Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/09/2015 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 9, 2015
1:27 p.m.
1:27:37 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:27 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donny Olson
ALSO PRESENT
Erin Shine, Staff, Senator Anna MacKinnon; Chuck Kopp,
Staff, Senator Peter Micciche; Jordan Shilling, Staff,
Senator John Coghill; Kaci Schroeder, Special Assistant to
the Commissioner, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
SB 30 MARIJUANA REG; CONT. SUBST; CRIMES; DEFENSES
SB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 30
"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."
1:35:10 PM
Senator Bishop MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SB 30, Work Draft 29-LS0231/X (Martin,
3/9/15).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, offered a high-
level overview of CSSB 30. She stated that the CS listed
marijuana as a controlled substance and created a non-
applicability section for individuals and establishments
associated with crimes involving marijuana. She explained
that the non-applicability language made the crimes
inapplicable to a person lawfully acting within the
initiative guidelines [a 2014 voter initiative to legalize
marijuana] for personal use as well as for marijuana
establishments acting within the terms of registration. She
furthered that the misconduct involving marijuana penalties
that were in the Senate Judiciary Committee version of the
bill were adapted to crimes relating to a Schedule 6A
substance in the current statutes pertaining to misconduct
involving a controlled substance.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if non-applicability language was
used elsewhere in state statutes. Ms. Shine replied in the
affirmative, and referenced an informational memo on the
subject from Doug Gardner, Director, Division of Legal and
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (copy on
file). She noted that specifically in Title 11 of the
Alaska Statutes there were instances in which a non-
applicability section had been applied.
1:37:40 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon thanked staff for their work on the bill
over the previous weekend, and offered a recently-authored
draft sectional analysis (copy on file). She furthered that
she would be "holding the document for incorporation" until
the following day to ensure that the committee understood
the concepts being introduced as well as the approach to
implementing the voter's will.
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, presented the
draft sectional analysis and noted that there were errors
that would be corrected in the following day or two.
Section 1 - CONFORMING
Page 1
AS 11.41.110(a). Murder in the second degree.
Deletes reference to marijuana misconduct that has
been repealed and provides stylistic drafting changes.
Mr. Kopp commented that Section 1 repealed language that
referred to one or more ounces of marijuana because it was
addressed later on in the misconduct involving marijuana
sections of the bill.
Section 2 - CONFORMING
Page 2
AS 11.41.150 (a). Murder of an unborn child.
Deletes reference to marijuana misconduct that has
been repealed.
Mr. Kopp related that like Section 1, Section 2 referred to
previous Schedule 6A language pertaining to marijuana.
Section 3 - CONFORMING
Page 3
AS 11.71.030(a). Misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the third degree.
Deletes reference to Schedule VIA controlled
substances.
Section 4 - SUBSTANTIVE
Pages 3 - 6
AS 11.71.040(a). Misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the fourth degree. A person commits the
crime of MICS 4, which is a class C felony, if they:
-Possess 16 or more ounces of marijuana.
-Possess 25 or more plants.
-Furnish marijuana, twice within five years, to a
person under 21 years of age.
Mr. Kopp explained that Section 4 involved current
statutory language of misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the fourth degree. He professed that in
Section 4 the sponsors had (with the establishment of a 16
ounce possession limit) "declared a bright line of what
possession conduct of marijuana under any circumstances"
was a felony. He discussed possession quantities and noted
that under the ballot initiative, with the permitted three
mature marijuana plants it would be possible to have 12 to
14 ounces legally at home. He discussed the need to demark
a limit at which an individual in possession would be a "de
facto" distributor of marijuana. He relayed that the
sponsors had examined the quantity that could legitimately
be produced in the home under the initiative in order to
arrive at a greater amount that would indicate an intent to
distribute and thereby constitute a felony.
1:40:43 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon interjected, qualifying that the amount
of 16 ounces was a "policy consideration" for the committee
and was a number that had been chosen, yet "not necessarily
the right number."
