Native" would not assist
in addressing the problem. Rather than being "pejorative,
acknowledgement is the first step toward" addressing the problem.
He likened this to a family in denial of having a family member who
is an alcoholic or a drug abuser. That denial would allow the
behavior to continue.
11:05:06 AM
Senator Stedman noted that he has not had an opportunity to review
the studies. Nonetheless, he would expect there to be a high
correlation between someone having an education level of grade
twelve or beyond and economic opportunities within the geographic
area, regardless of the location in the State. While he was unsure
as to how education factored into the studies, references have been
made to those having low education skills, regardless of ethnic
background and economic opportunities. The State should be cautious
in regards to language that is used.
11:06:32 AM
Conceptual Amendment #4: This amendment removes references to
Alaska Natives in the bill's findings by deleting "and more than a
third being Alaska Natives" following "age" in Sec. 2(2) page 2,
lines 25 and 26 and removing "and the percentage of pregnant Alaska
Native women using marijuana is more than double the national
average and the average for non-Native Alaskan women; the
percentage of Alaska Native high school youth who have used
marijuana is significantly higher than among non-Native youth;"
following "average" in the same section, lines 27 through 30.
In addition, the language ", particularly among Alaska Natives" is
deleted from Sec. 2(5) page 3 line 12 following the word
"marijuana".
Senator Hoffman moved to strike the references to Alaska Natives in
the Findings. This action is based on the comments made by Mr.
Guaneli.
Senator Hoffman expressed that criminalizing marijuana is a very
controversial issue. While he desired to support this legislation,
including the references to Alaska Natives "as justification … for
criminalizing marijuana, is going down the wrong track."
11:07:51 AM
Senator Dyson stated that this amendment as well as the amendment
previously offered by Senator Stedman, cements the fact that the
Members, as well as experts, "are struggling with separating what's
correlation and what's cause and affect".
Co-Chair Green agreed that that is a hard determination.
Senator Dyson supported Senator Stedman's position that "there are
a lot of things that correlate with the abuse" of controlled
substances. He voiced his desire to separately review the
University of Alaska study referenced by Mr. Guaneli. He
characterized Anchorage as being "the largest Native village" in
the State. He was curious whether those who self-report themselves
as Natives had "a higher propensity" for marijuana abuse. If not,
then it must be assumed that there are other factors. Were the
study to not indicate an ethnic driven propensity of abuse, he
would support this kind of amendment. Additional opportunities
would be provided to address this again during the bill's
advancement process.
Mr. Guaneli identified the portions of the Findings that include
the references to Native Alaskans. The identified portions are
depicted in the amendment.
11:10:06 AM
Following a brief discussion, Senator Hoffman and Senator Olson
agreed that the reference to "Alaska Natives" in Sec. 2 page two,
line five could be retained in the bill.
11:12:23 AM
Senator Hoffman concurred with the references identified by Mr.
Guaneli.
11:12:56 AM
Co-Chair Wilken stated that he would not support the amendment. He
assumed that the references to Alaska Natives were the result of
information included in "Tab E" of a 100-page study [copy not
provided] that had been distributed to members of the Senate HES
Committee. He noted that he would be investigating whether the
population that was studied was "a broad population". He agreed
with Senator Dyson that there would be additional opportunities
through which this issue could be re-addressed.
Co-Chair Wilken commented that were the study to concentrate on
Alaska Natives then it "would not be fair to highlight them in the
bill". However, were the study to have a wide population, and
Alaska Natives found to have higher percentages than other
populations, then it would be appropriate. He reiterated that while
it would be his intent to vote no at this time, he would be open to
a follow up amendment were the study found to be narrow.
11:14:15 AM
Senator Bunde voiced that he too would desire to review the study
before supporting the amendment. He asked whether deletion of the
reference to Alaska Natives in the findings might allow for denial
of treatment programs for targeted groups of people in the future.
"If there's not a problem, we ought not to be spending money on
it."
Co-Chair Green stated that she had also intended to mention that.
11:15:09 AM
Senator Hoffman stated that rather than his remarks to deny there
being a problem, the intent was to point out "that pinpointing this
cultural group in this legislation would have no affect on the
law." While he is supportive of re-criminalizing marijuana, he
could not support including Native Alaskans in the legislation as
"justification" for approving that controversial issue. He opined
that were the references to Alaska Natives to continue in the
findings, he and other Native colleagues would not support the
bill.