Section 5 - NON-APPLICABILITY
Page 6
AS 11.71.040. Misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the fourth degree.
Certain provisions of MICS 4 are not applicable to a
person who is lawfully possessing marijuana in
accordance with AS 17.38.020. Similarly, a marijuana
establishment registered under AS 17.38, or its
employees, if acting in compliance with AS 17.38.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, noted that
there was an additional felony conduct provision in the
bill with the possession of 25 or more marijuana plants.
Section 6 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 6
AS 11.71.050(a). Misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the fifth degree.
A person commits the crime of MICS 5, which is a class
A misdemeanor, if they:
-Transport or deliver more than one ounce of
marijuana or more than six marijuana plants.
-Possess 3 to <16 ounces of marijuana or 12-24
plants.
-Deliver any amount of marijuana to a person
under 21 years.
-Deliver or transport an ounce or less of
marijuana or six plants or less for remuneration.
-Manufacture a marijuana concentrate using a
volatile or explosive gas.
Mr. Kopp clarified that possession of 25 or more plants was
previously considered a felony by law and would continue to
be so.
Mr. Kopp made a correction to the draft sectional analysis:
he clarified that possession of 12 to 25 plants constituted
a Class A misdemeanor. A Class C felony would involve
possession of 25 plants or more.
Section 7 - NON-APPLICABILITY
Page 7
AS 11.71.050. Misconduct involving controlled
substance in the fifth degree.
Certain provisions of MICS 5 are not applicable to a
person who is lawfully possessing, manufacturing, or
delivering marijuana in accordance with AS 17.38.020.
Similarly, a marijuana establishment registered under
AS 17.38, or its employees, if acting in compliance
with AS 17.38. An exemption is made for a person over
21 years of age delivering marijuana to the person's
child or spouse who is over 18 years of age and the
delivery occurs in the person's residence.
1:44:47 PM
Senator Dunleavy asked about the limit on plant possession
and wondered if the size of the plants had any bearing. Mr.
Kopp stated that only the number of plants was being
addressed, regardless of their size.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the recommendation for the
number of plants was based on the intent of the initiative
with regard to allowable use. Mr. Kopp stated that the
initiative allowed for possession of six plants total,
three of which could be mature flowering plants. He
expanded that the initiative had a tiered structure of
violation with regard to possession (ranging from a
violation to misdemeanors and felony); the possession
limits with usable weight of marijuana are explicated in
the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the language in the bill was
based on the conversation the Senate Finance Committee had
concerning the "disconnect" that the initiative had with
state statute regarding activities such as using a minor to
sell marijuana. She suggested that the initiative "did not
properly deter" such crimes. Mr. Kopp affirmed that the
language before the committee was indeed based on the
discussion, as well as a desire to show increased penalties
that were outside of what the initiative would provide.
Section 8 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 8
AS 11.71.060(a).
Misconduct involving a controlled substance in the
sixth degree.
A person commits the crime of MICS 6, which is a class
B misdemeanor, if they:
-Possess 2 - < 3 ounces of marijuana.
-Possess 7-11 plants.
-Possess, display, deliver, or transport more
than one ounce in a public place.
1:47:34 PM
Senator Bishop asked if Mr. Kopp would discuss the
misconduct involving a controlled substance in the sixth
degree mentioned in Section 8. Senator Bishop pointed out a
discrepancy in the language. Mr. Kopp explained that there
was an error in the sectional analysis, and that an edited
version would be forthcoming.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked that the committee destroy the
draft sectional analysis so that errors were not
disseminated to misrepresent what was being considered in
the bill. She furthered that staff had identified
inconsistencies with regard to felony and misdemeanor
charges, and although the sectional analysis contained
errors, it was the best place to start the discussion. She
stated that the committee planned to soon hold a public
hearing and therefore wanted to get the new information out
to the public as soon as possible. She related that she had
been working with Senator Lesil McGuire's office [bill co-
sponsor], in an attempt to ensure all of her concerns were
addressed.
Section 9 - NON-APPLICABILITY
Page 8
AS 11.71.060. Misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the sixth degree.
Provisions of MICS 6 are not applicable to a person
who is lawfully possessing marijuana in accordance
with AS 17.38.020. Similarly, a marijuana
establishment registered under AS 17.38, or its
employees, if acting in compliance with AS 17.38.
Section 10 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 9
AS 11.71.071. Misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the seventh degree.
A person commits the offense of MICS 7, which is a
violation, if they:
-Possess 1
- < 2 ounces of marijuana.
-Consume marijuana in a public place.
-Grow marijuana in public view or on someone
else's property without their consent.
-Use marijuana while operating a vehicle.
-As a minor, possess less than two ounces of
marijuana or consume any amount of marijuana.
-Non-applicability: Certain provisions of MICS 7
are not applicable to a person who is lawfully
possessing marijuana in accordance with AS
17.38.020. Similarly, a marijuana establishment
registered under AS 17.38, or its employees, if
acting in compliance with AS 17.38.
1:49:39 PM
Mr. Kopp presented Section 10, which was a substantive
amendment dealing with the newest and lowest class of
misconduct involving a controlled substance, misconduct in
the seventh degree.
Mr. Shilling explained that misconduct in the seventh
degree was a violation rather than a misdemeanor or felony,
and it carried an accompanied $100 or $300 fine, depending
upon the offense.
Section 11 - CONFORMING
Page 10
AS 11.71.090(a). Affirmative defense to a prosecution
under MICS 3 - MICS 7; medical use of marijuana.
Expands the affirmative defense for medical marijuana
patients to include the new degree of misconduct
involving controlled substance established in Section
10.
Section 12 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 11
AS 11.71.190(b). Schedule VIA.
Places hashish and hash oil into Schedule VIA,
alongside marijuana.
Section 13 - CONFORMING
Page 11
AS 11.71.311(a). Restriction on prosecution for
certain persons in connection with a drug overdose.
A person may not be prosecuted for certain MICS
offenses if the person seeks medical or law
enforcement assistance for another person they believe
is experiencing a drug overdose and the evidence was
obtained as a result of the person seeking assistance.
Section 14 - CONFORMING
Page 12
AS 11.71.900. Definitions.
Repeals the existing Title 11 definition of
"marijuana" as it applied to the MICS statutes and
replaces it with a definition similar to the
definition found in the initiative.
1:52:25 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that the committee would not
adopt the work draft for consideration until the following
day in order to give the public time to "weigh in," and so
that members would have a chance to look at it further. She
directed the committee's attention to page 12, line 6 of
the work draft, to the comma directly after the word "oil."
She related that the committee had a previous discussion
about the comma in the language of the initiative, and that
the same language was in the process of litigation in the
state of Colorado. She furthered that it was a policy
decision to remove the comma. She noted that in current
state statute the particular line did not have a comma in
the definition of marijuana.
Section 15 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 12
AS 11.71.900. Definitions.
Defines "remuneration" to include an exchange of
anything of value, whether by sale, barter, exchange,
or other means.
Section 16 - CONFORMING
Page 12
AS 12.45.084(a). Laboratory report of controlled
substances.
Expands the statutes this section applies to include
the new degree of misconduct involving a controlled
substance established in Section 10.
Section 17 - CONFORMING
Page 12
AS 17.30.080(b).
Unlawful administration, prescription, and
dispensation of controlled substances.
Expands the statutes this section applies to include
the new degree of misconduct involving a controlled
substance established in Section 10.
Section 18 - INITIATIVE
Page 13
AS 17.38.020. Personal use of marijuana.
Deletes [notwithstanding any other provision of law,
except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the] and
makes other stylistic changes to conform initiative
language to legislative drafting standards. This
section states that certain marijuana related
activities are legal and not a basis for seizure or
forfeiture, and prohibits use of marijuana in a public
place. Nothing in this chapter permits growing or
possessing 16 ounces or more of marijuana at any time.