Co-Chair Green noted that in her initial review of the bill, she
had not been "blinded" by the words. She opined that any references
to one-third of the being Native population meant that two-thirds
were non-Native.
11:16:29 AM
Senator Stedman spoke in support of the amendment. This is a
Statewide problem. There might be ethnic groups that have more
challenges than others with these substances. There are certain
geographic areas that have more problems. There is a problem in
Southeast Alaska. The same effect could be obtained and a "better
message" could be delivered, were the amendment adopted.
11:17:22 AM
Senator Bunde asked whether the Findings information had been
included in the original bill presented by Representative Jay
Ramras or in the Senate bills.
Co-Chair Green recalled this information being available to the
Senate HES Committee; however, she was uncertain as to whether the
Department or the sponsor had provided it.
11:18:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS stated that, being the sponsor of the
bill, he would "take responsibility for this language". From the
perspective of being "the youngest" Legislator "at this table", he
shared that he had been "introduced to marijuana in the seventh
grade by a Native kid …. The kids I smoked weed with in high school
were all non-Native. So, it's difficult for me as the bill sponsor
to support language that draws a distinction between Natives and
non-Natives because when I grew up, the problem was
indistinguishable."
Co-Chair Green and Senator Bunde thanked Representative Ramras for
his remarks.
11:19:06 AM
In response to a question from Senator Olson, Mr. Guaneli responded
that removal of this language would not affect law enforcement
efforts. The purpose of the Findings would be to allow the Court to
consider the Legislature's judgment in regards to issues such as
the use of marijuana by young people or pregnant women were a
lawsuit challenging the marijuana laws brought before the Courts.
The studies and evidence that the State has complied "would speak
for themselves"; in other words, he believed that the Courts would
take into consideration the fact that the studies would support
there being "a disproportionate impact on certain groups, whether
it be geographic related or something else." In summary, he did not
consider "this amendment as crippling our efforts in any way" and
that "the laws would be upheld".
11:20:37 AM
Mr. Guaneli acknowledged the Member's concerns about the use of
marijuana by certain groups. "That message is going to be heard
loud and clear by the Courts ultimately," regardless of whether the
amendment is adopted.
11:20:56 AM
Senator Olson asked whether the adoption of this amendment would
diminish the ability for the State to prevail were there a legal
challenge.
Mr. Guaneli responded that it would not.
11:21:13 AM
Senator Bunde recalled there having been "Court-ordered activity by
the State in other arenas". To that point, he asked whether the
removal of this language would "make it less likely that the Court
then would say we need to have targeted enforcement or targeted
remedial activities."
11:21:43 AM
Mr. Guaneli responded that rather than the challenge arising as a
result of "one area of the State" or another being targeted, the
anticipation is that the challenge would be based "on just a single
case and the ultimate question is going to be is there sufficient
justification based on what is known about marijuana and its
effects Statewide to justify the Legislature regulating this
substance". He believed that even were the amendment adopted,
"there's sufficient justification for the Courts saying that."
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Olson, Senator Hoffman, Senator Stedman, Senator
Dyson, and Co-Chair Green
OPPOSED: Senator Bunde and Co-Chair Wilken
The motion PASSED (5-2)
Amendment #4 was ADOPTED.
11:23:03 AM
Co-Chair Green noted that the bill's fiscal notes are either zero
or indeterminate.
Senator Hoffman asked Representative Ramras his opinion in regards
to combining the bills.
Representative Ramras voiced being "comfortable" with the bills
being combined because the primary activity "being addressed here
is criminal enterprise; that seems to be a common denominator
amongst the commercial sale of marijuana, distribution of steroids,
and methamphetamine."
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS CS HB 149 (FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with five new January 12, 2006 fiscal notes: a zero
fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety; a zero fiscal
note from the Department of Law; a zero fiscal note from the
Department of Health and Social Services; an indeterminate fiscal
note for the Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration;
and an indeterminate fiscal note from the Office of Public
Advocacy, Department of Administration.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Lyda Green adjourned the meeting at 11:24:58 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|