Additionally provides that the definition of
"assisting" does not include growing, possessing,
processing, using, displaying, purchasing, or
transporting marijuana and marijuana plants in excess
of the amount allowed in this section.
Section 19 - INITIATIVE
Page 13
AS 17.38.070(a). Lawful operation of marijuana-related
facilities.
Deletes [notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the] and makes other stylistic changes to conform
initiative language to legislative drafting standards.
Provides that certain marijuana related acts are legal
and not a basis for seizure or forfeiture when
performed by a registered retail marijuana store, or a
person 21 years of age or older acting in the person's
capacity as an owner, employee or agent of the store.
Section 20 - INITIATIVE
Page 14
AS 17.38.070(b). Lawful operation of marijuana related
facilities.
Deletes [notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the] and makes other stylistic changes to conform
initiative language to legislative drafting standards.
Provides that certain marijuana related acts are legal
and not a basis for seizure or forfeiture when
performed by a registered marijuana cultivation
facility, or a person 21 years of age or older acting
in the person's capacity as an owner, employee or
agent of the facility.
Section 21 - INITIATIVE
Page 15
AS 17.38.070(c). Lawful operation of marijuana related
facilities.
Deletes [notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the] and makes other stylistic changes to conform
initiative language to legislative drafting standards.
Provides that certain marijuana related acts are legal
and not a basis for seizure or forfeiture when
performed by a registered marijuana product
manufacturing facility, or a person 21 years of age or
older acting in the person's capacity as an owner,
employee or agent of the facility.
Section 22 - INITIATIVE
Page 15
AS 17.38.070(d).
Lawful operation of marijuana related facilities.
Deletes [notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the] and makes other stylistic changes to conform
initiative language to legislative drafting standards.
Provides that certain marijuana related acts are legal
and not a basis for seizure or forfeiture when
performed by a registered marijuana testing facility,
or a person 21 years of age or older acting in the
person's capacity as an owner, employee or agent of
the facility.
Section 23 - INITIATIVE
Page 16
AS 17.38.070(e). Lawful operation of marijuana related
facilities.
Provides that it is lawful and not a basis for
forfeiture or seizure for a person or business to
lease or allow the use of property for marijuana
related activities.
Deletes [notwithstanding any other provision of law,
it] and makes stylistic drafting changes.
1:54:30 PM
Mr. Shilling remarked that Sections 18 through 23 were
pulled from the initiative and had some stylistic changes
to conform to bill drafting conventions.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to lines 3 through 5 in Section
18 of the work draft, and wondered if the initiative should
replace all existing state law. She stated that it was her
intention to interpret and "weave in" the intent of the
initiative into existing state statute; however, she called
into question the issue of precedence. She discussed the
"notwithstanding" language in the initiative, and restated
that the committee needed to make the language of the
initiative work with existing state law. She queried Mr.
Kopp as to whether her summation was fair. Mr. Kopp opined
that it was very fair.
Mr. Shilling pointed out lines 24 through 27 in Section 18
of the work draft, and supposed it was a deviation from how
the initiative was written; the word "assisting" was
defined as to not include growing or possessing marijuana
beyond the limits the initiative allowed for, while doing
the conduct for someone else.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for clarification as to whether
"doing the conduct for someone else" referred to gardening
or cultivating a plant or plants for another individual.
Mr. Shilling responded in the affirmative, explaining that
without the word "assisting" being defined, there was
concern that the law could be read to allow an individual
to possess more than the allowed amount of marijuana while
claiming one was "assisting" someone. Co-Chair MacKinnon
asked if a person might endeavor to grow marijuana for
others on a contractual basis, and whether the work draft
was a policy call suggesting that it was not the intent of
the people who signed the initiative. Mr. Shilling affirmed
it was so. Co-Chair MacKinnon encouraged members of the
public to speak out if they were not in agreement with the
language in the CS.
1:58:06 PM
Mr. Shilling reiterated that Sections 19 through 23 were
comprised of initiative language with stylistic changes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that the term
"notwithstanding" had been removed from various sections,
or changes were proposed for the same sections. Mr.
Shilling concurred, and furthered that every occurrence of
the clause (five occurrences) "notwithstanding any other
provision of law" had been removed.
Section 24 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 16
AS 17.38.090. Rulemaking.
Directs the marijuana control board to adopt a
regulation that will prohibit a retail marijuana store
from selling more than five grams of marijuana
concentrate per day to a customer.
Section 25 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 16
AS 17.38.110(a).
Local Control.
Allows for a local governments and established
villages to prohibit the operation of marijuana
cultivation, manufacturing, testing, or retail
facilities through the act of an ordinance.
Mr. Shilling discussed Section 25, which he characterized
as "the foundation of the local option provisions" that
were found later in the bill.
Section 26 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 16
AS 17.38.200. Unlawful activity related to persons
under 21 years of age.
A registered marijuana establishment, or an employee
thereof, may not knowingly:
-Allow a person to give marijuana to a minor
within the registered premises.
-Allow a minor to enter and remain within the
registered premises.
-Allow a minor to use marijuana within the
registered premises.
-While working on the registered premises, give
marijuana to a minor.
Violation of this section incurs a fine of at
least $250 and less than $500. This section does
not apply to a minor who is accompanied in the
marijuana establishment by a parent, guardian, or
spouse who is over 21 years of age.
AS 17.38.210. Access of persons under 21 years of age
to registered premises.
A person under 21 may not knowingly enter or remain on
a registered marijuana premises. An exception is made
for a minor on the premises at the request of a peace
officer, or a minor accompanied by a parent, guardian,
or spouse who has attained 21 years of age. Violation
of this section is a $300 fine.
AS 17.38.220. Proof of registration to be exhibited on
demand; penalty.
Requires a licensee to have a copy of their marijuana
license at all times when transporting more than one
ounce of marijuana, and shall present the license on
demand by a peace officer. Violation of this section
is a $100 fine.
AS 17.38.230.
Bail forfeiture for certain offenses.
Requires the court to make a bail schedule allowing
defendants to pay the fine for violations without a
court appearance for violations involving marijuana.
AS 17.38.240. Court records of violations by minors
confidential.
The court may not publish on a publicly available
website the court records of a minor in possession of
marijuana, a minor consuming marijuana, or a minor
accessing licensed premises, after the court
proceedings are concluded and the case is closed.
AS 17.38.250. Local option.
An established village shall prohibit the operation of
marijuana establishments if a majority of the voters
in the election approve the ban. A ballot to adopt a
local option must contain language substantially
similar to the following: "Shall (name of village)
adopt a local option to prohibit the operation of
marijuana establishments? (yes or no)."
AS 17.38.260. Removal of local option.
An established village shall remove a local option if
a majority of the voters vote to remove the option.
The option is repealed effective the first day of the
month following certification of the election results.
A ballot question to remove a local option must at
least contain language similar to the following:
"Shall (name of village) remove the local option
currently in effect, that prohibits the operation of
marijuana establishments, so that there is no longer
any local option in effect? (yes or no)." When issuing
a registration in an area that has removed a local
option, the board shall give priority to an applicant
who was formerly licensed.
AS 17.38.270. Effect of local option on registrations
of prohibition of marijuana establishments.
If a local option is in effect, the board may not
issue, renew, or transfer a registration for a
marijuana establishment located within the perimeter
of the village.
AS 17.38.280. Procedure for local option elections.
An election to adopt or remove a local option shall be
conducted as follows:
-The lieutenant governor shall place on a
separate ballot at a special election the content
from a petition that received at least 35 percent
of registered voters within the village.
-The election may not be conducted during the
first 24 months after the local option was
adopted or more than once in a 36-month period.
-Another petition may not be filed until after
the question presented in the first petition has
been voted on. Only one local option question may
be presented in an election.
AS 17.38.290. Establishment of perimeter of
established village.
For purposes of the local option law, the perimeter of
a village is a circle around the village that includes
an area within a five-mile radius of the post office
of the village, or a five-mile radius of another site
selected by the local governing body, or the board, if
the village doesn't have a local governing body. If
the perimeter overlaps with another village's
perimeter, and that other village has not adopted a
local option, then the local option does not apply in
the overlapping area.
AS 17.38.300. Notice of the results of a local option
election.
If a majority of the voters approve or remove a local
option, the lieutenant governor shall notify the board
of the results immediately following the election, and
the board shall immediately notify the Department of
Law and the Department of Public Safety.
Mr. Shilling presented Section 26, which related to
unlawful activity related to persons under 21 years of age.
2:00:09 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if there was redundancy in the
language of Section 26. Mr. Kopp referred to page 17, lines
7 through 9 of the work draft, pointing out the non-
applicability section; and stated that there was an
exception to the minimum age for entering registered
marijuana establishments. He furthered that those
considerations [allowing a minor to use or possess
marijuana on the premises] must be given to minors who were
legally on the premises through the non-applicability
language.
Mr. Kopp discussed AS 17.38.24 in Section 26, and noted
that the qualifying language stipulated that the record was
not available after the court proceeding was concluded and
the case was closed.
2:03:01 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if there was language in the bill
pertaining to the ability of a licensed proprietor to
deliver marijuana to a person off-site of the
establishment, and related that the subject had been
addressed in recent community meetings in his district. Mr.
Shilling replied that the bill did not address the
eventuality of home delivery of marijuana.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked to clarify if Vice-Chair Micciche
was asking about individuals who might phone in to a retail
establishment for a delivery service. Vice-Chair Micciche
reiterated that he had received concerns from his
constituency, and wondered if the initiative had addressed
the subject.
Mr. Kopp referred to Section 19, subsection 6 of the work
draft, concerning retail marijuana stores; and explained
that under this portion, it specifically was not a
violation for a licensed marijuana retail store who was
"delivering, distributing, or selling marijuana or
marijuana products to consumers." He suggested that the
question at hand was what "delivering" meant. He opined it
might be more properly addressed within the regulation bill
[HB 75]. He discussed the accountability that was present
when purchasing something in a retail location as compared
to a home delivery.
Co-Chair MacKinnon mused that commas and other
technicalities in the bill would be litigated at some
point, and signified the importance of the clarity of
legislative intent with regard to the term of "delivery."
Vice-Chair Micciche opined that defining "delivery" would
be a future issue of concern if not clarified in the bill.
2:06:37 PM
Mr. Shilling noted that later in the bill the term
"deliver" was defined.
Co-Chair Kelly referred to Section 17.38.240 and wondered
about inconsistency between court records for alcohol
violations and court records for marijuana violations. Mr.
Kopp noted that there was currently no provision in the
alcohol statutes pertaining to court records being treated
in a special way for individuals under the age of 21. He
furthered that it would be addressed when the regulation
bill came up. He clarified that the work draft was solely
pertaining to marijuana rather than alcohol.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Kopp if it was fair to say
that the committee was trying to implement the voter
initiative so that possession of marijuana was legal and
not on an individual's criminal record. Mr. Kopp discussed
legal records and specified that individuals under 21 faced
issues such as possession charges impacting employment
opportunities. He furthered that for individuals under 21,
under the bill such charges would not be accessible on a
publicly available website (such as Courtview). He
clarified that there would still be a hard copy of the
records, but the inaccessibility would mitigate against the
ability to be employed at a future date.
2:09:02 PM
Mr. Shilling referred to a "Local Option Memo" authored by
Senator John Coghill (copy on file) that discussed the
"interplay" between cities and organized boroughs with
regard to the local option. He attested that there was one
deviation from how local option was addressed in Title IV:
an established village in an organized borough does
not have the option to prohibit marijuana
establishments; rather, the language only applied to
established villages in the un-organized borough.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked about the last sentence of
Section 17.38.280 (d) "Only one local option question may
be presented in an election" and wondered if it needed
additional clarification. He wondered if, as written, the
language could present a loophole. Mr. Kopp explained that
Section 17.38.280 (d) referred back to 17.38.250 (Local
Option), which specifically discussed an established
village exercising their local option to prohibit the
operation of marijuana establishments. He furthered that
the reference was for clarity and the language was there
particularly to prevent "petition stacking." He directed
attention to Section 17.38.280(a), and confirmed that the
local option referred back to the established village.
Vice-Chair Micciche stated that he understood, but wondered
if the language could be abused in a way that would limit
additional local options from occurring statewide. Mr.
Shilling explained that the local option question would not
appear on a statewide ballot, but rather only in a special
election.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if it was fair to surmise that
"the village issue" was not addressed in the initiative,
and the committee was trying to insert language consistent
with the initiative to provide local communities (villages)
a means to consider the issue that might affect their
community. Mr. Shilling responded in the affirmative.
Section 27 - INITIATIVE
Page 20
AS 17.38.900(6). Definitions.
Establishes the definition for "marijuana" as defined
in the ballot initiative.
2:14:55 PM
Mr. Shilling noted that in addition to establishing the
definition of marijuana, Section 27 of the work draft had a
few differences from the initiative, including removal of
the word "salt", the removal of a comma, and a stylistic
change on line 28.
Section 28 - INITIATIVE/SUBSTANTIVE
Page 20
AS 17.38.900. Definitions.
Defines "deliver", "established village", "knowingly",
"marijuana concentrate", "public place" and
"remuneration."
Mr. Shilling addressed Section 28 of the sectional
analysis, noting that the section added some definitions
that were not contained in the initiative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that Section 28 of the bill was
where the word "deliver" was defined, and suggested that
the committee might examine the language if there was
specific intent of the legislature to hamper "pizza
delivery" of a [marijuana] product.
Mr. Kopp noted that there was one other clarification that
would be addressed in an amended version of the bill; he
explained that the definition of "manufacture" had been
inadvertently removed from the CS and would be added back
in.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the committee would be
looking for a definition of "manufacturing" that would
discriminate between lawful personal use and commercial
use.
Section 29 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 21
AS 28.35.029(a). Open container.
Provides that a person may not drive a motor vehicle
when there is an open marijuana container in the
passenger compartment with the exceptions provided
below (b.)
Mr. Kopp discussed Section 29, which provided for open
container violations involving marijuana. He addressed the
question of whether the term "motor driven cycle"
encompassed all terrain cycles/vehicles (ATV), and related
that the Department of Law would be contacting the
committee with information.
2:17:48 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon harkened back to a prior conversation
regarding ATVs and motorcycles, and wondered if there were
other types of transportation to take in to account. She
remembered that Senator Olson had raised the issue
previously. Mr. Kopp stated that Senator Olson had
mentioned snow machines, and anything that was motor
driven.
Vice-Chair Micciche stated he would work on the language to
ensure that it was adequate.
Section 30 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 21
AS 28.35.029(b). Open container.
Creates exceptions to an open marijuana container
being in the vehicle: the container is in the trunk of
the vehicle; behind the last upright seat in certain
vehicles; behind a solid partition that separates the
driver from the passengers, or certain types of
passenger vehicles.
Section 31 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 22
AS 28.35.029(c). Open container.
Defines "open marijuana container" as a receptacle
that contains marijuana, is open or has a broken seal,
and any amount of marijuana is removed.
Sections 32-33 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 22
AS 29.10.200; AS 29.35. Limitation of home rule
powers. Municipal powers and duties.
Provides the right to limit marijuana to the state and
municipalities cannot enact or enforce an ordinance
inconsistent with 17.38, except as specifically
provided by state statute. The section applies to home
rule and general law municipalities.
Section 34 - CONFORMING
Page 22
AS 34.03.360(7). Definitions.
Defines "illegal activity involving a controlled
substance" to include MICS crimes relating to
marijuana.
Section 35 - CONFORMING
Page 22
AS 47.12.030(b). Provisions inapplicable.
When a minor is accused of a violating a statute
relating to marijuana, other than a felony, the Alaska
Delinquency Rules do not apply and the minor accused
of the offense shall be charged, prosecuted, and
sentenced in the same manner as an adult. The minor's
parent or guardian shall be present at all
proceedings.
Mr. Kopp clarified that under Section 35, just as a minor
was not arraigned in juvenile court for a speeding ticket
or fishing violation, similarly if they had a marijuana
violation, they would be arraigned in District Court just
like an adult.
Section 36 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 23
Repeals the enumerated statutes.
Section 37 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 23
Applicability provisions.
Section 38 - SUBSTANTIVE
Page 24
Establishes an immediate effective date.
2:20:51 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon, with the support of the committee, set
the bill aside and wondered if the members had questions
for the manager of the bill. She related that the committee
would be bringing back the Alaska State Troopers and other
previous testifiers including the Department of Law, the
Public Defender's Office, and Legislative Legal Services.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the committee could work with a
recruiter from the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. He
cited Section 17.38.240 of the work draft, which discussed
public access to court records, and detailed the
consequences for a user of marijuana who joins the military
after not disclosing prior use. He furthered that a
background check would reveal the court records, resulting
in the discharge from the branch of service.
2:22:23 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed laboratories, scientific
descriptions and testing; and suggested that when the
committee further discussed testing while considering the
regulatory bill, they would be calling in someone from the
State of Washington to provide greater insight. She relayed
that the committee would be bringing up the bill the
following day, and if it was the will of the committee she
would then remove her objection. She discussed the schedule
and upcoming public testimony.
Senator Hoffman related that many of the villages he
represented had opted out of the sale of alcohol, and
wondered if the legislature (acting as the assembly for the
unorganized borough) could opt such villages/communities
out of the local option, and allow the villages to opt back
in if they so desired. He suggested that it would save time
to do so, and such an action would likely reflect the will
of the community.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Ms. Kaci Schroeder (in the
gallery) to offer a written response to the question of
whether the legislature could (while acting as the seated
city council for unorganized areas) opt them out. She noted
that the action was not in agreeance with the initiative,
which stated that individual and local communities needed
to opt out.
KACI SCHROEDER, SPECIAL ASSITANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, agreed to provide the committee with a
written response by Thursday of the same week.
2:25:26 PM
Mr. Kopp, in response to Co-Chair Kelly's earlier comments
regarding minor court records, commented that the bill
would not affect any records at the courthouse, therefore
any violations would be available for a recruiter to see
via a method other than a public website.
Co-Chair Kelly referred to Foreign Service contractors on
military bases, and wondered if violations of federal law
regarding marijuana would preclude employment. Co-Chair
MacKinnon commented that her staff would follow up on the
subject.
Senator Dunleavy asked if there was any language in the
bill that pertained to operating "dangerous" machinery such
as chainsaws or lawn mowers. Mr. Kopp noted that existing
law addressed dangerous behavior that recklessly put any
other individuals at risk, and it was quantified by the
charge of reckless endangerment.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if the riding lawn mower fell
under the designation of motor vehicle. He wondered if it
fell under the auspices of a driving while under the
influence (DUI). Mr. Kopp explained that on one's own
property, DUI did not apply. He clarified that it did apply
in one's driveway and into the garage. He added that
reckless endangerment would be more applicable in the case
of a riding lawn mower.
2:28:10 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon thanked Mr. Shilling and Mr. Kopp and
asked if the committee could anticipate a corrected
sectional analysis by the following day. Mr. Shilling
responded in the affirmative. She noted that a public
hearing would be held as previously announced, and
amendments would be due during the current week.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reiterated that the work draft was an
effort to conform the initiative language in with Alaska
State Statutes, and welcomed public comment. She asked for
individuals to address a specific page or section number
when testifying.
[The Work Draft 29-LS0231/X was adopted the following day.]
SB 30 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
2:30:49 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 30 - Local Option Memo.pdf |
SFIN 3/9/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 work order version X.pdf |
SFIN 3/9/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |